)

AG.ARD
A,D-A247 719 AGAR.-783

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

7 RUE ANCELLE 92200 NEUILLY SUR SEINE FRANCE

AGARD REPORT 783

Special Course on
Engineering Methods in
Aerodynamic Analysis
and Design of Aircraft
(Les Methodes d'Ingenierie Employee lors de
lAnalyse et de la Conception des Aronefs)

kw rnaterial assembledin thiv book was preparedunder the combined sponorshipof

the,FluidDynamics Panel,the Consulwa andExchange PrormmeofAGARD. and
reLIvote Kdrmn Institute, and w, preswntedas an AGARD Speci Courseat the
Middle East Technical Unirveriy, Ankara, Turke', 6th-Orh Ma 1991, at the
." Kdrndn Institutefor Fluid Dynamis, Rhode-St-Gense, Belgium 13th--17th May
1;j])and at the UniversitadPolitecnicade Madrid.Spain 20h-24th May 1991.

-~NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

92-06961

\ L3fttwi;
FPubismhed January 1t90
n ar d Ava labdit, nLAck
 Best
Available
Copy
 AGARD-R-783

ADVISORY GROUP FOR AEROSPACE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

7 RUE ANCELLE vi2200 NEUILLY SUR SEINE FRANCE

AGARD REPORT 783

Special Course on
Engineering Methods in
Aerodynamic Analysis
and Design of Aircraft
(Les Mtthodes dlng~nidrie Employde lors dIe
l'Analysc ot do la Conception des A~ronefs)-

The material assembled in this book was prepared under the comrbined sponsorship of
the F'luid Dynamics Panel, the Consultant and Exchange programme o)fAGARI), and
the von Kiinnin Institute, and was presented as an AGARI) Special Course at the
Middle East Technical University, Ankara,'llirkcy,6th-l10th May 199 1, at the
von Kirmnin Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-St-Gen~se, Belgium 13th-l17th May
1991 and at the Univesitad Politcoica de Madrid, Spaiin 2th-24th May 1991.

\ North Treaty Organization

Atlantic du
+ Organisation TraI16 de lAtlantique Nord
 !- i
The Mission of AGARD

According to is Charter, the mission of AGARD is to bnng together the ladmg personaltes of iheNATO nations i the fields
of science and technology relating to aerospace for the following purposes.

- Recommending effective ways for the member nations to use their research and development capabilities for the
conmon benefit of the NATO community,
- Providing scientific and techmcal advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospace research and
development (with particular regard to its military application),

- Continuously stimulating advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to strengthening the common defence posture,

- Improving the co-operation among member nations in aerospace research and development:

- Exchange of scientific and technical information,

- Providing assistance to member nations for the ptrpose of increasing their scientific and technical potential,

Rendering scientifiL and technical assistance, as requested. to other NATO bodies and to member nations in .onne.tnon
with research and dcelopment problems in the aerospace field

Tht highest authrity ssithin AGARI) is the National Delegates Board .onsisting of officially appointed senior representatioes
from cavh member nation The mission of AGARD is earned out through the Panels which are composed of experts appointe
by the National Delegates, the Consultant and Lxt hange Programme and the Aeroslace Apphations Studies Programme The
results oa AGARD work are reported it) the member rations and the NATO Authorities through the AGARD series of
Pblications of hich this is one

Partilipation in AGARD artisiies is b) invitation only and is normally limited to citizens of the NAIO nations

The content of this publication has been reproduced

directly from material supplied by AGARD or the authors

Published January 1992

Copright O AGARD 1992

All Rights Reserved

ISBN 92-835-0652-9

PriniedIn silzstd I'nnnng Sre(es Limited

4) ( higull Lane Loughton, t s.et OUs)IZ
 Recent Publications of
the Fluid Dynamics Panel
AGARDOGRAPHS (AG)
Design andTesting of High-Performance Parachutes
AGARD AG-319, November 1991
Experimental Techniques Inthe Field of Low Density Aerodynamics
AGARD AG-3 18(E), April 1991
Techniques Expitrimentales Likes i l'Arodynamique i BasseDensilt
AGARD AG-318 (FR). April 1990
cy of Measurements andMeasuring Techniques in Rapidly Distorted Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers
ASuns
AGARD AG-3i5, May 1989
NumberEffects In Transonic Flows
Re)ynolds
AGARD AG-303, December 1988

REPORTS (R)
Alr.raft D)namics aitHigh Angles of Attack: Experiments and Modelling
AGARD R-776, Special Course Notes, March 1991
Inverse Methods InAirfoil Design for Aeronautical andTurbomachinery Applications
AGARD R-780. Special Course Notes. November 1990
Aerody namics of Rotorcraft
AGARD R-78 1,Special Course Notes, Nosembr 1990
Three-Dimensonal Supt rionie/1l)personic Flows Including Separation
AGARD R-764, Special (rturse Notes, January 1990
Advattces InCryogenic Wind Tunnel Technology
AGARD R-774. Speciat Course Notes, November 1989

ADVISORY REPORTS (AR)

Air Intakes for High Speed
Vehicles
AGARD AR-270, September 1991
Appraisal of the Suitability of Turbulence Mfodels In Flow Calcutatlous
AGARI) AR-291 . Technical Status Restew. July 1991
Rotary *ltatnce Testing for Aircraft Dynamics
AGARD AR-265, Report of WG 11, Dcember 1990
Calculation of 3D.Separhted Turbulent Flow4 InBoundary Lay er Limtit
AGAiU) AR-25S. Report ofiWO 10,May 1990
Adaptive Wind Tunnel Waits: Technology andApplications
AGARD AR-269, Report of WGI 2,April 1990

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS (CP)

Effects of Adverse Weather onAerodynamics
AGARD CP-496. Decmber 1991
Nlanocuiring Aerodynamics
AGARD CP-497, November 1991
Vortex Flow Atrod nzamic
3
AGARD CP-494. July 1991
Missile Aerodynamics
A(,ARD CP-493 October 1990
Aerodynamics ofCombat Aircraft Controlsan frudEXet
AGARD CP-465, April 1990 adofGud

Computational Methods for Aerodynamic Design (Inverse) and Optimization

AGARD-CP-463, March 1990
Applications of Mesh Generation to Complex 3-D)Configurations
AGARD CP.464, March 1990
Fluid Dynamics of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Shear Flows and Transition
AGARD CP-438, April 1989
Validation of Computational FLA Dynamics
AGARD CP-437, December 1988
Aerodynamic Data Accuracy and Qualitr.Reqtuirements andCapsebllities in Wind Tunnel Testing
AGARD CP.429, July 1988
Aerodynamics of Hypersonic, Lifting Vehicles
AGARD CP-428, Novemnber 1987
Aerodynamic and Related Hydr dynamic Studies Using Water Facilities
AGARD, CP.4 13, June 1987
Applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics in Aeronautics
AGARD CP.4 12, November 1986
Store Airframe Aerodynamics
AGARD CP-389, August 1986
Unsteady Aerodynamics - Fundamentals andApplications to Aircraft Dynamics
AGARD CP-386. Novemiser I 85
Acrod;Tuamlcs and Acoustics of propellers
AGARD CP-366. February 1985
Improvement of Aerodynamic performance through Boundary La~cr Control sod High Lift Systems
AGARD CP-365, August 1984
Wind Tunnels and Testing Techniques
AGARD CP-348, February 1984
Aerodynamics of Vorsical Type FlowisInThree Dimensions
AGARD CP-342.lJuly 1983
Misesile Aeeod~namlcs
AGARD CP-336, February 1983
Prediction of Aerodynamic Loads on Rotoreraft
AGARD CP-334, Scptcmbe; 1982
Wall Interference InWind Tunnels
AGARI) CP-335. September 1982
Fluid Dynamica of Jets swithApplications to V/STOL.
AGARD CP-308, January 1982
Aerodynamics of Power Plat Installation
AGARD CP-30 1,September 1981
Computation of Viscous*Inslscld Interactions
AGARD CP-29 1,February 1981
Eubsonlcfrrasonic Configuration Aerodynamics
AGAPJ) CP-285, September I198,1)
Turbiulent Boundary La)tra Eaperimens, Theory andNIodelling
AGARD CP-27 1,January 1980
Aerodynamic Chsaracteristics of Controls
AGARD CP-262. Spmber 1979
Hi1gh
Angle of Attarl, Aerod~nanslcs
AGARI) CP-247, Janu'y ! 979
 Foreword

Enigineertng Asork in preliminary designof new projects is basedi, to alarge degree. on basic fundamental
experimental tests, empirical procedures, and low level (fast, inexpensive, and easy-to-handle) computer
codes restricted to potential flow with simple correction terms for viscous effects. There isa need for
training young engineers joining industry to weorkwith thesesimple engineering tools Without skillful
use of thesetools. the art .t cost-effective preliminary design of new aircraft will be jeopardized

71ceobjective ofthusspecial course istopresent proven enigseening methods used duringconsceptial and
prelimnary design and development of new aircraft concepts 'Ile course ,III focus oii simple
computational procedures for conceptual and preliminary design, low-level anatysi, compaier codes.
and experimental techniques for aircraft perfoitnance predictions.

PWSacher
Special Couric Dircc,or

Avant-Propos

I s Ira%cuxd'iugnrc entrepris aunivrau desetudesprimnaiies d'un usiuvean pro~et

soul bd~,en~i
grande paie. surdesessais esperimentaus foudjinentasis. de% procedures empiruques. et dc-, cules
machine du preieir cheilon fiipidne. peu co~itcux ci euinsislaus) imite a-is tcoclcmcnts poieuiiels
asecdessimpilesfactcurs decorrection pour leseffets visquetis.

Usajeunes ingemesirs qui debuient dlans lindustre doniveutreformes 4niplot decea5

outils siesples
d'aide ala conception. Sinon. letude preliminaire des nouveaasavionsuian desouions derentzdilite
accepiables sera forteinent compromise.

Lobjet de eecours special estdepresenter de:smihodes d'ingntine quiout fsu lcntm prcuvss lot,
d'etudes lireliminaires ci conceptuelles cntrepnises en sueAk ddseloppe des nouveaux concept,
d'aetonefs, Lc cours incurs 1*4ccentiur desprocedures de ealcul simples [xwur l'etude preliminaist ei
conccpinelle. descodes machine d'analyse iniale et dostechniques eaperimentales pxsui:aprevision dus
performances8 desaironefs

PW Sacher
L Special Course Staff

Special Course Director~Dipl. Ing. P.WSacher

Deutsche Aerospace
Meserschmitt-lkow.Htohm GmbH
Military Aircraft Division
Advanced Design Dept,
PO. Box 80 1160
D-8000 Munich 80
Germany

LECTURERS
M."P.Perrier Mr CW.Boppe
Aviation Marcel Dassault Manager - Technology Development
llreguer Aviation B/35/35
78 Quai Carnot Grumman Corporaion
92214 St.Cloud Becthpage, NY 11787
France United Satcs
Mr ILWN Iloeijmakers
National Aerosace, Laboratory NLR Dr I E Lamar
Anthoi-y Fokkcr%%seg
2 Mlail Stop 361
P0 Box90502NASA I-anglcy Research Center
10liB'-X'nsterdam
t flamswon, VA 23ri65
The Neihcrl~inds United States
M r 11 amnes Mr DP Raymer
3 liromhan Road President. Conceptual Recsearr'.
Ilidcilnhr, P0 Box 923156
IBedfo~d NIK40 4AF Sylmair,CA 91342-31%
United Kingdom United States

LOCAL COORD3NA1ORS
ProfessorMN Caiboiialo Professor R.Maitincz-Val
YonKarinan Institute lirofessor C.Ciray
Uiiisridad lioliteesim de Madrid Aeronautical Eng Dept
for fluid Dynamics r TS I Arronautico
(hauw.s/e deWateilso, 72 Middle Exit Technical Unisecsity
lilaza Cardenal Cisneros 3 Inoira Ilus ar Pk.06531
!640 Risode-Si-Gecs 28040 MIadrid
PCuin Ankara
Spain Turkey

PANEL EXECUTIVE
lDrW Goodrich
Mall fromEurope. Mall from US and Cansda:

A*.-ARD)-0TAN AGARD-NATO
Attn FDP Fxctv Attn F'DI'ixecunve
 Contents

Page

Recent Publications of the Fluid D)namics Panel iii

Foreword/Avant-Propos v

Special Course Staff vi

Reference
Introduction I
by P.W Sacher

Computational Procedures for Preliminary Design 2

by P.,Pcrner

Configuration Dcvelopment 3
by DP Raymer

Suney of Experimental Techniques for Performance Prcdit~on 4

byU. M~ines

Panel Methods for Acrod) namic Anal~sis and Design 5

byIt WN1Illjmakcrs

I ligh Angle of Atlack - Acrods nainics 6

byi r lamar

Aircraft Drag Anal~sis Methods 7

byC WV ttppe
[7
INTRODUCTION

by
P.W.Sacher
Deutsche Aerospace
Meserschmo tt-Bblkow-Bloh-GhibH
Military Aircraft Division
Advanced Design Dept.
P.O.Box 801160
D-L300 Munich 80
Germany

1. Rationale for the special course

In 1986 the AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel organized a special course on the subject of
"Fundamentals of Fighter Aircraft Design" at the V.K.I. Brussels, the AF Academy
Athens and at the METUAnkara. More than 200 young engineers attended this course. It
seems to be timely to rcpeat a similar approach within the AGARD technical prograrvne
and with respect to the scope of the previous course three major modifications were
approved :

(a) Aerodynamic analysis tools used in conceptual and preliminary aircraft design
should be included
(b) Extension to civil aircraft should be allowed and
%c) Addressing mostly conceptual and preliminary design, the scope of the oJrae
should be restricted to fast, inexpensive and easy-to-handle design and analysis
tools.

First the terminus "Engineering Methods" should be defined more in detail. It is un-
derstood that this methods shall represent proven engineering procedures most com-
monly used in industry during the conceptuai and preliminary design nd development
of any new aircraft concept.

PH.,ASE I P14ASE rl N|iASE M]

DESIGN
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DETAILDESIGN

-BASIC MISSIONREOMTS * AEROELASTICREOMTS . LOCALSTRENGTH

.SPTEO -FATIGUEREQUIREMENTS
. RANGEALfII~UOC REQUIREMENTS
2 BASCMATERIALPIRj(TI -FLUTTER REQUIREMENTS * PRODUCIBILITY
a/p EIp S/La REOMTS
-OVERALLSTRENGThREQMISI FUNCTIONAL

BASICINTERNAL ARROMT DETAILDESIGN

GEOMETRY DESIGN •MECHANISMS
In AIRFOILTSIE OBJECTIVES'*COMI1NSTEEXTII',L COFIG C N,&
1.44 ,I/C -DRAG LEVEL
OALI *CAM
* *ltIG.IT ER.T.ST
'LOCAL CSTTR'UTIONS
S Ot
'e~PrIORLII * JOINTS.FITTIh'..
AOAHUNO N

.X MAJORLOADS,
*COSTGOAL$ AS
REFINEMENTS
STRESSES. * DESIGN
A DEFLECTIONS RESULTSOF
TESTB OPER

Ref.,Fundaeiental Design(L.H.NicoIal)
of Aircraft

Fig 1 Major design phases in aircraft development

1-2

In this sense engineering methods are characterized by

o basically fundamental orientation

* they have to be fat, inexpensive, easy to operate, flexible and validated in the
limits of its applicability and mostly for the last rason
* their efficiency is strongly dependent on skill and experience of trained person-
nel.

Ic consequen, young engineers, starting their professional carreer in industry have

to get acquainted to work with this "Workhorses" of the aircraft design business.
This course shall contribute to this "Training Process".

It is left to describe the state of "Conceptual Design" and "Preliminary Design" of a

new aircraft project. As Fig. I outlines schematically, conceptual design is phase I
in the overall des~gn process. Based on desired mission requirements, the first im-
pression of the new vehicle is achieved by using iterative design-sizing programmes
starting from sxls'i g similar "Baseline" designs with known performance. In the fol-
lowing phase II, an optimization process follows resulting in the complete definition
of the external configuration and the database for geometry, major laods, stresses
and performance. This geometric shape will be "frozen" for the detailed design (phase
III) and more sophisicated design tools, e.g. complex viscous CFD, will be applied.

According to the restriction to conceptual and preliminary design, contributions to

the special course have been selected. In addition to preliminary design (Chap. 2)
and configuration finding (Chap. 3), surveys on basic potential flow codes and
experimental verification techniques follow in Chap. 4 and 5. Due to progress in
using more and more the extended nonlinear range of angle of attack, Chap. 6 was
included, taking also account for high speed aircraft designs, having large leading
edge sweep and vortlzal type leading edge flow separation. The aircraft drag analysis
methods conclude this selection of fundamental surveys on engineering methods for the
daily work of the aeronautlcal engineer during conceptual and preliminary design Ir
Chap.7

2 Levels of aerodynamic flow simulation

The 'lasical way t, get conflden, on a new a icraft design is the experiment using
windtunnels. This neyperimental flow sinulatlon" has led to the aeelopment of the
airrtaft of today. Bit in recent years the extension )f the flight e'ivelope of new
projects has reached flow regimes whert the flow stoulatlon in ground test facilities
has become questionable. Toe small Reyncldsnurlbers, achieved in wlndtunnels have al-
ways been a problem, but now, In addition, the flow simulation for .gh speed concer-
ning temperature, "real-gas" chomistty and hot nodel test techniques play an impor-
tant role. So more and t.ore numerical flow simulation contributes to the ex-
trapolation from windtunnel to real flight data

It has to be inderstood clearly, that CFD will never replace windtunnel experimental
work, but CFD will give a strong support to analyze windtunnel data in a complemen-
tary way. The result is more confidence in a new design before first flight. There is
a long list of attractie features provided by CFD when applied parallel to experi-
mental work .

(G) Increase of design broadness. An increased number of configurations will be

investigated by using CFD in addition to baseline experiments.
(2) The guarantee of Compatibi~ity of derived similar vehicles.
(3) Quality assurance of data obtained will be independent of personal skiil.
(4) Reproducability, transparency and standardization of the overall design process
will be achieved.
(5) Last not leas the complementary us. f CFD will result in a considerable r~duc-
tl-i - tie design risk
 1-3

Fig. 2 shows some major characteristics of experimental and numerical flow simula-
tion.

Computational flow simulation Experimental flow simulation

+ realgeometry - scaled geometry
+ no limits for variation of parameters - model flexibility limited
+ known boundary conditions - not always defined
+ realRe-number - Re-number too low
+ short response - long term (time consuming)
+ cost decreasing with time - cost increasing
- errors not known + accuracy of measuring technique known
systematical errors (equation' ? sometires hidden
- good reoroducablilty /objectivity ? questionable (experimental "skill")
- flow representation by model approximation + realflow (flow quality?)
- computer speed and memory limited

rig. 2 Compilation of major characteristic fo&Lures in computational (CrD) and expe-

rimental (W7D) flow simulation

Expetimental investigations during an early design phare require modular models with
a high degree of flexibility to get all effects of major geometric parametera. As
Fig. 3 demonstrates, such a modular model requires an extensive test campaign

MODULAR MODEL

Fig 3 Complexity of modular models during experimental configuration opt Lization

Therefor d nurber of good argumerits speak for the increasing importance vf computa-
tional flow simuiaton but the big "unknown* today is the demand for "code-valida-
r.on" or the question of confidence in predicted data.

Aer~dr,%nic computational ccaes used it aircraft industry for ana)ys!s and design can
vP groured into three major categories Fig 4 shows a somewhat arbitrary, but ne-
vert'eles representatlve collection of cudes used in the .MBB advanced design depart-
rent
1-4 I
Sim'
OATCO HYPSEUPLEX
-hanbook method,, modifiednewtonian
theory numertica
l Siimuattin,
SCHEMENSKY iSES-
mas I
*handbook
method
for - htgherordxrsub-snd_ -~ tpeIa
P5105 HtOFS tIut.EX
to'
sueb-,svpor-.hyierao destign
otion of HtSSS unotsody iflo
panlt method flowtheory
potential -EULEReqoationa
derivattves andloade IVtOC frE
LAMAR ' eotenston
to boundarylayer NAVIER.STOt'>S
vortexlattce method viotus WAINtee typeflew
tod.drigmtntmtzaton laminsr,tu,:OW
botlt
vortexlift Searated
HARRIS .viaetd/tnvrld totereettona
-Wove draganalysis -shock.tscous Interactions
ofi tion zionalversion
rig. 4 Aerodynamic computational tools for analysis aind design

Some getneral comments on Fig. 4: i

(1'Empirical methods have to be Simple, cheap, fast and easy-to-handle. These are
handbook methods but also simple linear 1. order singrularity Methods like linear
1. order panel and vortex lattice methods. In many cases this simple codes are
based on engineering experience and "rules", (e.g. "area rule", "leading edge-
suction analogy"). Viscous flow corrections, slender body approximations and pro-
pulsion system induced effects may often be pre-estimated within this catcgr-y.
(2) "Advanced' higher order (still linearized) potential flow codes take account for
vortical separated flow, nonlinear wake Interactionsa and corrections for boundary
layer dovelopoc it.
(3)On the "Highest level", full potential flow codes, Euler solvers annlIavier Sto-
kes codes belong to the third category, often understood as the real domain Of
CFD. This last Category of codes nay not oe used during conceptual and prelimi-
nar-ydesign because Of the need of timeconsuming input requirements and comput
a-
tional cost. Sopercritical wing design, high angle of attack aerodynamics and
flows with strrrmq viscous/invisoid lr.teractions can only be simulated using Such i
Following the terms of reference of this special course the content will be restric-
ted to procedures of the first group, the simple, cheap and fast Methods (1).-

3. Level of confidence in &MD and CID

ttsirg computer codes a general remark has to made on the status 'if computational
tools. We distinguish

esearch codes
R.
They produce teat results which have to be validated by teat or flight data. In
garterel this codes could be used only by the originators.

(2) 1-ilotcodes
Are ready for in-house applications by several engineers having the possibility
to discuss questionable results with the originator of the code.

(3) Production codes

Ready for transfer to other places. They have already been validated and detailed
documentation is available for external applications.

Our empirical methods In most cases belong to the third category. But the validation
of the codes has been often replaced by "calibration'. Sofar some remarks on the pro-
blem of code "Validation, have to be made. It is understood that code validation is
to insure that the mathematical and numerical schemes employed in the code
accurately model the critical physics of the flow field. This may not be necessarily
the case for empirical methods where the mathematical model representing the flow
physics is poor. Effects of mesh resolutions mathematical algorithms turbulene models
and gas models are ofren negligible. rig. 5 identifies some of-the major sources of
errors in computational procedures.

ltSCRIpOIC(
of Flow - Error susto 'Simulation
ofFlo-'
by Ewa~t
IonsJ

-NS
- Eue
FPE Nurerical Alioritrnt-4 Error ofDisretization - Derivates
TSP-Meh Grl
-Control Point
-A D0I. - Reores, tatIonof
FbvlaElemrets Unmetry
.', veVokS eratboc) Solution
of
e.tste of ,ibsear) - Ofs"baI.Enr~r
- StiOnSystems
SLOR
ADI
- -WAY~hd IReore$entatton of Data J off error
-e.t.¢. inCoomftrrsr

rig. s Sources of errors in computetional flow simulation codes

In consequence many attempts have been undertaken to validate computer codes using
carefully selected "test-cases'. The prediction of drag has been proven to be still
the most critical problem. rig. 6 shows a compilation of data obtained in an early
attempt (GAY241981) to validate computer codes for a simple NACA 0012 airfoil at
transonic speed. Eveit for the prediction of pressure-drag results obtained from va-
rious classes of solutions (non-conservative, full conservative full potential flow
and Euler equation so.vers) differ significantly, but even in t.l,e
same category solu-
tions
CO
of different codes predict values for drag within l00t deviation.

,I
600 _ _ _ __0.

oI5.. C o 1.01 5

od .I, - ,."ta, .. et 50 59'

rig. 6 Test-cases for code validation (NAMA 0012)

Prediction of drag using CrD codes

Since that time the situation has improved but even using Navier-Stokes flow solvers,
the prdiction of drag remans the toughest challenge for CFO.

On the other hand experimental work has also been done to =validate" experimental
data obtained in diffgrant windtunnels. The situation is not so different from theo-
retical work. As Frig. 7 shows, pressures and coefficients differ significantly for
the same simple 2-D profile secticn.
 1-6 I
xO.76,.¢z, * 0.51. COO?
7 110011.SctIofo

voo : I.0...,'

7R.0

' ~ ~ ~ H Mimi, I l

rig. 7 Experimental approach - uncertainty and sensitivity for identical models in

different windtunnels (CGARTEUR
AG02)

The list of activities concerning code validation during the past ten years is very
impressive and AGARD h4s played an active role

9 1979 AGARD AR-138/FDP WG04

Experimental data base for computer program %ssessment
* 1981 GAHM workshop on 2D test-cases
Full potential and Euler flow codes
a 1982 AGARD AR-702(1984 addendum No. 1)
Compendium of unsteady aerodynamic measurements
a 1984 NASA NTF delta wing model
Database for computer code development
(AIPA 84-2150)
9 1985 AGARD AR-211/FDP WG0
Testcases for inviscid flow field methods
e 1986 ACARD AR-226/FDP WG 08
Aerodynamics of aircraft afterbody
a 1986 International vortex flow experiment on Euler code validation
FFA Stockholm
a 1988 AGARD CP-437
CFD validation
a 1991 AGARD AR-2?0/FDP WG 13
Air intakes for high speed vehicles

In this "environment" cf CrD and experiment the engineering methods during conceptual
and preliminary project work will be outlined in the following chapters. Major empha-
sis will concentrate on the applications. Regarding detailed theoretical basic
asaumptions underlying engineering methods, the references will be given. It is the
intention of this special coure to initiate interest in the overall design procedure
of a new aircraft and to give young engineers and students the opportunity to get ac-
queinted with the "workhorses" of daily routine in aeronautical engineering.
 1-7

a. Conclusion

This Special Course on "Engineering methods in aerodynamic analysis and design of

aircraft has been orgonized at
- The Middle East Technical University-(METU) of Ankara from,6.-l0 May,1991
(36 Attendants)
- The Von Karman Institute (VKI) in Brussels from 13.-17.May 1991 (38 Attendants)
- Politechnical University of Madrid from 20.-24.May 1991 (60 Attendants).

In addition to the technical presentations a Round Table Discussion with the lec-
turers was scheduled at the end of the course. Some preliminary technical evaluation
of the course Yasgiven by the course director as follows.

Six major presentation have been given during the Special Course

- Preliminary design
- Configuration development
- Experimental techniques
- Potential flow codes
- High anglo of attack aerodynamics
- Drag analysis methods

The first question at the end of the course is concerning the completeness of the
content. Accord.ng to the comments from the audience during the final discussions no
recommendations for additional topics came up. The second question addresses the aim
of the course. Did we attract a sufficient number of attendees and did we reach the
"young engineer" who is about to start his profenslonal carreer in aeronautical engi-
neering? Due to the number of attendees and the contributions to the Round Table
Discussion also the second question may be answered in a positive sense for all three
places. The recommendation case from the floor that a similar course should be repea-
ted each second or third year.

rome major findings from the presentations may be highlighted for better recolloc-
io,.

Computational procedures for preliminary design

Pierre Perrier introduced the audience to the different definitions of design levels
in the environment of the "magic triangle" of Real Flight - Experiment - and CFD. In
this sense EFD stands for the simulation of the -Real World" in contrary to CFD simu-
lation of the "Soft World'. He described the 'Rendez-Vous' procedure in terme of le-
vels of quality versus time for development. According to this phi losophy the state
of conceptual de3ign using simplified engineering empirical tools develops to the
stage of feasibility using much more sophisticated experimental and computational
tools before approaching the state of manufacturing the .aw aircraft.

Configuration development

Daniel Rayer stressed first of all the necessity of design trades. Basic design
trades e.g. canard- versus aft-teil configuration or wing planform trades have to be
repeated for any new project design. A second group of basic trades deals with
"Requirement" trade-offs, e.g. max. speed versus maneuverability or maneuverability
versus detectability. It is obvious that these timeconsuming trades could only be
performed using automated design programmes. A major role dLring the application of
design programmes is the definition of a socalled "Baseline-Design" configuration
with known performance. To save computing time these "aircraft sizing" programmes
rely to a large degree on simple empirical engineering procedures. Reference to these
methods applied in design programmes have been given in detail. The result of the ap
plication of this design programmes will be the evaluation and transparency of

"design-sensibilities" depending on systematic parameter variation concerning Gross-

Take-Off-Weight (GTOW),.

Experimental,techniques for performance prediction

Barry Raines-reviewed the present state-of-the-art In experimental testing as a means

of prediction of aircraft performance. Standards of accuracy arf defined. The first
part of the presentation deals with all aspects of data acquisition systems and
discusses all effects contributing to uncertainty of measured data, (flow quality in
windtunnels, windtunnel-wall interference, modelsupport interference and scale ef-
fects). In his second part the lecture discusses the types of models and test rigs
used in determining the propulsion interference effects on both transport (turbofan
and turboprop) and combat aircraft. Especially for recent designs the engineering
problem of optimum engine- airframe-integration plays a dominant role both for civil
(due to econonic reasons) and for military (due to drag-performance) projects. Even
arbreathing space transportation systems emerging in the near future rely to a large
degree on the interdisciplinary "integrated design" or the engine components like in-
take and afterbody-nozzle.

Panel methods for aerodynamic analysis and design

Harry Hoeijuakera presented an extensive and complete overview on aspects of panel

methods used in aerodynamic analysis and design of aircraft. This solutions of the
linearized potential flow equations are today the most important "Workhorses" in the
"Tool-Box" of an aeronautical engineer. They ha':; now reached the level of personal
computers for practical application. Being more complex as the methods generally
understood as "4empirical", the use of panel methods requires a great deal of enginee-
ring experience and personal skill. Limits of applicability have to be understood
(and explored) by each individual user. The lecture starts with the detailed outline
of the theoretical approach for the approximations made for the flow field and the
discretisatlon used to deal with complex vehicle geometry. It reflects all major is-
sues of existing panel methods and shows examples for applications both for simple
and for complex geometry. Propulsion integration, viscous correction procedures and
nonliner vortical separation is referenced.

High-angle-of-attack aerodynamics

John Lamar discusses the different regimes of the CL-0l plane. Four *C-segments have
been identified :
low - attached flow dominates
moderate- combination of attached and separated or vertical flow
high- separated or vortical flow dominates
post-stall - vortex break-down or massive stall

Depending on the wing planform and Machnumber this segments extend to different size.
The paper deils first with engineering methods for the prediction of vortical separa-
ted ilow (e.g. Sychev similarity, Vortex Lattice Method-Suction Analogy, Digital Dat-
com and Free Vortex Filaments). Second the high angle of attack range is stressed for
stability and control. The effectj of different wing planforms and the effectiveness
of control devices (including "vortex flaps") is discussed. Finally the subject of
Post-Stall-Flight is addressed, including aerodynamic control devices, thrust vecto-
ring and dynami, stall.

|V
 I
1-9
Aircraft drag analysis methods ! "

CharlesE oppe structured'his lecture into two major parts

(1) 'Evaluation of drag and
(2) Reduction of drag
First-the sources of different drag contributions are discussed. Handbook metbds are
indispensable for prediction of drag contributions. The engineering methods are con-
sidered to be the bridge- between empirism and windtunnel testing. C.)nsiderable time-
savings are achievable by careful analysis and understanding the drag mechanism.
For the second subject engineering methods are applied to achieve higher performance.
Insight into the complex drag mechanisms is required for the desired goal. Reduction
or windtunnel test time and flight tests is achieved through the use of empirical en-
gineering drag prediction tools.

Summary

Three major statements characterize the major fndings of this special course

(1) Engineering work in aeronautical analysis and design is traditionally performed

in two ways
* Experimental approch,
characterized by limitted simulation of flow physics (e.g. Re-Number, Hachnumber,
Real-Gas ..,).
" Numerical analysis,
characterized by trend to higher level codes,
high cost for viscous 3D codes,
production of high quantity of flow field data,
lack of code validation.

(2) Interdisciplinary approach is mandatory in conceptual and preliminary design

work :
* Experiment will not be replaced by CFD,
in addition to traditional configuration testing the experiment has to provide
data for CFl-code validation.
* The role of CFO is a complimentary one with respect to the experiment,
extensive use of CFD leads to quicker and more reliable selection of the most
promising configuration.

(3) Engineering methods are indispensable because :

* "High-levol*CFD analysis is excluded in conceptual/preliminary design
a Experimental work is not (or limitted) available for configurational conception
* Empirical (e.g.-Handbook-), low-level (potential-) flow code analysis on PC's and
Workstations and extrap6lation from engineering experience obtained during
previous design work is the logical consequence

(4) There is an obvious need for training young engineers to get acquainted
with simple engineering methods.
[ 10
ACoDNOLEDGMU

As director of the AGARDFDP Special Course on "Engineering Methods in Aerodynamic

Analysis and Design of Aircraft" I like to express my appreciation to the lecturers
which have performed their part during the course in a most professional way. It was
my intentionto bring together experiencedexperts from industry and, research insti-
tutes, experts which are-recognized worldwide to work successful in the related field
of aerodynamicanalysis and design. They all have reactedspontaneously in apositive
way, shortly after having been a-3kedto contribute to such an extensive effort of the
AGARD community

Mr. Charles W.Boppe from Grumman Aircraft Systems, New York

Mr. Barry Raines retired from ARA, Bedford
Dr. Harry W.M.Roijankers from NLR, Amsterdam
Dr. John W.Laaar from NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA
M. Pierre Perrier from Aviation Marcel Dassault, Paris
Mr. Daniel P.Rayaer from Conceptual Research, Sylmar CA

In addition I wish to express my gratefulness to the local coordinators. They have

provided excellent local arrangements and perfect organisation of the Special Course
during the meetings :

Prof. Dr. Ca hit Ciray from the mtiddle

East Technical University in Ankara
Prof. Dr. Nrio Carbonaro from t.heVon Karman Institute in Brussels
Prof. Rodrige Hartinez-Val from the Polytechnical Univertrty in Madrid.

This Course could have not been organized without the outstanding support of the
Fluid Dynamics Panel Executive Mr. Wimston Goodrich and his Secretary Nd.. Amnemarie
Riveault, from AGARD Headquarters, Paris.
 2-1

procedures
Computational forpreliminary design
P.,PERRIER,
dhhrodynamique Thorique
Chef du Opartement

DASSAULTAVIATION-
- FRANCE
300<- 92552 SAINT-CLOUD
CEDEX

0. - INTRODUCTION accommodation of passengers .>.). Such

Preliminary design of aircrafthas,evolved
largelyon the past ten years.The mainoriginof
evolution came from rationalizationand
broadening of the preliminary phasis of
of a new project.Has to be evaluated
development
sooner the interestof the project in its
capabilityto fulfill the requirementsof a
program- has to be proposedthe strategyfor
makingItsdevelopment : with what funding,with
what national or international collaboration,
withwhat long term calendar.Moreoverthe level
of technologyinvolvedis to be evaluated: not
only as the stateof the art availablebut also
be the firm basis for a
can therefore
definition
completestudy : it includestrade-otffor the
aircraf.as a system and an evaluationof
criticalaerodynamicproblemsto be studied.
1 is the productof an improved
Definition
design; it resultsof the completeanalysisof
0 afterfirstwind tunneltesti,9
the definition
and firstanalysisof the criticalpoints.It
can be the basisfor the firstfeasibility study
on the nominalaircraft; it can give valuable
support to the first evaluation of main
uncertainties.It is clear that it is the first
definition wherea realisticevaluation of the

as requiringan ad-hoceffortto be includedin probable performances and of effortsneededfor

the totalcostor timeschedule. having them, plus risks associated.can be
given.Performances may be determinatednot as

Rationalization of nationalor international stateof the art preliminary but a

estimation
large programs has led to definitionsof a comprehensive set of data comingboth from CFO
of well-defined
succession levelsof freezingof and from experiments. Researchand Development.
the design; of comon use is for examplethe Effortsneededare relatedto criticalityof the
of fourdefinitions
succession
following problems compared to the objectivesof the
programand on availabletechnologyfor solving

Definition0 is the firstcompletetentative them. Risks assessmentare basea on the

all the
for whichthe drawingsinclude
definition difficultyof solving the problemswith the
main ingredientsnecessary for freezing the funding and the time scaleallowed,and on the
architecture in details - volumefor equipments. existence solutions.
of alternate
correctgeometryof main parts fixedor moving
(undercarriage; removable parts, external Definition2 can be frozen when iteration
stores..,). It is highly hoped that the center with detailed requirements ( including
of gravity be at a reasonable position relative maintainability, economic trade-offs.
to aerodynamic centerof pressurein the flight fabrication requirements...) cle - the way to
envelope ; in, the same effort of having a firstdetaileddesign of major or long-cycle
reasonoblefirstdesign.main requirementsare to partsof the aircraft.Progressivefreezingof
be fulfilledon flyingqualities,performances definition2 can allow some extra time for
(volume of tanks) weapon system (antenna aerodynamic work, mainly on the more complex
locations),payload(volume, centerof gravity, phtnoeia ; but geometricalshapesneed to be
stablenow for avoidingcostly charges.Final
3 near the
data can be a definition
geometrical
2.
definition
2.2
Here we will covermainly the preliminary
design work needed for the production of
-definition0. Howevera part of the trade-off
studiesand of the continuingwork of refinement
of definitionI and 2 can be'donewith'thesame
tools. Analysis of critical problems on
definitionI can lead to a reassessment of sone
alternatedesign ; again such variants 1.1,
1.2...have to be bui!tquickly,so with the same
tools,
One main philosophythat has emergedfrom
repetedexperienceof such preliminary
cyclesof
designis the conceptof "samelevelof quality
of design comparison".There is a clear
difficultyto extractvaluablecomparisonsof
data obtained on different designs with
different tools and different levels of
convergence
; it leadsto mixingof evaluation
of
different
designswith the evaluationof quality
of the output of differentdesign tools. A
conservativedesign may seem poorer than a
promising
but not yet compromised
new design.It
is pirticularlytrn , but in the opposite
direction
for directexperimentalcomparisonsof
designs that are not at the same level of
improvementby krO : If designfor examplea wing
has been optimized, a large variation of main
parameter(sweepangle, locationof nacelle...)
can be selectedwithoutnew optimization; but
the derivative
will be probabiypoorerwhen the
derivativeare issued from pralinlnarydesign
toolsor when designis sensitive
to qualityof
design (e.g.transonic.laminar...).
Anyway the
computationalproceduresare central in the
evaluationof a designnot only beforebut also
for analysisafterW.T. testing.
I -GENERA S CO UTATIO PROCEDURES
1.10 - We will cover successiaelythe
computational
proceduresfor the firstiteration
of designbeforethe selectionof definition
0,
as referredbefore,and in the preliminarythe
freezing
after
definition
0. Of main importance
are evaluation
of centerof gravitypositionand
of thrust-ninus-drag, and L/O for general
performances. So these Items will be covered
first.
1.1 - Centerof pressureevaluation
It is the first main aerodynamic
characteristicthat Is needed from the
beginning. Without it the work of the design
office cannot be realistic.Some trends are
neededfor'balancingthe generalarchitecture
of
the aircraft.The size of the wing can be
deducedfrom rough estimatesof the realistic
wing loadings and the size of the
fuselage is generallycoming from volume
constraints,
but the balanceof the mass require
quotation from the start of the project
definition. So a orogressiveapproachby three
procedures (each being more complex and more
accuratethat the precedingone 4eem necessary
and haveto be used successively.
The first Is an old but efficientrule of
determinationof approximate
subsoniccenterof
pressureon the drawingtable.It relieson the
that the repartition of tn lift on
assumption
the different elements of the aircraft is
ellipticor slightlydistortedfrom elliptic
distribution
as given by figure I versus the
aspect ratio. sweep angle and taperratio.And
we can assure that wing + fuselage
characteristics are obtained from wing alone
plus Interaction. Conventionally KW is the
factorof wing liftIncrementwhen fuselage-body
is present, Kb is the percentageof lift
transferredto the body. Figure 2 gives an
estimation
of Km and Kb (comingfrom low aspect
ratioor slenderbody estimation) versusratio
of equivalent
cylinderto wing span.
The aerodynamiccenter can be built oy
assumingthat its localpositionfor a slicein
spanis on a 25 % positionon currentchordand
is distortedto 25% 1 "112 by the symmetry
conditions.So the curveupon whichcan e put
the load givenby figureI and 2 can be easily
approximated.
r,
o
,,
. N.* r
-
- such,.jo&,.s to retain-on a.P.C., with, extended
N requireanlimted timeof computation
I' there is a tall. the same approach is
usefulbut a reductionof efficiency
comingfrom
def;ectionis needed and Ft . 3 gives typical
fig res vs separation
distancebetweentail and
wi'g.7he absolutevalueof tail or wing alone
li'tis usuallynot far formDiederi(h
formula
2 t(
ACL ...........
I +(u.ajA
Such first level of aerodynamiccenter
estimation
is also used for quick evaluationof
trade-offsduring first interactionon the
design. The hand procedure here described can
appear in a codefor a PC suchcode is usefulfor
avoiding errors but with it engineersmay loose
understanding of the complexityof interaction
and of theirapproximation ; moreover inputsmay
be complexdue to theirnumbersand may be source
of errors.
The second level of estimationof the
position of the aerodynamic center Is based on
the use of small computers. A goodway of doing
2-3 i
core,memry . and arithmetic,
coprocessor two,
: one,,in~subsonic,
simpllfied,codes ke useof
yortex-latticemthod, the second one is
Tinearisedsupersonic planfou,,evaluation. Both
but also
precise rules fcr input of-geometry for the
qualityof the results.On the vortex-lattice
method it Is absolutely required to well known
the following rule : a one quartersingularity
plus three quarter control point is mandatory
for each cell retain in the discretisation
process.On the supersonic
linearised
method,;n
efficientway is to use the quadrilateral
meshingalongthe characteristics
lines; if the
mesh is regular the matrix of influence
coefficientscan be in-erseda priori and such
furnish a very cost-effectivecomputation
procedure; however such regular predetermined
qrid (with an affinity factor for span
adjustement) implies difficulty with irrnular
planforms ; that can be improved by local
refinement.Another advantage of such
linearised procedureis to give an approximation
of the Cp distributionin chordand span and of
lift and pitching moment; such data are useful
for first determinationof some critical
problems . it supposes a first definition of a
camberor controldeflection needed for balance
at a givenangleof attack.So it Is the first
way of making evaluation of camber or twist.
Inputs become more complex with an important
numberof celles ; that can be the source of
(oftencomplexto analyse)errorsin data.
2-4

Thethiadievel of estimsiiidn of pousition of
the aeri~dynic6center Wi6ibg to 3D coputation
withb~t ilneiriisation on 'the plifd4. 'Such
pioceddie is 'soonrequlied for -aiyaircraft
difficult to balatici. In th past, the costof
review the tools .gainst helow. bat we can
stannrize from now the three levels in the
following table.

~
is bf ~ t des~
.:.lwwl..ita v:iw~~ ,09itools
such app~oich waseeisi~i now it is io more _____________________
true and wieare able to notice that the tyia ~t ~
a .t ltt-P.C 1.4.1 7PP irt

capacity of' in-houise workstation. Curirelit iitl. ta.

prcie ilno et6 devote such workstation LCYOL 2 Linesrsaoicodes - use otta'.
to the design gr~ap forsuich
specific task as the tt'rA C
aerodynamic and stress analysis at the levels of -t..1. Mil air,,.C " I.e haoia
....
the preliminary design. Probably the ccoplete xatw witwtfwtitltltidr0 aa.
o r .Iwttairo 4 dlm
transsonic design will be excluded of suRh Complt x ittotttt

preliminary work 1,however the main limitation witeio *.b Iid ihilrtti

comes frcomthe interface with geoetrical 25 ,va.0 wl. 2 ,wtai ttwtral

definition and the time for having a goadmesh sit. 11..~ wh ...
t1
for computations. It is clear that singularity on I tt it~r'

panel methodis well adapted to such wourk,this soalP

is because such panel miethod requires only the MMIii~tl~t
discretisation of the surface of the aircraft,. ~ li.
Subsonic and supersonic panel methods are the .... 10.0.t I
........
basic tools. bat morecomples 3Dcomputations may iil;!i tth I
tI thia

be moreuseful.

In the third level of codes to be used in

preliminary design inthe level of 3Dcomplete
viscous codes ;their use is questionable. In
1.2 Liftevaluation

Inthe suve manner,the codes used in the

I
fact, their effective costisdirectly associated 1.1can.deliver elements for lift. However,we
withthecostof preparation Of thecomputation : have to distinguish between3 different
meshdefinition on geometrical data. subdomains aerodynaltic data : linearlift angle of
definition, checking of the quality and correct attackrediction, lift mainlyobtained with
meshrefieement as locally required. So finite high-lift-devices andhighangle ofattack lift.
element method,taking into account the total Thethree are of main inmportance for different
complexity ofthegeomeotry, seemswelladapted to parts of theflight envelope.lWewillcoverthe
fast answer except If meshis too costly ur long three successively.
to obtain,
Goodlinear lift vn.Incidence prediction Is
Intermediate codes, for that point of view, are achieved by the three level of codes described
the 30 codes Involving no direct meshing, before. It Is clear that such prediction Is
Typically themeuhIs a regular rectangularmesh, useful for high dynamic pressurethat
the solver generally takes advantage of uuch corresponds to low values of angle of attack.
reguarity-it can be linear finite difference or Someconcern mtayappear In such flight reg Imes
spectral*. local application of boundary withaeroelasticity effects forouchaeroelastic
conditions can be dune directly or with local effects a simplified procedure anethelongbeam
regular refinement. At the other extremity of approximation :flexion and torsion of wing and
boundary conditions are the codas devoted to the fuselage can be estimated by projection of
complex eon structured mesharound any irregular efforts and momentson neutral line of the
body .thatwillaskforfinite element solveron equivalent beamus. A NewtonIterative procedure
any ccomplexgeometry, as needed on final willhelpto converge towards finaldeflection.
ccW utations, on final aircrafts shapes.We will Hain contributors are coming from twist-indaced
by flexion of neutrallines of boaofwingswith
sweepfig.S.
 2-5

On figure 6, we have put the non-linear "7

inviscld valuzof,2O lift and-the experimental

valuesfor increasingcamber-of wingsection.We
haveput alsothe angleof incidence relatedto
maximumliftand the equivalent angle of attack
havingthesame maximm lift as the section but
on- the, inviscjd curve. A lot of empirical
criteriafor determination of these two data
have been proposed.We will retain the two
procedures
following

- are available,
If no viscouscomputations
use of experimentalresults on similar
wing section will help to define the
High lift characteristics,withoutor with "stateof the art* lossof liftand angle
nigh-liftdevices,mainlyrely on dissipationof of attackachievedfor stall.
m~in wakes and mixing of viscouswakes and of
So it
layerswithor withoutseparation.
bourda,'y If can be fulfilledthe computationof
cannotbe predictby inviscidflow computations. boundarylayer on upper ,urfaceof the
Howevera firstassessment can be done in the wing sectionwe can make the following
of liftingline.So if we returnto
approximation assumption - on one elment section the
the precedingprocedureof liftingline wing + maximumlift is obtainedwhen separation
+ fuselagewe can use the following
interaction occursat 85% of the chordwith inviscid
computation
iterative pressure distribution. Such figure is a
mean value but can be very useful at the
- compute the 2 0 l'fting correction due to designlevel.
preliminary
viscosity + stallestimatirn
airfoil,samefigurecan
On multi-elements
- compute the 30 lifting line lift be retained for the main section
non
It is obtainby iterative
distribution. separationat the lastelement.Revaluable
linear spanwise induced downwash data are obtainedwith a valueof 50% on
computationsuntil convergence toxards its own chord. But when the camber
equilibrium. increases,the Cp distributiondoes not
changeany morewith tigleof attacknear
So a threestep procedurecan be used : 1st the trailingedge : total separationon
of inviscid
estimation contributionto high lift the slot is the best criteriafor stall
by the previously defined codes : e.g. prediction.
singularities,with non linear boundary
conditions.

,1.
2-6
Betterway of designis to'use a complete
iteratedcode taking,into'account'
the shape of
the separatedwike and interactionbetween
bondary layerand wakesdownstre of each shot.
If the work is donet n2;60 (that"is to say with
account fbr sweepangleand localtaperirgof the
wing)a completeset of lift (and noment) versus
local angle,
of attack is available.Adding a
liftinglinecomputation of inducedvelocitywill
allowto be simplified
3D code to give a very
precisepredictorof high lift devices when
aspectratiois not too low and sweepangle not
too high (say AR)3, If 45). On fig. 8 is given
such a rebuilding of a typical subsonic aircraft
by a genuineDassaultcode.
Z-
1
-'.~
,!i r1
|i
IL:
, ,I
I4complex
• --
I ",t
I4 L1
For very high sweepangleanotherapproach
is to use the Polhamusapproximation
where the
succion is assumedlost and transformin a
vortex lift. Best procedure'for succion
predictions can be done by a vortex lattice
method makingthe succioneffective; however
maximumlift related to vortexburstingis only
empirically
chosen.
In transsonic, fast znswercan be obtained
with wing aloneor wing + simplified
body finite
volumecomputation.
The time of cosputationis
not so large and a complete set of data can be
obtained by survey of maximumlocal Mach number
normal to the shock-wave.A simplifiedrule
assuming shock-wave/boundary
layer separation
whenMachnber Is larger than 1,4 gives a good
approximation of the buffet angle of attack
(fig. 9). If the complexity of the aircraft does
not allow reasonable answer by wing alone
conputation
(andin orderto fix the CL aircraft
versus CL wing) sone cowplete aircraft
computations are needed, for examp e b parel
mthrd.
d -Drag
evaluation
Drag evalation is the moreccmaplexand
difficulttask of any engineer In charge of
preliminary
design.Some probableevaluation
can
be done for friction and Induced drag. but more
conponents as those drags related to
engine airframeintegration and at the drag of
miscellaneous.can be highly empiricalat the
preliminary
stageof definition
of an aircraft.
i1

Frictionand formndragis obtainedwith good
curves,
from the ,databooks-;,-such
accuracy, are
(see for examplethe friction
well established,
drag, of Van Oriest data book). But soe
corrections'are needed ; they,are. directly
re)atedto squareof thicknessratio for-taking
in accounttrue local velocitieslarger than
infinitevalue.Some concernare to be given to
particularly
the roughnessodrag, for low altitude
missionprediction.A drag breakdowntaking in
accountlocal chord and their Reynoldsnumber
effect is importantin the selection of
with large variationof chords.
configuration
Preliminaryestimationsof frictiondrag only
except at the
basedon wettedarea is dangerous
stageof study.
verypreliminary
Ww'jedrag can be obtained At low cost in the
of linearized
approximation flowfor wingsend of
axisymetric flow for equivalent area
distributionca the body. Dut an interaction
processis neededfor area rulingeffectrelated
Fig. 10
and supersonicinteraction.
to transonic
gives such rebuildiugprocess obtained by a
Dassault design.
genuinecode itedIn preliminary
It is to be noticedtha. correctionfor highly
non lineareffectIs neededfor canopy.pylons.,..
is to be added,howeversuch
If such correction
givesa muchbetteranswerparticularly
procedure
in transonicrange than the transonic or
supersonic area rule formula based on
; it was
trans-supersoni: area rule distribution
shownthat such formulais only applicable with
successto very slenderconfiguration (variable
geometry aircraft with high sweep angle
configuration) without troubles coming from
trailingedgecontributions.
&I -pressure
2-7
We will discussthe evaluation of drag related
to engineinstallationin the nextchapters.
2 - DETAILED PROCEDURES
DESIGNENGINEERING
design
of first preliminary
2.0 - Evaluation
qualitycan no more be done actuallywithouta
quick survey of separatedarea of design.We
evaluation
will coversuccessively'the of local
separatedarea,frontiers betweennon-separated
and separated regions.Such evaluation includes
the necessary first survey of air-intake
integration and of afterbody integration. Many
timesit is at the levelof induced separations
that one has to predictthe interaction with non
terodynamicrequireents as those coming from
RCS signatre reduction.
areasevaluation
2.1 - Separated
to surveyfor scoe
It is of main importance
criticalpoints of design the boundariesof
separatedareasof the wetted totalarea ; all
the skincannotbe examinedversusall anglesof
attack and mach number of interest for
of boundarylayers.
separation
designhas to lead directlyto
Preliminary
selection : deviously
of aircraftconfiguration
one main elementof choiceof configuration is
generallythe cleanlinessof design or the
boundaryof suchcleanlinessfrom a, aerodynamic
pointof view.The best preliminarydesigntool
is the surveyof one stretilineafterthe other
with a 30 boundarylayercode ; fig. 11 gives
an exampleof a flow survey at the wall for a
Falconorientedtowardsrear fuselageseparation
estimationby streamlineanalysis.Suchcode can
be operated on a workstation using an inviscid
distribution coming from panel methods
in subscnic or finite element in transonic. Of
main importance are the abilityof the code to
give indication of the local determination of
boundary layer by shape parameter A and 30
shearangle versusthe localconvergence and
curvature parameters of the streamlines.
Easy
surveys of the orgine of streamlinethat
is needed.
separates
'a
S 2-S I
Particular,
insistencehas'to be put on accuracy
of such-finitedifference
codefor evaluation of
the drag because-the too-rough"evaluationof
FA=CN
5
-1-1 'succion"recovery directlyextractedof ID
imnmentuu
equation,
as so-called
"additive
drag",
is dangerous. It is better to rely on
of pressureof such code which take
integration
correctly in account the, internal-external
"recovery"
on the lips.Conventional
ram drag,
as put in the definition
of the thrustdelivered
by enginemanufacturergenerallygiven in its
brochures,is to be comparedto true pressure
integrals.Equivalentaxisymetric air intake
can furnishbetterdata if carefulduplication
of local slope and duct area distribution are
done.

On supersonicor transonicdesign, the

probl)m is generally much more related to
existenceof high intensityshockwave and os
correspondingupstream shock-boundarylayer
ir.teractions. Checking of validity of criteria of
design by direct Navier-Stoxes solution with
simpieturbulenceodelling is out of the budget
of preliminary
empirical
designand has to be replacedby
evaluations.
ir

2.2 - Air-intake
Integration

Large difficulty in design cones from

engine-inlet
integration; soon in the designis
the necessityto define preliminarystage at
leastroughlyfor the boundarylayer diverter.
The necessity
to evaluatethe volumeand position
to be reserved to the air-intake is much
mandatory for internal architectureof any
project.A simpleone dimensionalanalysiscode
is neededfor evaluation
of the areadistribution
of the dict and of the throatarea requiredIn
differentflight regimes.Anothercode has to Complementary
work has to be perfomed from
help predictionof supersonicrecoveryfactor the beginningof the designrelatedto
taking account of losses In the external or flowfleld. Some external reconpressions Incoming
of the
Internalshock waves and boundary layers. A flowmany timesare comingfromthe shapeof the
simple20 axisywetric code Is needed that uses aircraft.Effort are to be devoted.from the
the correctarea distribution
of the duct for beginning
of the design,to clarifywhat is the
preliminary design of possible internal interaction
has'the forwardfuselageor wing on
divergence,and out of design external spillage the flowfield
at the entranceof the air intake.
drag. Fig. 12 shows a typicalresult of such Selectionof frontfuselageshapecannotbe done
axisymmetriccode that helps a lot in the without such preliminarystudy. It can be
preliminarydesign phasis when intake area, fulfilledby simplefinite differencecode as
externaland internaldevicesare to be selected, describedin 13.
 2-9

with the,streis
effects or for interaction
Howeverthe selectionof
analysisdepartment.
position, shape, volume to be devoted to
antennasare a part of the-same effort towards
completeMaxwell integration at~thepreliminary
designphasis.Internaland,external weaponsor
tanksare also partof suchgeneraleffort for
A. WA, n-fkMintegration but specifictools are not needed
evaluation
exceptfor preliminary of separation
problems.

3-CONCLUSION

We can summarize tools

all the engineering
J- I. designin the following
used in the preliminary
table

Engine
Integration
2.3 - Afterbody AC/CP Lift Drag Inlet-
exhaust
fore and
Symmetric tork on afterbody has to be [after-body
fullfilled. Howeverit is clearthataxisymetric - SG.C
or monodimensional codes are not convenient for Level1 S.G.C S.G.C + E.R
E.R
such study for twin engine integrated afterbody.
I I I I
For such study the delimitation of separated
Level 2 L.M FAX L INVISED
areas are to be done systematically with the
procedure of 2.1. For more complex shapes the 2.SPand NLC CODE
FON
analysis is out of the scope of simplified
inviscidor incoupledviscous-inviscid flows.
can take advantage of
cdseitFE Level3 30P and 3andDP Of
3and 30P Ff
Some codes eint that 4
simplecorrelation basedon reattachmentcriteria F FN
t 30 S and S
or on mixig-layer development. but there are
generally of limited values.Progress are to be SGC : Simplifiedgraphic data-sheet and
done,but they will come from sloplification f conputing; R : Expences'srules ; L.M
much more comp~eveNavier-Stokes solutions. Such Linearized method , P.M. Panel Method , FU :
resultsare to be validated in wind-tunneland in Finite difference method FEN : Finite e'sment
Flight; work are in progress. method ; L u NC: Linearized + non linear
corrections AN : Approximate methods ; Ff : 1
2.4 - Interaction with non aerodynmic Flow field S and s : Streamlineand
requirements separation.

More are to be done In future design for of cost of

It is clearthatrecentreduction
of ACS or IR reduction
integration in the computationby the minisuper computer and
aerodynamic design. It is to be assumed that advanced workstation has shift the CFO
equivalent simplified
Maxwellsolversare at the from detailedanalysiswork to the
computation
disposalof designersand that Interaction can designphase.Numeroustoolsare now
preliminary
take place betweenaerodynamicistsand Maxwell used in suchphase,it will improve greatly the
specialists. Integrationin the same team is quality of the 0.0 definitionof any new
mandatory. As an exople this is probablymore project.
important than in the past when effortshad been
of the aeroelastic
push forwardfor integration
 Rdfdrences •
"JT 2-10 "

1;.d.R. Sears':'ighspeed Aerodynamics -and IetH. Carlson and iii'e.,0.

11- The influence of
propulsion, Vol. VI General theory of high tand Cambered
s e cwing designfor Supersonic
cruiseoAlIA
Paper
81 -16 S6 - 1981-
2. A.F. Donovan, H.R. Lawrence-: Aerodynamics
,'onn of . Lawcr
t en e Ahsedo Vi 12. F.W. Bursham, D.R. Bellman : A flight
n o tinvestigation of steady state and dynamic

pressurephenonenain the air inlets of

3. Royal Aeronautical Society Aerodynamic data sopersonic aircraft AGADCP 91 - 11.
book.suesncarrf GR P9 71

13. W. Schmidt: AerodynamicSubsonic/Transonic

4. E.G. Covertand all : Thrustand Drag : its aircraftdesignstudiesby numerical
methods
predictionand verification.Progress in AGARDCP 285 - 1980.
Astronauticsand Aeronautics
Vol. 98.1986

14. L.R. Harper The subsonicPerformanceof

S. M.L. LOPEZ : Aerodynamics
and performance P-acticalMilitaryVariablearea convergent
characteristicsof wing l;ft augmentation NozzlesAGARDCP 301 - 1981.
system.VKI lecture
series60,1973.

15 - l.i. Rettle : Aerodynamicdesign for

6. B. Halises :Aerodynsic interference . A overallvehicleperformance
AGARDreportn-
roneral overview AC.VD lecture Series Report 712 - 1983

712.1983

16 - Rossow. troll. Radespiel, Schen :

ON 1 osw rl. Rdsil ce
P. Perrier- M.
7 - MECHANICAL
P. APLavenant
-re PGESS REPORT
n : -a
PROGRESS
REPO3
2Investigation
T 0- of the accuracy of finite
ApriCAl A 3 4volane methods for 2 and 3 dimensional
April1974 flowsAGARDCP n' 437 - 1988.

8. P. Perrier - J.J. DEVIERS : Calculs 17 . P.W. Sacher : Fundamentalsof fighter

tridimentionnels d'hypersustentation AircraftDesign AgardReport740 1
1986
Colloque d'afrodynamique appliqu~e de I'AFITA#
(AA9F) 1972.

9 - R. Eppler : Airfoil - Design and data *

Springer
Verlag- 1990

IO - B. Oillner and C. Koper The role of

computational aerodynamics In airplane
configuration development - Agard C.P. N-
280 1979.
E- 3-1

CONFIGURATION DEVELOPMENT
Daniel P. Raymer
.P.'O.Box 923156
Sylmar, CA,.,USA 91392-3156

NOTE:
The followig materal, presented~aekpart of the AGARD FDP
SPECIAL COURSE ONENGINEF.RING .METHODS-IN AERODYNAMIC ANALYSIS AND
DESIGN, 7is xcerptedands's rzedzfrom the author's textbook,
rAIRCRAFT- DESIGN: *A Conceptual Approach" (Copyright C 1989,
published by the Aiserican. Institute- of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 370,L'EnfantPromenade, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.,
20024)*.'The lecture charts ire part'of-the-five dayShort Course
on Aircraft Conceptual.Design which is regularly presented by the
author., The authorretains full copyright protection of this
material, and further publication or reproduction beyond this
AGARD sh6rt'courseis'strictly forbidden without prior written
approval.

INTRODUJCTION & SUMMARY

Aircraft conceptual lesign ie a
complex, multidisciplinary process
involving science, history, art, and eo..., .
magic, in sometimes equal proportions. In """'N .
this AGARD special course, we dre focused I
upon the aerodynamic aspects of aircraft '
design, but the overall configuration of
the aircraft must both provide good ,.. ,
aerodynamics and reflect a wide variety of .
other considerations. In this lecture I
number three, we will discuss . . " "-
configuration development and its key role [ .

in aerodynamic design.

CONFIGURATION DEVE.OPMENT PROCESS "'' ' '" '

Aircraft design can be broken into ,.-no".

three major phases depicted in figure one.
Conceptual design Is the phase where the
basic questions of configuration , .. .4a..
arrangement, size and weight, and
performance are answered.
The first question is "can an During preliminary design the
affordable aircraft be built which teets specialists in areas such as structures,
the requirements?" If the answer seems to landing gear, and control systems will
be "no", the customer may wish to change design and analyze their portion of the
the requirements. This is not too unusual, aircraft. Testing is initiated in areas
for the customer sets the requirements as such as aerodynamics, propulsion,
a compromise between what experience says structures, and stability and control. A
is feasible and what the end-users of the mockup may be constructed at this point.
new airplane would like to get. Assuming a favorable decision for
Conceptual design is a very fluid entering full-scale development, the
process. New ideas and problems emerge as detail design phase begins. Here, the
a design is investigated in ever- actual pieces to be fabricated are
increasing detail. Each time the latest designed. For example, during conceptual
design is analyzed and sized, it must be and preliminary design, the wing box is
redrawn to reflect the new gross weight, designed and analyzed as a wholo. During
fuel weight, wing size, engine size, and detail design, that whole is broken down
other changes. Early wind tunnel tests into individual ribs, spars, and skins,
often reveal problems requiring some each of which must be separately designed
changes to the configuration. and analyzed.
Preliminary design can be said to begin Detail design ends with fabrication of
when the major changes are over. The big the aircraft. Frequently the fabrication
questions such as whether to use a canard begins on part of the aircraft before the
or an aft tail have been resolved. The entire detail design effort is completed.
configuration arrangement can be expected Hopefully, changes to already-fabricated
to remain about as shown on current pieces can be avoided.
drawings, although minor revisions may The actual design effort usually begins
occur. At sose point late in preliminary with a conceptual sketch (figure 2). This
design, even minor changes are stopped
when a decision is made to freeze the
configuration.
Copyright C 1991 by DANIEL P. RAYNER

EA
ALL RIGHTS RESRRVED
3-2

'WINGPLANFORM
SELECTION
isfo're the design layout can be
started, the wing geometry must be
selected; 4including parameters such as
aspect ratio, sweep, taper ratio,
dihedral, and thickness. While all these
parameters- will be numerically optimized
-at somelater dit&, that optimization will
proe d 'fro' '*'-baie21ie' aircraft
arraiege 'n'd
Kat aseline 'ust include
s inital gue-sa to these parameters.
hus; designers hive evolved a number of
"first-order" methods whic are provided

The "reference", or "trapezoidal" wing

is the basic wing ge)metry used to begin
. IIdll
J .geometric the layout'. Figures 4 of
parameters' and the,
5 showreference
the key

wing. ot hat the reference wing is

is the "back of a napk)n- drawing of ficticious, and extends through the
aerospace legend, and gives a rough fuselage to the aircraft,centerline.
indication of what the design may look There are two key 'sweep 'angles, as
like. The sketch is used to make a ,first shown in figure 5. The leading edge sweep
estimate of the required total weight and Is the angle of concern in supersonic
fuel weight to perform the design mission, flight. To reduce drag it is common' to
by a process called "sizling" sweep the leading edge behind the mach
The "first-order" sizing provides the cone. The sweep of the quartor chord line
Information needed to develop an initial is the sweep most related to subsonic
design layout (figure 3). This is a scaled flight.
three-view drawing complete with the more Airfoil pitching moment data in
important internal arrangement details, subsonic flow is generally provided about
including typically the landing gear, the quarter-chord point. That is the point
payload or passenger compartment, engines about which the airfoil pitching moment is
and Inlet ducts, fuel tanks, cockpit, essentially constant with changing angle
major avionics, and any other internal of attack (io, the "aerodynamic center").
components which are large enough to In a similar fashion, such a point is
affect the overall shaping of the defined for the complete trapezoidal wing.
aircraft. Enough cross-sections are shown This is based on the concept of the "mean
to verify that everything fits. aerodynamic chord".
T1,is initial layout Is analyzed to The mean aerodynamic chord, shown in
determine if It really will perform the figure 6, Is the chord "c" of an airfoil,
mission as indicated by the first-order located at some distance "y" from the
sizing. Actual aerodynamics, weights, and centerline. Figure 6 illustrates a
installed propulsion characteristics are graphical method for finding the mean
analyzed and subsequently used to do a aerodynamic chord of a trapezoidal wing
detailed sizing calculation. Furthermore, planform.
the performance capabilities of the design The entire wing has its mean
are calculated and compared to the aerodynamic center at approximately the
requirements mentioned above. Optimization same percent location of the mean
techniques are used to find the lightest aerodynamic chord as that of the airfoil
or lowest-cost aircraft that will both alone. In subsonic flow, this Is at the
perform the design mission and meet all quarter chord point on the mean
performance requirements. aerodynamic chord. In supersonic flow, the

f- 1-

$It 3 Cs-tng., 1..o

 3-3

The first.to investigate aspect ratio

idetail ware-the Wright~brothers, using
-71 a wind tunnelthey_:constructed. They found
_that 'a ,,lon, 'kiiinyk wing -(high aspect
-- ratio) 'has less drag'for a,given lift'than
!, ' "Z ' -ls'die'
a short,t°the threiie;d lensii6nailratio).
fat ing;,(lowaspect "bffecti"
This
ACTUAL
%ING When a wingjis geneating"lift, it has
a reduced pressure on-tbiiupper. surface,
R!a. zI and an increased.pressurelon ',thelower,
'
z': surface. The air would like' to "escape"
Ifronthe'bottom of~the'wing,m oving to~the,
top. This is not p6ssible in two
dimensional. flor" However, for a real,
three-dimensional wing, the air can escape
I oaround the wing tip.
oC
= 1Mfl1C L TOAaT When air escapesaround thewing. ,,tip,
A :ICTA.TIO the pressure difference between the upper
t/e AMOLI surface and the ,lower surface is
S-.A, decreased. This reduces lift. Also, the
, air flowing around'thetip' flows in a
.. wPw 6*4 S C--.23 .1e c C- circular path when seen from the front,
and in ffect;,Ipushes downi'on the %wing
no. 4 % M-Y. near'thetip, which ,reduessthe effective
angle 'of attack oftheairfoils'near the
tip. This circular, or' "vortex"" flow
S ------- Atpattern continues downstream behind the
wing.
A wing with a high aspect ratio has the
wing tips further apart than an equal area
wing with a low aspect ratio, so the
A Aamount of the wing affected by the tip
U. vortex is less than for a low aspect ratio
wing, and the strength of the tip vortex
is reduced. Thus, the high aspect ratio
wing suffers less loss of lift and
incriase of drag due to tip effects than
Vne i-'waspect ratio wing of equal area.
's most early wings were rectangular in
shape, the aspect ratio was initially
defined as siwply the span divided by the
chord. For a tapered wing, the aspect
ratio is defined as the span squared
divided by the area (which defaults to the
- s.,, . e-w... earlier definition for a wing with no
* . $ .,s ataper).
A.t
The maximum tubsonic lift to drag ratio
of an aircraft Increases approximately by
coo the square root of an increase in aspect
ratio. On the other hand, the wing weight
- T.. p- - -. also increases with increasing aspect
ratio, by about the same factor.
Later in the design process, the aspect
7V ratio will be determined by a trade study
in which the aerodynamic advantages of a
Lhigher aspect ratio are balanced against
% AUOOP-AmIcthe increased weight. For initial wing
I ~layout, the values and equationca provided
in table one can be used. Thee were
determined through statistical analysis of
a number of aircraft, using data from
Jane's 11 The World's Aircraft.
Wing sweep is used primarily to reduce
the adverse effects of transonic and

C, - Th60I A tird

a. is.,ci~m--sc H ,,,lW6 60

Fit. 6 U,.- .4),..k tie3 Akbd~aCt 7.5

aerodynamic center moves back to about 40 PIA..S to
percent of the mean aerodynamic chord. The EW ,k&$1$RA-AW__
mean aerodynamic chord and the resulting j"W, A C
aerodynamic center poirt is used to
properly locate the wing. jdlt" 4737 -0919
The shape of the reference wing is inf "(19) 416 -0621
determined by its aspect ratio, taper M.In.clot1h.)1, 10 -0622
ratio, and sweep. These will be determined WAVY5.uo. 5$0 0
now, along with the desired dihedral.
 3.4

- ."l#mZC~ ~,e US
-~~
- ~ ~W 1011MT~TM03
?StAM'PIIO#.
425 5.E
5151AT
ATT",
.

i't 8sW .. , ............ ATT ...

Supersonic fl Theoretically h
Ie
f~oralo 0 oa a et~wing.
20 0.0
it determined ,..
a~ ow m
no
yhe
passing- overactua~volocity of
thewing, but by the, air
the air FU. 9 T-84ft
velocity, f
tersonc in a direction
theoe Pe ancua
This allows
to An elliptical wing planfo is
an Increass,in
use of sweep critical mach number by the difficult and toexpensive
easiest Wing build is tothebuild. The
untapered
n t supersonicbspeyds the lose of lift rectanglar wing. However, the untapted
associated with supersonic flow can be wing has constant cho length along the
reduced the
aftof by sweeping
bcchycone the wing (crcyln(
leading *,jge span, and so
angle the tip whenhascompared
excessive to
chord
the toward
idea
no)ot elliptical wing. This "loads up" the tip,
Figure -8 how. . historical trend line auing the wing to generate more of its
for wing leading edge sweep versus P If towards p
ithan is Ideal. The
number. The historical
this theoretical trend differs from end result wing
is has
that
result for two reasons rectangular aboutansevenuntwisted
percent
In the high speed rangec it becomes wore dra due to lift than an elliptical
euctur. y impractical to sweep the wing wng of thea se aspect ratio.
Pat the each cone. In the transonic speed When a hectangular
wing is tapered, the
regime (roughly ach .9 to 1.2), the tip choas become shorter, alleviating the
desire for subsonic airflow velocity over undesired effects of the constant-cho
the airfoil
tor thn (when
leading measured
edge) perpendicular
Is more rsportant rectangular
of 0.5 almostwing. In fact, a taper those
ratio
completely elisinatea
th teeccts
each con affect, which would for an unswept wings and procens
Indcate zero sweep for ach onec s ift distribution very close to the
The Wing swop aci aspect ratio elliptical ideal (figure 10). This results
toether have a strong e ffect on the wing- in a drag due to lift which is lers than
one p(tchup characteristics. p)tchupe teipcrc e higher, alleiea
dsthe highly undesirable tendency of ical e
uoiael s h t o
aircraft, upon reach sean aperoenicuar rectng rswept at tends to divert the
near stall,
increas to suddenly
the eangle and uncontrollably
of attack. air outboard, towards the tips. this loads
The aircraft up the aps.creating more lift outboard
continues Pitching up until it
stalls and than foran equvalent unswept Wing. To
deais totally out of control. return the lift distribution the
Figure 9 provides bounaries
pe desired elliptical l ft distribution, It
pitchup avoidance for combinations of wing in necessary to increase the amount of
quatter-chord
ratio. Pitchupsweep angle and
avoidance aspect
should beal, taper (is, reduce the'tapor ratio).
considered for military fighters,
arobatilc aircraft, qeneral aviation
aircraft, and trainers, af
Wing taper ratio is the ratio between
the tip hord and the canterlne root u tb
chord. Most wings of con sweep have l dt ih
taper ratio of about 0.4 to 0.5, whileas h ut of
art andct
moat swept t iners, tono if -
wings have a taper ratio o)
about 0.2 to 0.3. * U
along the span of the wing. As proven by A
the Frandtl wing theory early in this "
century, ainimum drag due to l0.t, or
bnduced" drag, occurs when the lift is
distributed in an ellipticl fashion. For

an untwisted and unswept wing, this occurs .3

when the wing planform is shaped as an
ellipse. This result was the basis of the I
graceful wing of the Supermarine Spitfire.
4 A
4 4 '.
see?*f00 LOCAT)09 nr
1, 1 Wf~Iq,. 16W
U.1. ileo,,,,
 3-5 -

Figure 11 illustrates the results of The reverse isitrue- ;for low aspect
NACA wind tunnel tests to determine the ratio 'swept'wings,4 suchas'-'a'delta '-iing',
taper 'ratio required to approximate the Here,, a. sharper '-leading edge, 'provides'
ellipticallift~distributionfor a" swept, greater maximumilift due to the formation
of vortices, which dolay stalling. 1,
untwistedx.,wing.,However, -it- 'sh6uldbe
noted 'that taper~rati6s-much A*-wlerthan Thickness 'also affects the structural
weight of-the,,wing. Statistical -'equations
0.2 should be avoided~forlall "but' 'delta "
! wings, tp~stll.
promote as' . .
a very lowitaperratio'tends"'- to6 for, wing weight t show -eg
-VtraIthat Withe" ately
p r6 ,wiii4

Wing dihedral i"the"angle of the wing inversely with' the square root' of the
with.,respect-to thehorizontal'when seen thickness ratio.
from the-front -Dihedraf tends to'i6r1*the For,initialselection of the thickness
ratio, the historical trend shown in
aircraft level~wheneverit is banked. 'Tfis
is-frequently, and incorrectly, explained figure 12 can be used.
as the result of(atgreater'projected' area
for ,the'wingwhich is',lowered. " ca
'Actually, the-rollinguoment Is caused
5M 'lACAeI

C1731 tLcj~f~PftAF02

I "
'"' -"-"II1I1i
m( S'TA55#It
____
51,1.l .o TU. I

m 0kWU
MMC.MAC14
4

11. 1d m-t,., " Me" sknl.h .w

by a sideslip introduced by the bank W

angle. The aircraft "slides" towards the WING LADING AND THRUST-TO-WEIGHT RATIO
lowered wing, which increases the angle of
attack of the lowered wing. The resulting The thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) and
rolling moment is approximately the wing loading (W/S) are the two most
proportional to the dihedral angle. important parameters affecting aircraft
Wing sweep also produces a rolling performance,
moment due to sideslip, caused by the The thrist-to-Weight ratio directly
change in relative sweep of the left and affects the performance of the aircraft.
right wings. This creates an effective An aircraft with a higher thrust-to-weight
dihedral which is added to any actual ratio will accelerate more quickly, climb
sre rapidly, reach a higher maximum
geometric dihedral. Roughly speaking, ten
degrees of sweep provides about one degree speed, and sustain higher turn rates. On
of effective dihedral, the other hand, the larger engines will
In addition, the position of the wing consume more fuel throughout the mission,
on the fuselage has an positive influence which will drive up the aircraft's takeoff
the gross weight to perform the design
on the effective dihedral, with
greatest effect provided by a high wing. mission.
of Thrust-to-weight ratio is closely
Table 2 provides initial estimates
related to maximum speed. Table three
dihedral.
wing airfoil thickness ratio has a provides curve fit eoustions based upon
maximum mach number or velocity for
direct effect on drag, maximum lift, stall
characteristics, and structural weighth differnt classes of aircraft which Can be
Increases with used a a first estimate for thrust-to-
The subsonic drag
increasing thickness due to increased weight ratio.
For an aircraft which is designed
separation, and the critical Mach number
reduces with increased thickness. The primarily for efficiency during cruise, a
better initial estimate Of the required
thickness ratIO affects the maximum lift
and stall characteristics primarily by its thrust-to-weight ratio can ba obtained by
-thrust matching'. This refers to the
effect on the nose shape. For a wing of
fairly high aspect ratio and moderate comparison of the selected engine's thru t
available during cruise'to the 'ustizatad
sweep, a larger nose radius provides a
higher stall angle and a greater maximum aircraft drag.
lift coefficient. In level -unaccelerating flight, the
Likewise, the
thrust mlst equal.the drag. (assuming
T.db 2 OM.d. .ridh. weight mulstequal'the lift that
the thrust is ali'gned with the flight
VAi4Po'
thethe
Thus, thrust-to-weight ratio
inverse of the lift-to-drag
t________ L. .....Mpath).
must equal
tt7 3w4 0to2 ratio. An estimate of L/D 'obtained
U..d(dl)
32to -l2t .3t -2 through one of seviral methods ia thus
SAMk S"
ts
Swloo ,We. OtwS -'Sto0 -UO, used to determine minimum T/W for cruise.
 317
4 , range' by i loading, such
l~t o~ll+ 3 + that the, paras tragis ea tlytice
Jdfi~htf(dOlnlhtf)! + 064S 05% the induced drag. ,This~yields equation 3
Jeidigflu(dt)) 0514 -0,141 for wenqa,oadongnselcton for-constant-
Jrfp,+0+ ,+ thrust range'optimization.
MdaximumT
Jr Rstge: W/IS
-q1.AICWSt
An aircraft,-designed for, air-to-air
There are many other criteria which can dogfighting must be capable of high turn
set the thrust-to-weight ratio, such as rates., When air-to-air,missiles are -in
climb rate, takeoff distance, and turning use, the firstaircraftto turn towards
performance. These other criteria also the other aircraft enough to launch a
involve the wing loading and are described
later. missile willthe
dogfight, probably,win. In a the
aircraft-with guns-only
higher
The wing loading is the weight of the turn rate will be able to/maneuver behind
aircraft divided 'by the area of the the other. A turn rate superiority of two
reference (not exposed) wing. As with the degrees per second is considered
thrust-to-weight ratio, the tern "wing significant.
loading" normally refers to the takeoff There are two important turn rates. The
wing loading, but can also refer to combat "sustained" turn rate for some flight
and other conditions. condition is the turn rate at which the
Wing loading affects stall speed, climb thrust of the aircraft is just sufficient
rate, takeoff and landing distance, and to maintain velocity in the turn.
turn performance. The wing loading If the aircraft turns at a greater
determines the design lift coefficient, rate, the drag becomes greater than the
and impacts drag through its effect upon available thrust so the aircraft begins to
wetted area and wing span. slow down. The "instantaneous" turn rate
Wing loading has a strong effect upon is the highest turn rate possible,
sized aircraft takeoff gross weight. If ignoring the fact that the aircraft will
the wing loading is reduced, the wing is slow down.
larger. This may improve performance, but The "load factor", or "g-loading",
the additional drag and empty weight due during a turn is the acceleration due to
to the larger wing will increase takeoff lift expressed as a multiple of the
gross weight to perform the mission. standard acceleration due to gravity (32.2
To maximize range during cruise, the ft/sec squared). Load factor ("n") is
wing loading should, if possible, be equal to the lift divided by the
selected
cruise conditions. is a L/D
% high
to provideL/D at the
function of aircraft's
loading weight. a The
to attain required
required wing
turn load

dynamic pressure. The wing loading for factor can be solved as follows:
best 140 increases directly with W .I4 _
increasing dynamic pressure.
A propeller aircraft, which loses
thrust efficiency as speed goes up, gets The sustained turn rate is also
the maximum range when flying at the speed important for success in combat. Sustained
for best L/D, while a jet aircraft turn rate is usually expressed in ters of
maximizes range at a somewhat higher speed the maximum load factor at some flight
where the L/D is slightly reduced. The condition that the aircraft can sustain
speed for best L/D is that speed at which without slowing. For example, the
the parasite drag exactly equals the capability for sustaining five "g's" at
induced drag. Therefore, to maximize range 0.9 Mach number at thirty thousand feet
a propeller aircraft should fly such that may be specified.
equation one is satisfied. The wing load-ng to exactly attain a
required sustained load factor "n" using
qx. $ all of the available thrust can be
deterined by equating the thrust and
During cruise, the lift equals t19 drag, and using the fact that the lift
weight, so the lift coefficient equals the coefficient during maneuver equals the
wing loading divided by the dynamic wing loading times "n", divided by the
pressure. Substitution into equation one dynamic pressure. This yields equation S.
allows solution for the required wing
loading to maximize L/D for a given flight W (T/ a (r1
condition. This result (equation 2) is the
wing loading for maximum range for a
propeller aircraft. The still speed of an aircraft
may also
MMImsm PropasSC WIS -q s"4 define the required wing loading, and is
directly determined by the wing loading
As cne aircraft cruises, its weight and the maximum lift coefficient. Stall
reduces due to the fuel burned, so the speed is a major contributor to flying
wing loading reduces during cruise. To safety, with a substantial number of fatal
optimize the cruise when the wing loading accidents each year due to "failure to
is steadily reducing requires reducing the maintain flying speed".
dynamic pressure by the same percent. This Civil and military desigi,
can be done by reducing velocity, whzichis Specifications establish maximum allowable
undesirable, or by climbing to reduce the stall speeds for various classes of
air density. This range optimizing aircraft. In some cases, the stall speed
technique is known as a "cruise-climb". is axplicitely stated.
A jet aircraft flying a cruise-climb at
a constant thrust setting will maximize
 3-7

TAKEO0ff N El

W L q,SChDV%.,St.,_ ~
BALK5ICE5

Equation 6l states that lift equals LLOT

weight in level, flight, and that~at stall

speed, the aircraft is at maximum lift
coefficient. Equation 7 solves 'for the
required wing loading to attain a given
stall speed with,a.c2rtain maximum lift
4
coefficient. The air density, %gr, is
typically standard value
the sea level orsoele
(.00238 slugs/cubc~foot)' th
5000 foot altitude, hot day value (.00189)
to ensure that the airplane can be flown
into Denver during summer. - A J_
The remaining unknown is the maximum
lift coefficient. This can be very *
difficult to estimate. Values range from TAIFehVPlAR WTU --
1.2 to 1.5 for a plain-wing with no w o
a-,t
flaps to as-much as 5.0 for a wing with U. 14 rktofrdl~wmlat.
large flaps immersed in the propwash or
jetwash. Landing distance can also sometimes
Maximum lift coefficient depends upon determine the required wing loading. Sling
the wing geometry, airfoil shape, flap loading affects the approach speed, which
geometry and span, leading edge slot or determines the touchdown speed, which in
surface turn defines the kinetic energy which must
slat geometry, Reynolds number, be dissipated to bring the aircraft to a
texture, and interference from other parts
of the aircraft such as the fuselage, halt. The kinetic energy, and hence the
nacelles, or pylons. The trim force stopping distance, varies as the square of
provided by the horizontal tail will the touchdown speed.
increase or reduce the maximum lift, In fact, a reasonable first-guess of
depending upon the direction of the trim the total landing distance in feet,
force. If the propwssh or jetwash impinges including obstacle clearance, is
upon the wing or the flaps, it will also approximately 0.3 times the square of the
have a major influence upon maximum lift approach speed in knots.
during power-on conditions. Equation 8 provides a better
For an initial estimate of maximum approximation of the landing distance
test it
lift, is usually
results anw historical to rert
necessary data. to
Figure which
landing be used
can wing to estimate
loading. first maximum
The the term

13 provides maximum lift trends versus represents the ground roll to absorb the
sweep angle for several classes of kinetic energy at touchdown speed. The
aircraft. Note that the maximum lift using constant term, Sa, represents the obstacle
the takeoff flap setting will typically be 6learance distance.
about 80 percent of these landing maximum
values.
Frequently the takeoff distance will _ .
determine the required wing loading.
Figure 14 permits estimation of the - €
takeoff ground roll, takeoff distance to
clear a 50 foot obstacle, and PAR balanced S, 100(ah ). ] €$fop)
field length over a thirty-five foot 600 &, t(ype *fTie( I0ff ioa3oh)
obstacle. - 7.&SSAItlope)
S (STOL.

OTHER AERODYNAMIC CONSIDERATIONS

! 6.1,Lq. 1IeS1p,50)t The overall arrangement and smoothness

s tfL
4W 41D
4at* of the fuselage can have a &ajor effect
upon aerodynamic efficiency. A poorly
designed aircraft can have excessive flow
separation, transonic drag rise, and
supersonic wave drag. Also, a poor wing-
fuselage arrangement can result in lift
losses or disruption of the desired
elliptical lift distribution.
The major requirement for good
aerodynamic design during fuselage layout
9.o)Jm.*u 'a" is the maintenance of smooth longitudinal
Ai "A' contours. These can be provided by the use
of smooth longitudit.al control lines.
9 -------------
N e e w Generally, longitudinal breaks in contour
should follow a radlu at leact equal to
the fuselage diameter at that point.
9I IS d,'3,. lf 113ll
Mf
3-8

, 1 '. -, !? '
: I"
Zr'~~i
-1, A I

~~Fie,
It S Hb.wk'Ohme de6lbelO0.

Fig.IS L..gRidl.Wc..li, g9."l longitudinal change in the aircraft's

total cross-sectional area. In fact, wave
drag is proportional to the second
To prevent separation of the airflow, derivative (is, curvature) of the volume
the aft-fuselage deviation from the distribution plot.
freestream direction should not exceed 10 Thus, a "good"Avolume distribution from
to 12 degrees (figure 15). However, the a wave drag viewpoint isons in which the
air inflow induced by a pusher-propeller required total internal volume is
will prevent separation despite contour distributed longitudinally in a fashion
angles of up to 30 degrees or more. which minimizes curvature in the volume
A lower-surface upsweep of about 25 distribution plot. Several mathematical
degrees can be tolerated for a rear- uolutions to this problem have been found
loading transport aircraft provided that for simple bodies-of-revolution, with the
the fuselage lower corners are fairly "Sears-Haack" body (figure 18) having the
sharp. This causes a vortex flow pattern lowest wave drag.
which reduces the drag penalty. In If an aircraft could be designed with a
general, aft-fuselage upsweep should be volume plot shaped like the Sears-Haack
minimized as much as possible, especially volume distribution it would have the
for high-speed aircraft, minimum wave drag at mach one for a given
For improved aerodynamic efficiency, )ength and total internal volume.
the wing-fuselage connection of most However, it is usually impossible to
aircraft is smoothly blended using a "wing exactly or even approximately match the
fillet" (figure 16).A wing fillet is Sears-Haack shape for a real aircraft.
generally defined by a circular arc of Fortunately, major drag reductions can be
varying radius, tangent to both the wing obtained 'imply by smoothing the volume
and fuselag2. Typically a wing fillet has distribution shape.
a radius of about 10 percent of the root As shown In figure 19, the main
chord length. contributors to the cross-sectional area
are the wing and the fuselage. A typical
luselaqe with a trapezoidal wing will have
,*n irregularly-shaped volume distribution
with the maximum cross-sectioial area
located near the center of the wing. By
"squeezing" the fuselage at that point,
the volume d1stribution shape can be
smoothed and the maximum cross-section
area reduced.
This design technique is referred to am
can
by as such asandfifty
rduce the wave
"area-ruling" or drag
"coke-bottling"
percent. Note that the volume removed at
Sthe center of the fuselage must be
provided elsewhere, either by lengthening
thetfuselage or by i,creasing its cross-
section area in other places.

Low wing, high-speed aircraft will

frequently have a modified wing root
airfoil to further minimize fuselage
interference and shock-inducd drag
Increases. This modification takes the
form of an uncambered or even negatively- o-'.. -,,
cambered airfoil set at a high positive- nf
angle of Incidence.-
For supersonic aircraft, the greatest
aerodynamic impact upon the configuration
layout results from the desire to minimize
supersonic wave drag. Wave drag is a
pressure drag due to the formation of
shocks, and Is analytically related to the ,

0C
'. ep9A. 5EF55NcZAISJ
X~sT
I "I.
ArTINLE.,-1,-
xr
F1 20 Lteoeriii min..
STABILITX AND CONTROL CONSIDERATIONS
:Imean
My
The basic concept of stability is
simply that- a stable aircraft, when
disturbed, tends to return by itself to
its original state (pitch, yaw,
velocity, etc.). "Static stability" is
present if the forces created by the
disturbed state (such an a pitching moment
due to an increased'angle of attack) push
in the correct direction to return the
iriraft to its original state.
Most aircraft are symmetrcel about the
ctnterline, so that moderate chonges in
angle of attack will have little or no
influence upon the yaw or roll Iof the
aircraft. This permits the stability and
control analysis to be divided anto
longitudinal (pitch only) and lateral-
directional (roll and yaw) analysis.
Figure 20 shows the major contributors
to aircraft
center pitchingiraluding
of gravity, moment the
aboutwing,
the
tail, fuselage, and englne contributions.
The wing pitching moment contribution
includes the lift through the wing mean
aerodynamic chord ("MAC"), and the
moment about the MAC. Another wing moment
term is the change in pitching moment due
to flap deflection,
The long moment arm of the tail times
its lift produces a very large moment
which is used to trim and control the
aircraft. While this figure shows tail
lift upwards, under many conditions the
tail lift will be downwards to counteract
the wing pitching moment,
The fuselage and nacelles produce
pitching moments which are difficult to
estimate without wind tunnel data. These
moments are influenced by the upwash and
downwash produced by the wing.
The engine produces three contributions
to pitching moment. The obvious' term is
the thrust tiaes its vertical distance
from the center of gravity. Less obvious
is the vertical force ("Fp") produced at
the propeller disk or inlet front face due
to the turning of the freestream airflow,
Finally, the propwash or jet..induced
flowfield will influence the effective
angle of attack of the tail and possibly
the wing.
Equation 9 expresses the sun of these
moments about the CC. The effect of
elevator deflection Is included in the
tail lift term. Equation 10 expresses the
moments in coefficient form by dividing
all ters by (q Sw c) and expressing the
tail lift in coefficient form.
3-9
Tx, (X .-
+ C..+
)
C... , C (X-, X
~ qS., X
S.',-
TT z+ F (X)
qS, qS.1 '
To simplify the equations, all lengths
can be expressed'as a fraction of the wing
"chord'(c)._These'fractional lengths
are denoted 'by a bar. This leads to
equation II.
For a static "trim" condition, the
roll, pitching-moment must equal zero. The main
flight conditions of concern are the
takeoff and landing with flaps and landing
gear down and the maximum speed. Usually
the most-forward CG position is critical
for trim while the aft-CG position is most
critical for stability as discussed below.
For static stability, any change in
angle of attack must generate moments
which oppose the change. In other words,
the derivative of pitching moment with
respect to angle of attack (eq 12) must be
negative. Note that the wing pitching
moment and thrust terms have dropped out
a they are essentially constant with
rs
pect to angle of attack.
-,
¢-.(-X)¢=-1 , . -W.)
-_ .
wing
Due to downwash effects Che tail angle
of attack does not vary directly dith
aircraft angle of attack, so a derivative
term is included which accounts for the
effects of wing and propeller downwash, as
described later. A similar derivative is
provided for the propeller or Inlet normal
force term (Fp).
The magnitude of the pitching moment
derivative changes with CG location. For
any aircraft there is a CC location which
provides n-j change in pitching moment as
angle of attack is varied. This "airplane
aerodynamic center", or "neutral point
(Xnp)" represents neutral stability and is
the most-aft CG location before the
aircraft becomes unstable.
Equation 13 solves for the neutral
point. Equation 14 then expresses the
pitching moment derivative in terms of the
distance in percent MAC from the neutral
point to the center of gravity. This
percent distance is called the "static
margin", and is the term in parenthesis in
equation 14.
S .
Cj.. - C, -. ,
t.
C. + . C-.
C..,=- C. -T.)
 3-10

C.. pno
sumb- TAIb 4 TM 0e.w ofkk.l
+ . •~tn
-i 4 .Tooci< *aiu,$

.5.•. ',/ Horizontalc r VnI",Ic.,

-I+Hocbdtf 0.50 002

0 50 004,
rL-W AID 0 70 004- -
"t / • -I FRALAAII
I'WL+TA~rJ'Icultr , ,- 020 " 00
0 I
Tw5Lli~rn
ti~ou0 90f 00174
? ~mn bolt "0.70 006
M TAKE 2 3 aiTM
Rf Ien
IMht 0.40
0 70 0 06
0 07

Je tri44<o 100 009

. 0 1 3 SS I'

- ",.d.Won. Lht
11g. 21 TypM p0blo. e-iLC I

Z tfheCG is ahead of theneutral point - r

(positive static margin), the pitching
mosent derivative Is negative so the
aircraft is stable. At the most-aft CG
position,,atypical transport aircraft has
a positive static margin of 5 to 10 1. - sire N5
percent.
While current fighters typically have b.- WIDS
positive static margins of about 5 a. o WIN. MEANo.M
percent, new fighters such as the F-l6 are
being designed with "relaxed static
stability (RSS)" In which a negative
static margin (zero to -15 percent) is
coupled with a computerized flight control
system which deflects the elevator to
provide artificial stability. This reduces
trim drag substantially. ii,. 2 Irn i An
.
Figure 21 illustrates pitching moment
derivative values for several classes of
aircraft. These may be used as targets for One of the most important aspects of
conceptual design. Dynamic analysis during handling qualities is the behavior of the
later stages of design say revise these aircraft at high angles of attack. As the
targets. angle of attack increases, a "good"
Lateral-directional analysis proceeds airplane Perecsmlsuftig
In a fashion siilar to the above, and is warn the pilot, retains control about all t
discussed in my textbook, axis, and stalls straight ahead
For the initial layout, a historical with
immediate recovery and no tendency to
approach is used for the estimation of enter a spin. If a spin is forced, the
tail size. The effectiveness of a tail in "good" airplane can be immediately
generating a moment about the center of recovered.
gravity is proportional to the force (is, A "bad" airplane lose- contrl in one
lift) produced by the tail, and to the or *ore axis as angle of attack increases.
tail soment arm. A typical bad characteristic is the loss
The force due to tail lift is of aileron roll control and an increase in
proportional to the tail area. Thus, the aileron adverse yaw. When the aircraft is
tail effectimes il omeional to the near the stall angle of attack, any enor
tail aeftivees ise
tail
po ar Then nar sllth angle inboard wing enough
product has units of volume, which leads to stall it. With only one wing gonereting
to the "tall volume coefficient" method lift, the "bad" airplane will suddenly
for initial estimation of tail size. The departs into a spin or other uncontrolled
"vertical tail volume coefficient" +
is flight mode from which recovery is
defined by equation 15. The "hnrizontal impossible.
tail volume coefficient" Is shown by There have been many criteria proposed
equation 16. for good departure characteristics, based
upon various aerodynamic derivatives. One
Sn,., 1
bS,/t, useful one is the "Lateral Control
- C.n, Departure Parameter (LCDP)", sometimes
called the "lateral control spin
The definition of tail moent arm is parameter" or the "aileron
shown in figure 22, alono
along with the divergence parameter" (equation 17). The
definitions of tail area. Observe that the LCDP focuses upon the relationship between
horizontal tail area is commonly measured adverse yaw end directional stability.
to the aircraft centerline, while a
canard's area is commonly considered to
include only the exposed area. If twin LCDP a,-C C'
vertical tails are used, the vertical tail
area is the sum of the two.
Table 4 provides typical values for
volume coefficients for different classes CM,.-9C ',
of aircraft. Those values are conservative
averages, and are used in equation 81 or
82 to calculate tail area.
 3-11

Equation 18 shows another departure -

parameter, 'C-n-beta-dynamic', _which
includes the effects of the mass moments
I
UCTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

The primary concern in the development

!
of inertia. Both of these parameters of a good structural arrangement is the
should be positive foe -goods'/departure' provision 'of "efficient "load paths". A
resistance. '! -loadtpath'is the structural .elements by
Figure 23 showsfa cros'spl6t of theALCDP which opposing forces are connected. The
and 'C-n-beta-dynamic' as angle'of attaick, primaryforces to be resolved are the lift
is increased, showing the boundaries for of'the wing and the opposing weight of the
acceptable departure - resistance as, major. parts of the aircraft, such as the
determined from high-g simulator tests engines and payload. The size and weight
using experienced pilots. The earli6r of the structural members is minimized by
Weissman criteria is also shown, locating these opposing forces near to
each other.
Carried to the extreme, this leads to
the Flying Wing concept. In a flying wing
the lift and weight forces can be located
at virtually the same place. In the ideal
caser th~weight of the aircraft would be
distributed, along the span of the wing
exactly as the-lift isdistributed (figure
25). This is referred toas "spanloading".
While ideal spanloading is rarely
SF4 possible, the spanloading concept can be
applied to more-conventional aircraft by
spreading some of the heavy weight items

t lo
Pool Ri MI
14"AILS P00* B%off $
to . i n

an aircraft
once recovet, has departed into a
becomes a high priorityl
W.
T T " 33-- I/
Lspin,
The -ertical ta, plays a key role in spin MGTmlo.
recovery. Figure 24 illustrates the effect
of tail arrangement upon rudder control at
high angles of attack At high angles of
attack the horizontal tail Is stalled$
producing a turbulent wake extending U
upward ,it approximately a forty-five 2:S 4p**.s*
* toi
degree angle which can blanket the rudder.
It is considered desirable that at least
one-third of the rudder be un-blanketed. such as engines out along the wing. This
An empirical method for estimating if an will yield noticable weight savings, but
aircraft will in fact recover from a spin must be balanced against the possible drag
is provided in my textbook. increase.
If the opposing lift and weight forces
cannot be located at the 'eme place, then
some structural path will be required to
/" /
/- ,'-7 /'--;" carry the membrs
structural be reduced
load. Thecan weight of by
those
provising the shortest, straightest load
path possible.
Figure 26 illustrates a structural
arrangement for a small fighter. The major
fusela, loads are carried to the wing by
/lonqevons", which are tyI cally "-" or
/H -shap d extrusions run g form and aft
heavy, d.d their weight should be
minimized by designing the aircraft so
that they are as straight as possible.
For aircraft such as transports which
cutouts and concentrated loads
7_ - have feer
than a fighter, the fuselage wili be
constructed with a large number of
F%24 Tilse
r-" I- qu *i'*
f longerons, or "stringers", which are
approximately evenly distributed around
the circumference of the fuselage. Weight
is minimized when tLe stringers are all
straight and uninterrupted.
 3-1

vm 1W CTimai M00

4,6W, 00Cm

WGIn Hamm05

0f%4F4IC26511U00t11 C 1. .

0111%TUN, L II CO T
&II I

F% 37 Ain C"1141tMWWIM

The lift force on the wing produces a MO -nstess

tremendous bending moment whore the wing
attaches to the fuselage. The means by 74.25 .
nw u
which this bonding moment is carried
across the fuselage is a key paramoter in
the structural arrangement, and will
greatly influence both the structural
weight and the aerodynamic drag of the '"-'n
aircraft. Figure 27 illustrates the four A
at
mor types of wing carrythrough .1rLt1 S05
structure.

PROPULSION CONSIDERATIONS 5 11

figure 28 illustrates the major options

for aircraft propulsion. All aircraft
engines operate by compressing outside CIP*'*ePn01150W*A
air, mixing it with fuel, burning the W
mixture, and extracting energy fr)m the 5K.l. WIS CIMUW4
resulting high pressure hot gases. In a 'A.14
piston-prop, these steps are done
Intermittently in the cylinders via the 115u0o&
reciprocating pistons. In a turbine =r ,fos .
engine, these steps are done continuously,
but in three distinct parts of the engine. I I 3 I S
The selection of the typo of propulsion 5)5.5.(1501
system, i, piston-prop, turboprop,
turbofan, turbojet, ramjet, or other is tlt 29 P,...WtIo. * V,
usually obvious from the design
requirements. Aircraft maximum speed
usually limits the choices as shown in
figure 29.
 3-13 _ L.
Turbojet and turbofan engines are
incapable ofUefficient operation unless '"
the air'enterng'them is slow"d to a'speed
of about.mach 0.4, to 0.5. Thii-is to- keep
the tip, speed of the compressor blades
below sonic speed-relative to'the incoming
air. Slowing down the incoming air is the
primiry purpose of an inlet system.
The instilled performaes' of a jet ., .
engine 'greatly depends upon the air inlet
systi. ,Roughly speaking, a one percent
reduction in inlet pressure recovery ' -
(total ,pressure~delivered to the engine .....
divided by freestream total pressure) will
reduce thrust by about 1.3 percent.
There are four'basic types 'of inlets,
shown in figure 30. The NACA flush inlet
was used by several early jet aircraft but 05
is rarely seen today for aircraft
propulsion systems due to its poor
pressure recovery (is, large losses). 1 30 IW .
The pitot inlet is simply a forward
facing hole. It works very well that the second ramp has a variable angle,
subsonically and fairly well at low and can collapse to open a larger duct
supersonic speeds. This inlet is also opening for subsonic flight.
called a "normal shock inlet" when used Figure 33 summarizes the selection
for supersonic flight ("normal- meaning criteria for different Inlets, based upon
perpendicular in this case). The pitot design mach number. Note that these are
inlet is seen on most subsonic jet approximate criteria, and be overruled by
aircraf.. special considerations.
The remaining inlet types are for
supersonic aircraft, and offer 1IS*rAI(IO.NT
improvements over the performance of the "o"""""'
normal shock inlet at higher supersonic
speeds. The conical inlet (also called a
spike, rouad, or axisymmetric inlet) is
based upon the shock patterns created by
supersonic flow over a cone, Similarly,(
the two-dimensional ramp inlet (alto It J
called a "D-inlet") is based upon the flow "o '",'e
over a wedge. IMM IIItm
External compression inlet types are
shown in figure 31. The greater the number
of oblique shocks employed, the better the
premrurs recovery.
Figure 32 illustrates a typical three- " 2 3
shock external compression inlet. Note s.w.eAtsls

______ The inlet location can have almost as

great of an effect on engine performance
as the inlet geometry. If the inlet is
located where it can ingest a vortex off
ths fuselage or a separated wake from
a
1e5 wing, the resulting inlet flow distortion
can stall the engine. The F-Ill had
S tremendous problems with Its inlets, which
were tucked up under the intersecticn of
the wing and fuselage. The A-10 reraired a
fixed slot on the inboard wing leading
edge to cute a wake ingestion problem.
Figures 34 and 35 illustrate the various
~ options for inlet location.
To design the inlet for a particular
application, capture area must be known.
Figure 36 provides a quick method of
estimating the required inlet capture
area. This method is statistical and is
based upon the design mach number and the
1 31 ! -A -,k. .10
a,"t engine mass flow in pounds per second. A
sore detailed discussion of Inlet location
options and capture area estimation is
1er2Ttuta~tet.,o, available in my textboo%,
The aircraft's forebody builds up a
..
(,- .. *, ../:...,
I...U5 . thick boundary layer. If this low-energy,
(."M W ~ a ""24
iturbulent air is allowed to enter the
engine, it can reduce eagine performance
0el. oubsonically and prevent proper Inlet
operation supersonically. Unless the
airnraft's inlets are very near the nose
(2-4 diazoters), some form of boundary
layer removal should be used just in front
IllIsi Z %rwW " of the *nlet.
K3-1

03M es-cu IDIIm~

WV5ArV 0ALA1YfM
l
1%l17 a-U Ism .,.

o t
A33...
--. .A and ducted to an aft-facing hole.
ta boundary
The channel
layerdiverter is the most common
diverter for supersonic
Fle 34 I kft u--W aircraft. It provides thebest perfomance
and the least weight in most cases,
i
OBSERVABLES CONSIDERATIONS
(Nots: The following material on
observables has been approved for release
by the U. S. Air Force.)

01IMI AFTMan Ever since

aviation attempts the dawn of military
have been made to reduce
the detectability of aircraft. During wwi,
the only "sensor- in use was the
human
eyeball. Camouflage paint
patterns was used on both sidesinto mottled
the chance of detection. reduce
TI.L0O1.005 Rodar is the primary sensor
.ow against aircraft today. used
"Radar" is an
% 35 - qacrunAy Radar
4 for RAdio
consists Detection
of a And Ranging.
transmitter antenna
which broadcasts a directed beam
: €, coo, w. of
*€ ,, , ,*,. electromagnetic radio waves,
receiver antenna which picks and a
radio waves which bounce up the faint
off objects
"€ & -0. datect~on, khe airc.-aft must return such a
t o e by .he radio
t sr"illuminated"
beam. To avoid
low amount of the transmitted radio
that beam
.M. • 'Act the receiver antenna cannot
distinguish between it and the background
t, ft*- .*D- radio static.
The extent to which an object returns
electromagnetic energy is the object's
"Radar Cross Section (RCS)". RCS
Ausually Is
measured in square
decibel square meters, with meters or in
"zero dBsm"
equal to ten to the zero power,
or one
square 5w'ter."Twenty dBsm" equals
ten
the second power, or 100 square meters. to
There are many
phenomena which contribute electromagnetic
to the RCS of
an aircraft. These require
design approaches for RCS reduction, different
and
can produce conflicting design
requirements. Figure 38 illustrates
mI or RCS contributors for a typical, the
KM ote pset untreated fighter aircraft.

Al 050*tV *A'5

The four major varieties Of boundary

layer diverter are shown In figure
step 17. The
diverter Is suitable
subsonic aircraft, and relies only for
upon the
boundtry layer itself for operation.
boundary layer bypass duct is The
simply a (,l
separate ilet duct which admits the O
boundary layer air and ducts it to
an aft-
facing hole. The suction form of boundary
layer diverter is similar. The boundary
layer air is removed by suction
hole, through
or olots Just forward of the inlet
A (01 1M%0

338
O M$ RCS -h .t
 3-15

tin addition to reshaping the aircraft,

detectability can be reduced through' the
go use of skin materials which absorb radar
energy. Such-'materials,,-called' yradar
absorbingmaterials"(
- A), are _typically
composites, -'-uch' -as 'fiberglass or
sw,ea graphite/epoxy embedded..with carbon or
ferrite particles.
infrared detectability is also of
concern to the aircraft designer.-'Many

missiles rely uponIR seekers. Modein IR

are sensitive enough to detect not
Le. PCs only the radiation emitted by the;engine
exhaust and engineahot parts, ' but :also
that emitted by the whole, aircraft skin
Fla.39 Fat RS due to aerodynamic heating at transonic
and supersonic speeds. Also, sensors can
One of the largest contributions to detect the solar IR radiation which
airframe RCS occurs any time a relatively reflects off the skin and cockpit
flat surface of the aircraft is transparencies (windows).
perpendicular to the incoming radar beam. tor
Imagine shining a flashlight at a shiny There are several approaches
aircraft in a dark hanger. Any spots where reduction of IR detectability. The most
the bea is reflected directly back at you potent is the reduction of engine exhaust
will have an enormous RCS contribution, temperatures through use of a high-bypass
Typically this "specular return" occurs engine. This reduces both exhaubt and hot-
on the flat sides of the aircraft part temperatures. However, depending upon
the application this may result in
fuselage, and-along an upright vertical
tail (when the radar is abeam the selection of an engine which is less than
optimal for aircraft sizing, which
aircraft). To prevent these ACS "spikes"
the designer may slopi the fuselage sides, increases aircraft weight and cost.
angle the vertical tails, and so on, so Emissions from the exposed engine hot-
that there are no flat surfaces presented parts (primarily the inside of the nozzle)
towards the radar (figure 39). can be reduced by cooling them with air
Another contributor to airframe RCS bled off the engine compressor. This will
occurs due to the electromagnetic cLrrcnts also increase fuel consumption slightly.
which build up on the skin when Another approach is to hide the nozzles
illuminated by a radar. These currents from the expected location of the threat
flow across the skin until they hit a IR sensor. For example, the H-tails of the
discontinuity such as at a sharp troillng A-10 hide the nozzles from some angles.
edge, a wingtip, a control surface, or a Plume emissions are reduced by quickly
hecro~panel vr Jsoatr",
Join. At mixing
As the exhaust
mentioned, a high-bypass outsideis air.
with theengine the
crackaIicnitiy
around a removable

or radiate electromagnetic brcrgy, some oi best way of accomplishing this. Mixing can
which is transmitted back to t o radar also be enhanced by the use of a wide,
thin nozzle rather than a circular one.
(figure 40). Another technique is to angle the exhaust
upwards or downwards relative to the
freestream. This will have an obvious
thrust penalty, however.
:1
KAr CONFIGURATION LAYOUT METHODS

The process of aircraft conceptual

design includes numerous statistical
estimations, analytical predictions, and
numerical optimizations. However, the
product of aircraft design is a drawing.
While the analytical tasks are vitally
important, one must remember that their
only purpose is to influence the drawing,
for it is the drawing alone which is
ultimately used to fabricate the aircraft.
The design layout process generally
9'h. ' '. begins with a number of conceptual
sketches, Figure 41 illustrates en actual,
unretouched sketch from a Rockwell fighter
This effect is much lower in intensity
than the specular return, but is still conceptual design study. As can be seen,
these sketches are crude and quickly done,
sufficient for detection. The effect is
strongest when the discontinuity is but depict the Major ideas which the
designer intends to incorporate into the
straight and perpendicular to the radar
beam. Thus, the discontinuities such as at actual design layout.
A good sketch will show the overall
the wing and tail trailing edges can be the
swept to minimize the detectability froe aerodynamic concept and indicate
locations of the major internal
the front,
 3-16

K- -
.r1'! _ ! -x,:_
71* -

components. These Should include

landing gear, crew station, payload the
passenger compartment, propulsion systms or
fuel tanks, and any unique internal
components such as a large radar.
The actual design layout Is developed
using the techniques to be discussed
below. Such a design layout is shown a6,
figure 42,

X
courtesy of
International's North American Rockwell
Aircraft
C
Operations. This drawing is typical of the "'"
initial design layouts developed
major airframe companies during by the
design
studies.
\
"Lofting" is the process of defining
the external geometry of the aircraft. For
an initial layout the overall lofting of
the fuselage, wing, tails, and nacelles
sust be defined sufficiently to shown that
these will properly enclose the required Fl43 kt &
internal components while providing
a
smooth aerodynamic contour.
The traditional form of lofting is
based upon a mathematipal curve known as
the "conic". A conic is a second-degree
curve whose family Includes the circle,
ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola. The
conic is best visualized as a slanted cut
through a right circular cone (figure 43).
* ' '
The great advantagA
of the conic is the
wide variety of curves which can be
represented, and the ease with which the
conic can bo constructed on the drafting
table.
A conic curve Is
constructed from
desired start and end points (-A- the
and ' '
"B"), and the desired tangent angles at
. . ....
those points. These tangent angles
intersect at point "C". The shape of the
conic between the points A and B is
defined by some shoulder point "s-. Figure €
44 illustrates the rapid graphical layout .
r' a conic curve.
To create a smoothly-lofted fuselage
using conics it is necessary
ensure that the points A, B, only to
C, and S in
each of the various cross-seutions can
connected longitudinally by a smooth line. be
Figure 45 shows the upper half of a simple
fuselage, in which the A, B, C, and S l ,. '.k h).
points in three cross sections ar,
connected by smooth longitudinal lines.
These are called "longitudinal control
lines" because they control the shapes of
 3-17

SsIl, 11?
W.aV .3
I 111155111 5,.511 . 5 II I 154l 545

X. IIIIl ~I II-III
lIMM I
.111. 511
t110II I • L 55*I
llIS
515
C5il 5I $111145115
•M 151 II l.

the11l~l coni Figur.e 4651o 1511setins

longitudi iI naM onr. lin1es. Is
Ilmig 46 the54115$ lo ni. Ii control
f
desrb1111 di fll I .reate d. i in m
nom I l s s c e II gl
111
Ml~ll1115J~ $1 I.•5111 1.$ 1111 511
51 5.1 5 $11 11
Ide4Illl S 51l 5.1111 II MI 511

the conic cross-sections. Figure 46 shows

the side and top views of these TSS5
longitudinal control lines.
In figure 46, the longitudinal control
lines are used to create a new cross-
section, in between the second and thirdis

for also
Five control stations are required
this example, savings. Note that the biggest savings
47ieih comonar inur figusrese beow
ofs
applicationaai sse.
capabt uhfori
oia esin o aiwoftnn
D mndt fuiea
sseseolaer
and frseg
c T t te ue oreaio, sstet
smooth
ontro re rquireeomatics
Fivestaions irviso plottin,and displayor
cockaell Coeerioft lopmngutodio
this~o stndesgn. aig.Nted
aecomple
oTis haiat nigurt
isd descibn
nwmautera ainsed
I , coewhn Thsdeilu
a is decreibed.I
landing ytote
.dep
rsaigaf
fo th inlsrt coceptalat
theNoteo ovie
partiiat
prtianti maingirra cosncptan
inmaircraft
ins th
Conceptualt
reshaigs course. lou ln gear
Dein horit cioures eo.Shw
CONFIGUaATION DEuELOte Te SYtM

capabiiies IO ndfSEM SYg

DEELPMN

(CDS)

I ln 61e -o d1h1 t 4d

e 11II
4 ~ll .51,€

lit h+ 47 15,IIs5s 4
3-18

WING & FUSELAGE CREATION, AUTOMATIlC SMOOTHING

-7..i.

CROSS SECTION RESHAPING

COCKPIT REQUIREMENTS

xr|O(I1 7ISON1

• (Il € Aw. J~l| fl

4'
 3-19

Fgu. 53

LANDING GEAR KINEMATICS

I-TUNION AXIS
3-20

T.a 6 TY*tMkWdeAri.e

DeS.a f:ras Reqaeetnet tradesGot eo.t~o

TIW,A WIS Da dweSto

A.A LeteeeC,,ae
1&.XSro, .sied , - c*,O,
Hghfittde S T P
Crmr,-e C
BPR.OPR.TIT.etr. ,
SfttwayIet=h Iroaled lhrl ad SFC
M1,60%
1 P 'i
Coeflgratto DesIsmo-rent

rodtypeofetnivws
Wrm1e
-. lMllhly (at#-I~

palteltlee
1t11" teett

TRADE STUDIES

Trade studies produce the answers to

design questions beginning with "what
if..." Proper selection and execution of
the trade studies is as important in
aircraft design as a good configuration
layout or a correct sizing analysis. It is
only through the trade studies that the
true optimum aircraft is determined.
Table 6 shows a number of the trade
studies commonly conducted in aircraft
design. These are loosely/organized into
design trades, requirements trades, and
growth sensitivities. Design trades are
those which are conducted to reduce the
weight and cost of the aircraft to meet a
given set of mission and performance
requirements.
Requirements trades are conducted to
determine the sensitivity of the aircraft
to changes in the design requirements. If
it is found that one requirement is
resulting Itt a large Increase in weight,
the customer say relax it.
Growth sensitivity trade studies
determine how much the aircraft weight
will be impacted if various parameters
should increase between conceptual design
and production. These are typically
presented in a single graph with percent
change in the paramaters on the horizontal
axis, and percent change in takeoff weight
on the vertical axis.
It has been assumed in the above
discussion that the measure of merit for
trade studies is always takeoff gross
weight, even though cost is the final
selection measure in a design competition.
Using minimum weight as the measure of
merit is usually a good approximation to
minimum cost because the acquisition cost
is so strongly driven by the weiqht.
However, life cycle cost is driven largely
by fuel costs, which say not be minimized
by the minimum weight airplane. In such
cases, trade studies with life cycle cost
as the measure of merit can be conducted.
 4-1

SURVEY OF EXPERIMENTALTECHNIQUES FOR PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

by
A.B.Haines
Consultant Aerodynamicist
Aircraft Research Association Ltd
Bedford
United Kingdom

This lecturereviewsthe presentstate-of-the-art In experimental testingIn

large wind tunnels as a meansof predicting aircraft performance. Desirable
and attainable standards of accuracy are defined and the lecture lists and
discussesIn depth the factorsthat contributeto this accuracy. Many
referencesare quoted to enable the reeder to obtain more detailed
Information.

The lecture
discusses
(I) the balances and pressure scanners used for measuring the forces
and pressures.
(11) the significantissuesIn the qualityof the tunnel flow that can
affectthe accuracyof the testdota.

(111) the methodsused for correctingthe test data for the effectsof
tunnelwaillInterferenceat subsonicand transonicspeeds up to
near 9-1.0.
(iv) the methods used establishing the correctionsfor nodel support
Interference In both lowand high speed tunnels.

(v) a methodology for simulating as far as possible In the model tests,

the viscousflowbehaviourover the full-scale aircraftand then.
for extrapolsting the testdata so fuii-scale Reynoldsnumgets.
(vI) the types of models and test rigs used In determiningthe
propulsionInterference effects on both transport (turbofan and
turboprop) and combat aircraft Particular attention Is paid to
the use of powered simulators and to the difficult!s In obtaining
reliable afterbody dragdata.

0 BritishCrownCopyright1991/OD
Published
with the peralsslon
of the Controller
of Her Britannic
Majesty's
Stationery
Office
4-2

modelfor the basicteststo developadvancedwing

designsfor new subsonlctransports for the sakeof
It Is generallyacceptedthat the most reliable the higher test Reynoldsnumber (Ref II). The
methodof predlcting aircraft performance aheadof particularproblems of half-model testing are
the firstflightof a new aircraftIs on the basis discussed In detailIn §11.
of the resultsof modeltestsIn a reputable large
wind tuonel. This doos not mean that all wind Propulsion effectsleadto even greatercomplexity
tunneltestdat. are reliable.To obtainreliable In the caseof combataircraft.For many years,It
results. one needs to' exerclse great care in both has been standard practice(Ref-12)to test a suite
the actualtestingand In the Interpretation of the of at leastthreemodels:the norml complete model
results The present lecture addresses the Issues with the full-scale aircraft linesdistortedas
that have to be borne In mind and containsa littleas possible;a specialintakemodel tested
descriptionof currenttestingpracticeIn both,either in Isolation or preferably with a partial
high and low speedtunnels. Much of the material representation of the forwardfuselageand part of
is to be found In the published literature the wing and finally. an afterbody model to study
Including earlier AGARD reports; the material has the jet effects and the effects of the Inevitable
been updated where necessary, and finally, the text distortion of the rear fuselage on the cotplete
Is supportedby a substantial nmber of referencesmodel. The resultsfrom the testson the. three
which can be studiedfor further details. The models have then to be combined to predictthe
experimental techniquesas describedare broadly aircraftperformance.Combataircrafthevehowever
thosein use In UC tunnelssuch as the RAE 8 ft x I become much more closely coupled and now, In many
ft and 5 metre tunnelsand the AM 9 ft x 8 ft cases,It Isno longervalidto assumethatone can
transonic tunnel,but It Is hopedthat the general treat the Intake, wing and Jet effects as
testingphilosophy and Indeed.much of the detail. Independent. One reallyneedsa poweredsimulator
is a fair reflection of testingpracticeIn other (Ref 13) as for a transport aircraft but this is
countries such as the US and France. more difficult because of the geometrical
constraints. The developrent or appropriate
With mast new aircraft, It is standardpracticeto techniques to copewith thismostdifficult problem
test representative completemodels in both high Is still being addressed In research
and low speed tunols: this probablyImpliestwo establishments.
differentmodels at a differentscale. The test
resultsare reducedto non-dimensional form and, Th, above discussionhas Introduced most of the
assuming It has been possible to test at topics to be covered In the lecturebut It Is
appropriate Mach numbers, Incidences and angles of appropriate to start by considering the likelyalms
sideslip,they can then be used to predict the of the wind tunneltests,the accuracies required
aircraftperformance This may suggestthat all from the tests,and the Instrumentation In use for
thct Is required Is to develop and use makingthe measurements
Instrumentation that will measurethe force,and
moment,on tne moaolto the necessarystandards of 2 TYPICALTESTAIMS
accuracy L.t this would be an over-simplified
picture-there Is muck,more to the story. The Clearly the most Importanttest aim for the
modelwill Shavebeen tested In an airflowthat is prediction of aircraftperformanceIs to measure
constra1ned by the tunnelwails,the flow over the drag or strictlyL/D to the requiredstandardof
modelwill have been affectedby the presenceor accuracy.This Is not howeverthe only testaim'
the supportingrear sting(high speedtunnel)or the limitsof the flightenvelopoare usuallyset
under-mdel struts(lowspeedtunnel)sod finally, by considerations otherthan drag. To definethe
In most cases,the modeltest Reynoldsnumberwill likelytestalms In more detail
be far belowthe valuefor the fullscaleaircraft.
Researchhas aben be all those three problem can
be eliminatedor at least greatly alleviated,for a tranuort aircraft
adaptive walls (Refs 1-4) to reduce wall
Interference. mSgneticsuspension(Refs 5,6) to I To measure the absolute drag and the drag
eliminatesupport Interference and prousurised, increments between different configurations In
cryogenictunnels(Ra 7) to achieve or approach the specifiedcruise conditionsand In the
full-scaleRenolds nuibers. These concepts are second segmnt climb,
howevernot yet available for routinetestingand
so. corrections have to be applied for wall and To define the buffet-onset boundaryand, In
support Interference and methodologies (Ref 8) have particular, the margins to buffet In terms of
to be devised to control the boundary layer CL at the cruiseMich numberor Mach numberat
development over the modelIn orderto simulate, as the cruiseCL.
far as possible, the full-scale flow TheseIssues
are discussedIn detailIn this lecture 3 To measurethe pressuredistributions over the
wing partly for comparisonwith theoretical
Propulsioneffectsar* anotherproblemare. In predictions and, more particularly, to
general,the complete modelsare testedmerelywith understandthe flow In Iportant operating
free-flownacelles although tests with turbine how theios and peprorate should be
powered simulators are sometimes undertaken In iover
lage io speed tunneis suchas the EV tunnel. At Improved,
high speeds, the normal practice with a subsonic 4 To obtain the slope of the lift versus
transportaircraft with pylon-mountedunderuing
naceilesIs to use a largehalf-modeland to teat Incld-ne curve to lp in Forecastingthe
with a poweredor blosnnacelle(Refs9,10)as welI responseto gustoIn cruisingflight.
as with a free flow nacelle as on the complete
The differences between the resultsfor 5 To establish the usableCIux. dpo with d without
model
these two casesprovidecorrectionsfor the Jet tihe hIg-IIft devices deployed at speeds
interfertce that Is not representedin the appropriate to tae-off and landing
completemodeltest In theory,the sa$m approach
aircraftwith
can be used for a subsonictransport
the nacellesmountedon the rear fuselagealthough For a combataircraft
this raisesmore questionsabout tbe use of the
half-modeItechnique In passing,it may be noted I To measurethe drag in iong rangeand loiter
thatthere is a growingtrendto use a largehalf- conditions,
 4-3

2 To measure the drag In.sustained manoeuvri and (c) Accuracy In the sense of forecastIng the drag
high speed dash cndil'tlons, ofith fullscaleaircraft.Thisls;eve -mor
-- difficult Abecause it Introduces ",the
3 Toassess thelikelyusable liftboundary which uncertainties, of -predictIng the scale effect
will-,be determilned not by buffet-onset-as, for betweenmodel and full scale and allowing for
the civilalrciaft,but -probably-,by stability -:the.aeroelastic dlstortions,-ofthe model and
-and control considerat ons such'.as.pltch-up, full jscale aircraft. -Also, one'has to allow
wng, drop, nose slice- ioss of .directional for the dragof the excrescences presenton the
stability,and to suggest -ways-of postponing aircraft butenot represented onthemodel.
theseeffects. Realistic claims itbout-thasttainable~standsrds of
accuracyin reipect"of (a.lfc)-can'be expressed as
4 To determine the post-stall behavlour,folIows:
partIcularlyat low and moderateMach numbers,
(a) Drag differences can be discriminated In the
5 To determine the effectsof externalstoreson best tunnels 'to an accuracy of 10.0001or
overalldrag and to assess the store release betterIn CD,
behaviour.
(b) Thesabsolute dragof the modelconfiguration as
6 To measurethe pressuredistributions over the tested In the tunnelcan be obtainedto an
wing for the same reasonsas for the civil accuracyof tOMO0S In CD,
aircraft(and,if course,to obtainthe loads
incriticalstresing conditions), (c)The drag of the full scale aircraftcan be
forecastto an accuracyof 0.0010In CD.
7 To determine the low speed stalling
characteristicsIncluding the drag and (a) implies that one must be able to meaosuredrag
stabilityand control characteristics as a ot 0.00005In C D or better. To achievethis high
mans of forecasting the usable CLx, with and standard, techniques have to be developed to remove
withoutthe high-lift devicesdeployed. any effectsof variability or unsteadiness In the
Therewill.of course,be othertestalm but the tunnelflow. It Is not simplythat axialforceor
above lists give some Idea of what Is required In drag has to be measured to this standard: other
the Interests of predictingperformance.It will quantitieshave to be measured to similar high
be aeen that drag Is the moat Ilportant measurement standards, og
but stability and controland alsounsteadyeffects
.re all relevant. TunnelTotaland StaticPressures.
N and p : 0.1%
3 ACCURACY STANDARS
Mach number.M : t0.0001.
The moststringent accuracy requIrements as regards
performance prediction are sot by civil transportThis is unlikelyt5 be achievedin the takingof
aircraft.One drag count,1# 0.0001In CD. can be the data but the computerprogramshould Includea
regardedas having a significantImpacton the routinefor correcting the data to this accuracy.
competitive prospe.t*for a new aircraftand on the
rangeand fuel economyof the aircraft. The most Liftcoefficient, CL : 0.001.
authoritative statementon the accuracyrequired
from wind tunneltestsIs that prepared by the Wind It should be noted that this Is an order better
TunnelTestingTechniques (TES)Suboumsittee of the than the figureIn theACARD report (Rof 14) quoted
ACARDFluidDynamics Panel and Issued (Oaf 14) In earlier. Thereare two reasonsfor demandingthis
1982. This statedthat the accuracyrequirements higherstandard. First,when considering the drag
for lift,dragand pitchingmoment,as suggetted by In cruisingconditions, the wave drag Is likelyto
variousresearchand Industrysources. are: be sensitive to smallchangesIn CL and second, in
general, drag Is obtainedby resolving normal and
Liftcoefficient ACL - 0.01 axial forceinto lift and drag. Despitethe fact
Dragcoefficient : c0 - 0.0001 that aircraft now tend to cruise at near-zero
Pitching soment coofficient 4 m - 0.001 Incidence, the tare Cy sin my still be
significant in the cruisebecauseof a difference
In general discussions about attainable accuracy. In angle between the balance and mind axes.
apparentlyconflicting viewsare often expressed.
On the one hand, some wind tunnel tast engineers Incidence. s : 10.03" or If possible, 0.01".
claimthat theycan *nsure drag to an accuracyof
0 00005 in CD. i halif a drag count, while others This Is very 1portant. For a typical example of a
ridiculeany claim to measureto better than 10 civil transportcruisingat CL - 0.51 10.03,is
drag counts. This confusion arises from equivalentto 0.00003In 0 C (again as a result of
falaunderstandlngas as to *hat Is meant by the word the CL sin a term).
'accuracy'.One can and shoulddistinguish betw n
threemesanings: Base pressure, Cpb : 8O.002.

(a) Accuracy as regardsability to obtain drag This value Is based on a fuselagebase area of
Increments, eg differences In drag between two 0.015 x wing area and should be scaled for
different but similarconfigurations. Clearly, different area ratios.
this Is, to tha firstorder,equivaientto a
definition of repeatability although, as noted Formulae for the dependence of CD on these and
below, knowledge of. for example, wall otherparameters are derivedIn detail In Raf 14.
Interference and support Interference effecte Evidencethat the claimsIn (a) can be achieved Is
may stillbe highlyrelevant, providedby Figs I, 2. Fig I shows the current
standard of repeatabilityIn measuringa drag polar
(b) AccuracyIn obtainingthe absolutedrag of the In a given tlestrun In the ARA trmnsonlotunnel.
modelas testedIn the tunnel,havingcorrectedFig 2 shows the current standardof inter-test
for supportand wall Interference.This is repeatability; the threepolarscomparedare taken
clearlymoredifficultthan (s): It dependson from the three differenttest series spanning
knowingall the correctionsprecisely;bias almost a year with the model derigged and
errorsas sell as repeatability standardsare reassembledbetween the three series. The
relevant conclusionsfrom Fig I and other examplesthat
4-4

could, have, been, presented are that, In this ARA

tunnel,it is~possible, in a giventest series,to
repeatthe polr shapeto anaccuracyof -O,00002
BALANCEDESICN SES4TVIY AND CA!IRRATION
4
M
As a generalrule,balancediscrialnatlon
-
needsto
I I
ani-to repeatthe polar level' be-ancordergreaterthanthe required
to 10.00003in C. accuracy. In
The claim that one can, wlthcare, discriminate particular, this, mans 'that the resolution
drag differences betweenconfigurations to0.0001
capability shU-ldbe
for drag,and~lifr coefficients
orbetter therefore appearsentirelyreasonable.0.00001,and0.0001 respectively.Thsise llievd
In.both the ARAtransonic and-RAE 8jft x 8 ft
It Is Important to note that accuracy In tunnels for a typical, qS (ie prodct"of dynamic
even.differences in dragcan
determining depend Cn pressure and modelreference area)of 8000Newtons.
knwirgwhat corrections to appiy,,fortunnel wall The basic data acqufition system does not often
and support Interference. It Is unwise to assume pose A limiltation. ,A.broad, account of the system
that these correctionsremain the same for two In use in the ARA tunnelup to 1989is containedin
similar configurations. This may be true In the Ref 15. This has since been replaced by a more
case of wall interference (although even here It is modern system. The main improvements with the new
importantto associate the drag Increments with the systemare that in Is generally more robust with
correctMach number)but supportInterference can greateramplifier stabilityand with facilitiesfor
undoubtedly change significantlybetween two regular,automaticcalibration of the ampliffers.
configurations of the same model. This will be On paper,the figuresfor diacriminstion given in
discussedIn detailin §9 but, even at this early Ref 15 still apply to, the new.system but the
stage,It may be helpfulto give an example. The importantpoint Is that the theoretical figures
Interferenceof a rear stingcan seriouslyaffect should now be obtainedconsistently in practice.
the drag of the enginenacellesIf theyare mounted Improvements of thisnatureare probablytypical of
on the rear fuselage. Stingcorrections for the what Is currently happeningin othertunnelswhen
aircraftmodelshown In Fig 3a, with and without and if theirsystemsare updated.
the nacelles, are presented In Fig 3b. It will be
seen thatthe difference betweenthe curves.Ia the CeneralpracticeIn manytunnelsIs to use Internal
error,ir the stingcorrections are not applied,In strain gauge balancesmanufactured by the Task
the drag Increment due to the nacellesamountsto Corporation but in the UK. RAE and ARA have, for
0.0004,ie 4 drag counts,at the cruiseMach number many years,used balancesmanufactured In-houseto
0.76.also,the errorvarieswith bothMach number a designorfginally developed at RAE. Fig 4. taken
and CL. The prlmatyreasonwhy the nacelledrag from Ref 16. showsone of thesebalances.It Is In
IncrementIs reducedby the presenceof the sting regularuse In the RAE 0 ft x 8 ft tun.el for
is thatthe taperof the stingreducesthe velocity accurate drag mesurewentsIn tests at total
and localMach numberover the nacelles, for a pressures up to 2 bar at high subsonicspeeds. In
4-enginedaircraftsuch as the VCIO, Fig 3c. the the ARA tunnel, where testsare only possibleat
effectcan be oven greater:typically WCi due to totalpressuresnear I bar, a similarbut smaller
the nacelles for a 4-engined aircraft could be balancedesign Is used; this has a diameter of
reducedby 0.0010or say. 30% leadingto a serious 57.15am or 2.25'and a normal forcecapacityof
underestimate or the drag of the aircraftIf the 7120 Neatons. These balances are machined.
st ig correctons are not applied. generall"In maragingsteel, from a solid block
with no Internal Joints. The positions of the
It my be helpfulat this point, even at the straingaugesare shownin Fig 4; the axialforce
expanse of soe repetition,to list the main Is determinedfrom the strains in the centre
factorsthat contribute to success In obtaining flexures;the other5 components are obtained fro
highaccuracyfromwind tunneltests- the strain gauge bridgeson the frontand rear
cages *head of and behind the axial force unit.
I Resolution of basicinstrumentation, The dennd over the yearsfor evergreateraccuracy
2 Sensitivity of balancesfor forcesand moments has led recently to a reassessment of the basic
and of pressuretransducers for pressures, designwith the aid or finiteelementmethods. The
3 CapabilityIn calibratingbalances and In weakestfeatureof the existingdesign In that it
allowingfordrifts. is oftendifficultto achievea perfectslcp-free
4 Standards of pressurescanningequipment, fit in the taper Joints where tha balance Is
5 Abilityto measuremodelattitude, attached to the sting and to the model wing
6 Ability to cope with any variabilityof mounting block (see Fig 5). In one recent
unsteadiness in tursei flow,. refinment of the design the forward taper Joint
7 Geometricfidelity cf modelas a representationhas been replacedby a flangeJoint: in another.
of the fullscaleaircraft, tha balancehas been made Integral with the sting.
8 Knowledge of how to correctfor tunni wall Also,effortsare beingmade to increasethe length
Interference, between the measuring element and the end
9 Knowledgeof how to correct accuratelyfor fixations.
supportInterference.
10 Abilityto correctfor nacelleInternal drag, It is most importantthat these balancesare
It Knowledge of how to fix transition and of how calibratedregularly:ideally,before and after
to determine the transition position, each test program*. The full balancematrix as
12 SLIII In simulating the full scale boundary generally deterined in the past Includes6 direct
layer behaviour and in extrapolatingthe factors,30 firstorderand 126 secondorderterm
resultsto fullscaleReynoldsnumbers, althoughsae of thesecan be takenas zero. The
13 Knowledgeof the aeroelastic distortionof the full calibrationshould be undertaken *vry few
model, monthsand in the RAE g ft x 8 ft tunnel,a check
14 Abilityto cope with other specialissuesin of the direct factorsand the most significant
half modeltestiS, Interactions is oade at the end of each test with
US Finally - and most Important- the skill. the balancestill Installedin the model. fis:
experience,care and dedication of the tst 6ab give two examplesof results from balance
engineers. recallbrations at ARA: Fig 6a is considered to be a
satisfactory resultbut the hystereals evidentIn
Thu specialproblemaof propulsion testingwill be rig 6b was not accepted and the balncO was
addressedin§§12,13. regauged. The ala is to achievean accuracyof
10.33 Newtons;this correspnds to tO0.05% x full
scale, at the very least, one should aim for
tO.151.
 4-5

I'- The advent of cryogenictunnels Implies that obviouswhat gradientcontrolsthe variationi,n

bal nce callbratlon becomesan even more onerous zero., This difficulty Issnccessfully bypassed In
requirement: one hasto deierolne the dependence of the ARAtransonic and RAE8 ft x 8 ft tunnels, but
the matrixon temperiture. This Is leadingto the not necessarily in all tunnels.by relating all the
development. of automaticcalibration machines, in. data to results obtained In a special traverse
the machine described In, Ref 18, callbration loads through the test Mach nsmber -range at a. given
are -applled to the non-,metric (sting) end of the Incidence or CL. This special,traverse '
balances andthese loads are, measured bya machine undertaken;as the last traverse In, the test when
which Is similarIn design to,an ex, *I balance temperatures havetendedto stabilise, thesedata
Such as those commonlyused In low speed tunnels. pointi'beingcom uted with,respect to the zeros
This machine has been designed as an itemin the measuredat-theend of tbe test (although theremay
Technology Programme In support of the ElI but, be occasions where this appearsto be the wrong
although, cryogenic tunnels.,providd the -pur,to approach: -no-general recommendation on this point
,his development, the mchnes ,whn-mnufacosred can be as good as the exper.ence of the skilled
and available will,no doubt,beused in supportof operator who knows his own equipment). In
testing in Conventional tunnels. The, different unpressurlsed tunnels, repeat traverses are often
principlesof the new automatIcand traditional carried-out In a specialadditionalrun and if
calibration equipment are illustrated In Figs 7a.b necessary,theseare repeateduntil satisfactory
taken fromRef 18. In, the conventional rig. the repeatability (as defined earlier)Is achieved.
balanceIs enclosedIn a sleeveto whichthe.loads
are applied;at each Isading.a realignment of the Drifts In the zeros-are particularly troublesome
rig Is needed In order to ensure that the loads are with hAlf-model balances,. These balances are
appliedIn the correctdirection relativeto the invariablysituated outside the tunnel working
balanceaxes: a laborloun procedure. In the new section and can therefore be affected by
scheme, the model end of the balance is mounted to temperature gradients between the model and tunnel
the 'external balanca' whichIs positioned to have structure. In the ARA tunnel, the half-model
Its reference centre at the same position as the balance Is submerged In a temperature-controlled
reference centre of the balance being calibrated, oil bath but perhaps the only really satisfactory
The 'external balance'Is a very stiffdevice;I approachIs to Insulatethe balanceand to ensure
measuresloadsappliedthrougha systemof sever. that the balancechamberIs freeof draughts.This
loadgeneratorswhichare sufficientto permitthe may be viewed as Idealised advice:it is not easy
srpilcatlon of any single load or load combination.to follow. In the RAE 8 ft x 8 ft tunnel a new
Interferences due to any misalignment are also half-modelbalancerecentlyinstalled has Irroved
measured by the 'external balance'. With the the situation Lut it Is stillstandardpracticeto
conventionalrig, the first and second order applycorrections duringthe computing of the test
Interaction factors are evaluated but there are data. for the effects of a temperature Ltradient
caseswherethis does not appearto be sufficleat between the setric and 'on-metrlc parts f the
to represent the non-linearity in the calibration, balance.
With the new scheme. an algorithm developed at the
Technical University of Darmstadt extractsa third The problems of balance drift have not yet been
order calibrationmtrix. for a six-component fully solvtd In large low speed tunnels where the
calibration, this matrix meds a data set of 1300 balancesare,of course,much larger.This Is why
to 2000 different loading conditions. A special modeIs In these tunnels are still often supported
computerprogramhas to be used in the tunnelsince on under-modelstruts despite the consequent
one cannot invert a third order matrix. To aerodynamic Interferences (see§9).
sumarlse, the primary alms of this development of
are to provide finally,one should note that humiditymy be a
significant sourceof errorif suitablemeasuresto
(a) a totalaccuracy of about0.021, combat It are not taken. Precautionsthat have
(b)a repeatability at least twice as good as the been found to minimise these effects Include:
required ae'curacy. controlling the humidity in the tunnel.
(c) resolution ast least five limes better than waterproofing the gauges, providing power to the
accuracy, balance at all times when the model is in the
(d) a rig that does not need any realigrxent during working section. and finally, storingthe balance.
a calibration, when not in use. in dry conditionsend with the
poweron. Even when theseprecautinsi are taken.
Perhaps the most crucial Issue In balancedesign traditional thinking and experience suggests that
and operating practice lies In how so avoid or at one should start a test on a now model with a
least.how to allow for drifts in the signalsdue shake-dom or warm-uprun. Recent eAidencehas
to temperature effects during a test run. In the indicated however that such a run my, n fact, be
ARAtunnel, the drift in the axial force balance an excellent methodof takingthe Initialaerofor
zero can be equivalentto a drift in CO - tO.0003 the maIn testat a momentwhen the gradients are at
based on a q - 25000 Nfetons/MZ. Balance drift Is theirmost several Even so. the practice could
ImportantIn all tunnels but particularly In still be Justifiedon the grounds that the
pressurlsed tunnels shere there is often shke-down run Isa meansof exercising the balance
appreciable delay betweentaking the Initial zeros and the Joints over the range of test loads. It
and takingthe firstdata point. Is is standard will however, be realised that there will be
practice to thermally watchthe balancebridges. occasions when It falls because of the possibly
This eliminates any change In sensitivity due to a adverse effects on the Initial zero for the main
uniformchange In temperaturebut It does not run.
compensatefor changes In Young's modulus or for
the really important point that the balance zeros 5 rcOUI =aFOR pgrSSURtE MEASURDAM S
are always sensitive,to a greater or lesser
extent, to temperaturegradients across the .L.EEM1. e Transducers
balance. Measurements of the localtemperatures at
points on an Internal balance have shownthat the For many years, pressures have been measured by
changes In these local temperatures lag various types of pressure transducer. These
considerably behind the changes in tunnel total convertpressureInto the positionof a needle on a
temrature. There Is therefore no virtue in mechanical pressure gauge or into an electrical
relating the balance drifts to the tunnel output such as voltage or current. in wind tunnel
temperature. In any case, It Is a teaperature testing, the voitage output type of sensor Is used
gradientthat matters but It is not mmedlately almost exclusively The sensing eltment In high
4-6

qualitypressuretransducers Is a silicondiaphragm to two or more !nputports, a calibration of the

that fors a normal Wdheatstone circuit. pressure transducer Is perforned with every scan
Unfortunately, the electrical characteristics of Various establishments therefoee invest ed heavily
silicon aie highly dependent on temperature.in Scanivalves Pressuresat ore than 600
resul-lng'in both the 'sensitivity and offset tappingson the wing have been measuredat ARA In
voltagevaryingwith time If"the temperatureis tests on complete aircraft models using 16
changing. Variousmethods have been used'to ScanilvalVes Instilled In the fuselage.The D- and
overcome these temperature problem. The Stype'Scanivilves-- the'types most frequentlyused
transducerscan be calibratedin -situduring a Inwind tunnels- have diameters of 3.18 and 2.30
test: a -numberof accuratelyknown,calibration cm respectively.
pressuresare appliedtol the transducerand -at
least,a 2-pint calibration performed to establish One has to admit,however, that the physicalnature
the sen.qitlvlty andoffset on-line. Alternatively,of an MSP sensorsuchas a Scanivalve leadsto soew
for differential type transducers,the two pressure problems. The rate of takingthe data is not as
sensing ports can be pneumaticallyconnected fastas one wouldlike. This Is partlybecauseof
togetherto makea meeasurement of the actual.offsetIts mechanical design and partly becauseof the
voltage,makingthe assumptlon thatthe sensitivityneed to allowthe pressureto settleeverytime the
has not changed. A third method that is not so valveIs stepped. The Internal volumein the rotor
ofte-used is to calibratethe transducer against and transducer cavity is the main reasonfor the
temperature and to measurethe temperature at the pneumatic settlingtime. Whenthe rotormovesfrom
momentof making the measurement. At 1990prices, one port to the next, a trapped volume of air Is
a typicalqualitypressuretransducercostsabout retainedresultingIn an errorat the Irstantof
1350. connection to the second port and the scanner
itselfprovides's reservoir whosepressurerequires
Particular care has to be taken about the choice of finite time to settle to the value or the external
Instruments to masure the tunnel reference pressure to be measured. The usual method for
pressures.In the RAE 8 ft x 8 ft tunneland the chezkingwhetherthe scanningspeed Is acceptable
ARA trtusonte tunnl, they are not measured by the or not Is to repeat a given pressure measurement on
sam tp of transducers as thoseused for pressure two successive ports on the valve and arrange for
measurements on the a.tual models. In the RAE the previous port to be connectedto a very
tunnel,the referenc,pressuresare measuredby different pressure. As an obviousexanple, let us
self-balancing capsule manometers. The Instrumert Imaginethat two reference pressures - tunnel total
measuring stagnation (%otal) pressure has A pressureand free-strea static pressure - are
Sresolution of 0.34mbaror 0.017%of the stagnation connectedto successiveports with the static
pressur* at two ataospherea pressure and those pressure repeated on the following port. If the
recordingstatic pressureshave a resolutionof two values of the staticpressuredisagree,this
0.17 abar. In the ARA tunnel. the reference will Indicate that the scanning speed is too rast
pressuresare measured by Rusks type DtR6000 to be able to rely on sue-essive portscopingwith
preasure gauges (0 - 2.5 bar) which have a pressuredifferences as gleatas thatbetweentotal
specifiedaccuracyof s 0.04 mb, The readingof and free-stress static pressure. The experienced
these gauges Is matched In the data reduction engineermy stillfeelthat the scanningspeedIs
processto the outputfroma DruckDP1140precision acceptablefor all other pressure differences
baromtsr at the start of every run. This encountered in the test and the onlyactionthatIs
barometer has a specified accuracy of 50.1S abar. necessary is to ignore the first measurement of
Thus, the maxlmume.rors in dynamic pressure and tunnel static pressure,I* the one letedlately
Mach numberarisingfrom the use of thesegauges followingthe total pressure. The acceptable
are 90.02%and t0.0001 respectively scanningspeedis likelyto vary fromonc fscillty
to smother bcause of thu different tube lengths.
It Is alsonecessaryin everytest to measurebass In some facilitlesand with some models, for
pressures to high accuracy.Theseare measuredin example,the Scanivalves are meuntedoutside the
the ARA tunnel with 345 abar Oruck type PDCR22 tunnel In the ARA tunnel, exporience has shown
differential transducers. These have a specifled that generally,It is acceptable to scan at 10
accuracy of 0 06%full scale which, when converted ports per second, thus giving about 5 seconds for
to C D with a typicalvalue of base area to wing the completescan at more than S prts per second.
reference area of 0.015, gives a possible error in Even a time skew of 3 tconds can degrade the
CD of only0.00001. consistency and hence, accuracy of the data. This
Is the dol,.ant meotlv#bhilnd the grosing trend in
L1_1. UAJ. the world in general to abandon lSPs in favour of
lictronically Scanned Pressure Sensors (ESPs).
In general, there is not enough space to mount many
individual transducers in a Olnd tunnelmodel. It SA Electronically ScannedPretuqgjSenrgESPI
Is not entirelysatisfactory to mountthemexternal
to the modelbecausethe lengthof pressuretubing USpi et fundamentally different from MSPs. It Is
betweenthe pressu-etapplngswhere tha masurement not simply that the scanning Is carried out
is required and sh transducer Itself leads to electronicallyrather than mechanically. each
significantlags. To avoid they* problems, pressureporthas Its on separate transducer and,
Mechanically ScannedPressure Scanners(MSPs)sore with an ESP. it Ix the output from these
deeloped by the ScanivalveCorporationin San transducers that Is scanned eectronically either
Diegoalthoughthereare otherson the market, sequentially or randomlyand then amplifiedto
nitils9 electrical noiseproblems.
A Scanlvalveprovides a means of connectinga
numb*r(typically 49) of pressureportsto a single ESP sensors were firstdevelopedin the aid-2970s
transducer A motordriverotatesa shaft to which by several transducer manufacturers and research
Is connecteda rotor Into which Is cut a channel agencies, These Included the Scanlvalve
which pnesmatlcally connects the centrally mounted Corporation, fullt, NASALangley Research Center
transducer to the various Input connec-lons In and NASAAmesPesearch Center. The ailm were to
many cases, a single motor drive unit can operate produce compact units capable of giving good
severalrotorunits The factthatthereis only a accuracyand highscanningrates. Two of the above
single transducer brings several attendant organisations - the Scanlvalve Corporation and NASA
advantages First,It reduce,the cost,second,It Langley- producedviableproductswhichire now
greatlyreducesthe spae neededin thiamodel and availableon the commercialmarket, NASA
finally,If knowncalibration pressures are applied Langleydesignhaving been developedand marketed
 4-7

by PressureSystem Ircorporated.Earlydetailed Te0 research establishments- NLR In the

descriptionsof the NASA Langley design are Netherlands and RAE Bedfordin England- have been
contained In Refs 19-22. The approxinateparticularly InvolvidIn developing techniques for
dimensions of the spacerequiredIn a modelfor a the measurementof unsteadypressures. In the
single48-ay unit are 4.6 cm x 6.8 cm x 2.9 96 cm. original approach at NLR, a large number of
It Is possibleto convertsucha unit Intoa -way pressuretubeswere connected to a salllnumberof
unit althoughthesehave only been used on rare scanning valves (Ref 23) and each valve was
occasions. Using these dul units,wind tunnel connectedto a groupof tubes in sequence. This
testshave been modeon on- relatively smallmodel approachwas relatively cheapbut -the Infornatlon
equippedwith alnost800 pressuretappingsand It obtainedwas sonehat limited:It was not possible
is realisticto Imglne that testswith 1000 or to maure transientpressuresor to perform
more tappingsare now possibli. cross-correlatIons when onlyone scanningvalvewas
used. The RAE approachwas mote expensivebut
The outputfromthe separatetransducers Is scanned providedmuchcioreInfornatios; In this approach, a
by a digitallyaddressedanmlogue multiplexer.largenumberof transducers (typically NuliteXCQL
Since the transducersare being electronically 093/25A transducers) are mounted In the actual
scanned, data rates In excess of 20.000 model surface: each transducerhas Its own
measurements per secondare possible Data skew Is amplifier and simultaneous measurements are sda or
thereforeeffectivelyeliminated. Since every the man pressure,the unsteadycomponent coherent
pressureto be masured Is permanently connectedto with the nodalmotion and therandom conponent of
a transducer, thereIs no pneumatl settling time pressureat everypoint. Thisapproachcan provide
otherthan thatImposed by the volumeof connectingtransientand cross-correlation data. Detailsof
pipingand so. thereare no 'carry-over' problems. the technique are to be foundInRef 24 shareIt Is
Temperature drifts have still to be addressed but notedthata methodhad to be devisedto compensate
the units contain a built-in calibration facility, for the fact that the output from the transducers
A preunatically actuated calibrationvalve In depended slightly but significantly on temperature
Included In each unit. This valve has two oth as regads zero and sensitivity,The RAE
positions; noml and calibration When in the technique ,.Iowsone to abandon the sonewhat bulky
calibration node, a known calibration pressure compensation resistorsuppliedwith the transducers
(knownby reference to a Ruskagauge or barometer) ard so to take full advantage of the very snIl
can be appliedto all the transducers; by applying size of the actual transducer. The data Is then
a series of say, 5 such pressures, the zerooffset, acquired and processed on-line into coefficient
sensitivity and non-linearity of each transducer Is form by the Presto system described In Ref 2$.
determined It Is good practice to connect at SAt.etypicalresultsobtainedby this approachare
leastone calibration pressureto at leastone of presented In Ref 26.
the transducersthro.yhoutthe test to monitor
whether a recalbration Ia required. LimitedUK KL later Introduced(Ruf 27) a combinedsysem
experience suggeststhat a recallbration Is alsays hich enables comparisonsto be aide between
necessaryat the end of everypolar In a typical results obtainedwith the two approaches
coarplete modeltest. The IssueIs crucialfromthe
point of view of accuracy:withoutthe repeated
recalibrations. errorsof the orderof 2-3 abar or
morewouldbe coonoplace as comparedwithA target
accuracyof 0.2 - 0 3 mar The tim takenfor an The abovediscussionshouldnot be takento imply
In-sltucalibration dependson the volume of the that unsteady pressureshave to be measured to
tubingbetweenthe calibration pressuresourceand obtain a ,,sdlctIon of a buffet-onset boundary
the ESP sensor itA can thereforevary between Othermethodsthat are more likelyto be used in
secondain a closer,coupledsituationto several routinetestinginclude
enutes in a reall , wite, tunnelenvirorment.In
the case of the A, tumunelthe requiredtle is (a) aeaureents of the unstesdywing root bending
about 2 5 - 3 ainutes These recalibretIons, moment by meansof atrain gauges mountedIn
therefore, slightlyerode the besicadvantageof pukets In the wing surface,
[SP sensors for speedingup the rte of data
taking Anoter very significant point in favour (b) awasurenenta of the steadypressuresnear the
of [P sersoreIs thatthe onlymovingpart in them wing trailingedge.
Is tilevalvefor changingto the calibratlot eode.
this holdsout the hpe that they will need far (c) noting the departuresIn the lift versus
loss maintellwe than s.Pr Incidence cures from a basically linear trend,
and
The authorIs conscious thathis personalknowledge
of experience wilh ESP sensorsis nuch less than (d) noting the breaks in thaeaxial forceversus
that of eany tunnelengineersIn other countries Incidence cv..,
it eemisfair to concludebeever that the claies
for speedingup the rate of data takingare fully
Justified with tire qualfication noted above Til
only sorI of cautionis that clearly, greatcare All these wethodsrequireconsiderable skill and
and technique discipline sillhave to be practised experience In Interpretation'kinkology' applied
If we are going to use thteland mintain the to the lift curves Is particularly prone to
standardsof accuracy to which we have beco. misinterpretation because flow separation giving a
accutoned loss in lift (and possiblybuffet)on one part of
sha sing ay be asked In the overallresultsby
a . . L . some other change In fMw on another part of the
winj, giving altIncrease In local lift The best
Althoughthis licture concernsexperiaental methods advice Is to realise that no one mthod will be
for performance, it is stillrelevortto includea successful in everysituation. therefore, apply all
few words about the aeasuremt4tof uSteady possible methods,comparethe results, Interpret
pressures buffet onset for civil aircraft and any discrepancies In term of the flow behaviour
buffet kenetratlonfor Cilitary aircraft are over the wing and. In crucialand difficult cases.
Importantconsiderationshrten delerminingusable masure rmtsteady pressures In appropriate
lift 'oundaries locations
4-8

6 DETERMINATIONOF MODELATTITUDE 7 WIND TZN EL FLOE t~iVtROsinTr

It was noted, In §3 that It is vital to be able to It is self-evidentthat the accuracy of th,

measure angle of attack to a high degree of performance data obtained fro- wind tunnel tests
bccuracy Simpleexamination of the equation dependson the reliability and applicability ol t lo
calibration of the flow in the empty tunnel and on
CD - C sCins + CAcoso whether sound techniques have been developed for
copingwithany variabilitylor unsteadiness In the
shows that ax has to be knownto an accuracy of flow. The discussion below Is not Intended to be
s0.03" .in order to achieve 10.0001 In CD at a comprehensive; It merely highlightssome Issues
typicalcruiseCL of 0.5. This is thereforethe that hve been foundto be.particularly Important
minimum requirement for a desirable accuracy In In ti(, context of model testing to obtain
modelattitudemeasurement: ideally.one wantsan performance data.
even betterresolution than t0.01".
7A1 Empty Tunnel Flow Calibration
ARAhave, for many years, used a Sunstrand QAP900
accelerometer as aa 'incidence meter' (Ref 15). In the emptytunnelflow calibration, the flow In
Experience has shownthat,with standardfiltering the workingsection is relatedto two reference
techniques, these Incidence reters can still be aressures which usually approximate to the free
used successfully in conditions mar butfet-onset,stream static and stagnationpressures. In a
SoMe refinements In the technique havehoweverbeen tunnel with solid walls, the referencestatic
Introducedsince Ref IS was published. For pressureIs usuallymeasuredon the tunnelwall at
exampie, the accelerometer Is now mountedIntegral a hole which Is sufficiently far upstream of the
ulth the balance to give added rigidity: modelstationfor the pressurenot to be affected
temperatures are sensed on the InstrumentItself by the presenceof the nodelwhen It is present.
and a systematic pitchcalibration from 0* to 90' In a ventilated tunnel,le a tunnelwith slottedor
Is carried out before and after each test. perforatedwalls. the pressure in the plenum
Corrections for the change in zero and sensitivity chambersurrounding the workingsectionIs usually
of the Instrument based on the measured taken as the referencestatic pressure The
temperatures are appliedIn the computingof the reference stagnation pressureIs usuallysensedat
test data The change In zero Is the more a hole In the wall of the settlinglengthupstream
significant effect,typically, this can amountto of the contraction ahead of the workingsection.
0.00061'per degree C and a typicalchange In The static pressure and hence, Mach-number
Instrument temperature duringa run can be about distributionalong the length of the working
IS.C with these refinements, the resulting section Is obtained most accurately by measuring
accuracy in and near the cruise condition nowmeets the pressures along the side of a long tube of
the targetas set out In §3. circular cross-section mounted In the tunnel with
the rear end In tire normal model support prd with
Is the RAE8 ft x 8 ft tunnel, on the other hand, the for*ard end extending far forward ahead of the
model attitude Ismeasured by the more traditional contraction (Ref28), In thisway, the presence of
method of measuringthe quadrant attitude and the tube does not modify the flow through the
applyingcorrectionsfor the deflections of the working section Typical targets for this
sting under load The quadrant attitude Is distribution are 10.002 In Mach number at subsonic
measuredby an absoluteencoderwith a resolutionapeeds and t0 005 at transonicspeeds In
t0 001 and calibrations have shown that the drive addition, the calibration normally Includes
is sensibly liner with no measurable hysteresis measurements of the distributionsof static
lhe total deflection of the model-sting assembly pressure and flow angle over the working section
can be of the orderof I at a stagnation pressure cross-section at various stations along the length
of 2 bar and at highsubsonicspeeds Typicallyin likely to be occupied by a model
a calibration,there are sal11 shifts between
anglesfor Increasing and decreasing loadsowingto This description of a tunnelcalibration may appear
hysteresiseffects in the joints The men to be simple textbook material but several
calibration is used to determine angular Important pointsshouldbe noted.
miealignments betweenthe balance and rollaxes,on (I) Mny tunnelcalibrations sere made a long
the oxe hand, and the roll axis and the fuselage time ago shen standards were possibly not
datua on the other In both cases at zero-gravity as stringent ae they are today For
conditions example,Ref 28 (writtenby the present
author?) in discussing the original
One should not dismissthe different approachesin calibrationof the ARA transonictunnel.
the two tunne ls as Implying a difference of opinion suggests that the Mach number based on
between t*o groups of tunnel enginers It Is In plenus chamberstaticpressurecan be used
fact a logical consequenceof the different as a reliable Indication of the free-
engineering characteristics of the two model stream Mach number at the model provided
supportrigs The quadrant In the RAE tunnel Is that the convergenceof the working
very stiffand specifically much stifferthan the sectionwallsdoes not exceed12 minutes.
model curt in the ARA tunnel On the otherhand. however,a graph In Ref 20 showsthat at
modelbounceas one approaches an! enters buffet Is 12 minutes convergence. there Is a
muchmore noticeable In the RAE tunnel Both these discrepancy of approaching 0 003 In Mach
characteristics favour the use of the traditional number This specific point is
methodin the RAE tunneland of an Incidence moter unimportantbecause the ARA tunnel, In
in the ARA tunnel The general messageIs that the routine testing, is never operated with
best method of determining -,del attit.de can vary the sails converged but It Is quoted to
from tunnel to tunnel and should be chosen In the Illistrate how standards have becomem re
lightof experience In each particular facility strictover the years.today,corrections
would certainly be Included for
differences of 0 001 or even 0 0003 in
Ability to measure model attitnde to high accuracy Mach noaber Also. it Is now recognlsed
is. of course, only part o. -he story, one also that tunnels should be recallbrated on a
needs to know the tunnel flo angle to the sam regular bas's and that customers need to
order of .- crcy This oil1 be discussed In §1 checkthe. toe calibration is sufficiently
bolos,tire r ,-ai approach ,n a complete model test comprehensive to satisfytheirparticular
is to tet ulth tie node) both erect atd Inverted requirements
 aThe
developmentof the roundtry laye hnl flng
has been detected In other
along the walls of the unnel controls not tunnels. The explanation for the presence
only thee locity gradientthrough the of these /artlessay'vsryfrom tuhnelto
tunn a (and hence the empty tunnel tunnel,but It Is of Interest to not that,
buoyancy corrections) but also the Io tA ho nnl, mhl 'feature In the
relationship between the free-stresm Mach tunnel flow Ilas-esn completely eliminated
number at the model and the value based on b h'nrdcin fahnyobI h
the reference 'pressures. it follows that .settling Chamber downstreaml of the 4th
in a variable density tunnel, this corner. A flow angle 'distribution such as
relationship should be determined at all that show- In Fig 9 modifies the twist of
stagnation pressureslikelyto be used for a wing of a half-model mounted on a
testing. This pointhas not alwaysbeen balancebelow the tunnel floor. Tests
appreciated but It is now often quoted as were made in the NASAAmesIt ft x 11 ft
a leading example of what has becomeknown tunnel on a symmetrical wing half-model
as a pseudo-Reynolds effect (Ref 29). with the results shownin Fig 10. The
Thin pointis particularly importantwhen mean derivedtunnel flow angle over the
the mia of the test Is to determinethe wing was appreciablydifferentaccording
forces on merely part of the model to whetherone used the lift-incidence or
Installed in the tunnel.For example, drag polars to derive the figure and
When testing an afterbody model, the hence. one cannot remove the effects of
ac uracy of the afterbody drag Is the empty tunnel flow angle by a simple
ritically depondent on whether the change In Incidence datum.
presurs on the front face of the
afterbody has been related to the correct Ceneral experience shows that this
fre-stream staticpressure. it can be flow-angle problemIs less seriouswhen
shownthat an errorof one drag count In testln complete models: the discrete
afterbody drag will resultfrom the very vort'lesare generallynot presentnear
smail errors, 6M. In free-stream Mach the centre of the tunnel stream and, to
numberas givenby the curve plottedIn the first order. one can remove the
Fig Oa. ExtremeaccuracyIn the tunnel effectsof smailvariations In flowangle
calibration is therefore requiredfor this across the span of the model wing by
type of testing, Ignoring the possible testing the modelerect and Inverted. In
variationIn the tunnelcalibration with effect,one uses the modelwing as a pitch
Atagnatlon pressureIn a variabledensity meter to determinethe man flow angle
tunnel can result in completelywrong over the model. Again,it is or interest
conclusions being drawn about the to note that the insertion of the
variationof afterbody drag with Reynolds honeycombIn the ARA tunnelappears to
number This Is shown by the exampleIn have had the efrect of producing mean flow
Fig 8b takenfromRef 30. it willbe seen angles that,at a givenMach number,are
that Ignoring the change in the virtually Independent of the wing
calibration with stagnation pressure Is planfore. thiswas tot the case beforethe
sufficientto change the sign of the honeycombwas Introduced. Titls suggests
variation of afterbody drag with Reynolds that even nar the tunnel centre-plane,
number The surprisingtrend In the the Introduction of the honeycombhas
Incorrect resultspuzzledresearchers for Improvedthe floiangledistribution
many years before the error was
discovered, The best discussionof the
possible effects of not calibrating a
variable density tunnel at all test
ReynoldsnumbersIs givenin Ref 31 One 7 2y.jjajbi tv and Unsteadlnoss of TunnelFlow
should of courue not go to the other
extree of dismissingall changes with As noted earlierin §S.3, the ai should be to
Reynolds nuaher as pseudo-Reynolds maintainthe testMach numberIn a testpolarto an
effects Thos discused laterin §10 are accuracy of 10 0001 and. If this cannot be
genuinet achieved,to correct the data to this standardIn
the post-processing routines fig II presents
(Iii) The emphasis in many calibrations In evidence to support this statemnt At high (iL'
transonictunnoissas originallyplaced then savodrag (or possibly.flow separation) is
marely on the standard of the longitudinalbeglnnt.. to appear, the sesitivity of the drag to
distribution of tch nu ber and arguably. snall changes in Mach nuaboarIncreases rapidly. th
there *as not enough eaphasis on the cruise condition Is likely to be near or jus
uniformityof the flow,particularly as beyondthe breakin thisC o - CI curve
regardsflow angle,oer the cross-section
of the working section the trend, Regarding tot effects of flow unsteadiness,
already mentioned to assess tho fltuat Ions at high frequency ar* generally
perforsanceof ew civ;ilaircraft by filtered out electrically this leavesthe effects
testing relatively large half-models, has of fluctuations at low frequency Takingthe ARA
strengthened the need to look at this tunnel as an example, fig 12 shows that the flow
uniformity, or lackof It. with a critical oscillates at low frequency, notablyat 0 25 Hz and
eye it has been reallsed that, In ca.y at 0 3 it Particularly at the higher lift
tut not all high spoad tunnels, the coefficient, the model Incidence and the forces
distribution of fio angle is far from respondto this flow oscillation To meet this
p. "c t A goodexample of this potential situation, It Is standardARA practiceto record48
prob €% is to be foundIn Ref II Results data point samplesover a poriod of 4 & - 6
are presented for the NASAAmesII x II seconds. The variation Of CD withinthesesamples
Unitary Wind tunl, Fig 9 shows the can be quitssubstantial (seeRef 15) but even so,
variation of cross-flow anglewith height longexperience has Indicated thata simpleaverage
=hove the tunnelfloor, a variation, of up of such samplesgenerally gives A repeatability of
to s0 03, Is Indicated The NASAAmes betterthan 10 00001 In CD figs I. 2 providethe
turnl is certainly not unique in this uit nate evidvne thatthe procedure Is successful.
respect She existence of two vortices In at least up to and beyond the likely cruise
the flow above the floor sd below the conditions
73 Stream Turbulence 'nd Acoustic Spectrum
The flow In any tunnel always contains a sall
amount of unsteadiness in the form of both velocity
and pressure fluctuations. Low speed tunnels are
generally assessed In terms of their velocity
fluctuations, Is their turbulence, but It has
generally been assued In many papers that, at
transonic speeds, the acoustic no!se spectrum is
the controlling variable.
The nost obvious effect of the streotm turbulence
and nolse spectrum Is on the position of boundary
layer transition on a model under test.
Comparative tests have therefore been made In all
the major transonic tunnels In the Western world to
determine the position of transition on a 10' cone
(Refs 33. 34). The observed transition Reynolds
numbera from these tests are shown plotted against
pressure fluctuation level In Fig 13 This picture
reproduced from Rer 33 appears to establish an
approximate correlation with the pressure
fluctuation level but It will be noted that there
Is a 120% scatter about a mean line and probably,
this should not be dismissed as scatter. Indee', a
later re-analysis of some of the data In Ref 35 has
cast doubt on the original conclusion. In Fig 14.
taken from Ref 35, the results for 4 leading NASA
tunnels are plotted against bath velocity and
pressure fluctuation. This fl;urte ma appear
difficult to understand at first sight, but the
authora of Ref 35 argue that it shows that when the
results are plotted against the pressure
fluctuation. toey show considerable scatter
whereas. hen they are plotted against the velocity
fluctuation. they correlate much better.
authors suggest"na relationship of the form:
- trf(pu) rStream
Rt,
shere (pu) Is the momentum fluctuation and n - l/
for the begnmning and a - 1/6 for the end of the
transition region. Further research appears to be
needed to clarify the subject- fur os 'e. the
correlation In ig 1h4 in jet fr the
correlation in Fig 14 Ia proposed fur the rall
Mach-humber range from 0 I to I 2 shre,., if the
data are analysed In terns of the tunnel noise one
often finds that It, tend, to decrease with Mach
number up to M - 0 end then to increase rapidly
through the transonic speed range, as might have
been expected since, In many tunnels, the pressure
flucutations are found to reach a maxils near M -
0 9 and then to decrease
For most axlslng transonic tunnels, tihe transition
Reynolds number for the I0' cone at N - 0 8 1lit In
the range 3 x 104 - 5 . l04 factors that can
affect the precise value Include
(I) the noise and turbulence being propagated
from upstream, eg from the valves In a
blowdown tunnel and %hether or not there
has been any treatment In the aettling
chamber aimed at damping these
dlsturbhnces.
(it) the nature of the tunnel walls. eg whethar
they are solid. slotted or perforated and
shether there has been any attempt to
alleviate their nolse-generation
properties,
(111) shether the tunnel design contains any
feature such as a second throat to prevent
the upstream propagation of noise frum the
downstream diffuser
With the Increased interest In laminar flow
aircraft design, all ths Issues are now receiving
close attention both In modifications to existing
tunnels, eg the honeycomb In the ARA tunnel (Ref
32) and In the design of -.* tunnels, eg the TIS0O
tunnel at FFA, Sweden (Ref 36). The latter Is a t
particularly Interesting recent example of the
detail'that has to be addressed. Ref 36 shows that
It Is not sufficient to have a second throat at the
start of the diffuser: this leaves the possibility
that appreciable noise generated in the model
support region can still propagate forward Into the
working section. Close attention has therefore to
be paid to the longitudinal distribution of the
tunnel cross-sectional area opposite the model
support to avoid as far as possible severe
decelerations In the flow that might Induce a flow
separation.
Differences in turbulence and/or noise in different
tunnels are liable to lead to differences In
natural transition position on the model under test
(Ref 37). However, the recomended standard
practice in transonic tunels Is to test with
transition fixed artificially and this removes the
risk that results from different tunneln will
appear to be Inconsistentbecause of differences In
transition position. It does not follow that
dorterences In turbulence and noise are
unimportant. As will be discussed In detail In
§10. a technique In comon use for simulating the
behaviour of the full-scale boundary layer ie to
test with a transition position on the model that
is further aft than that expected on the full-scale
aircraft. It Is desirable that the stream
turbulence does not place any limitation on the use
of this technique. The ability to maintain an
extensive length of laminar flow will be even more
Important when testing models of laminar flow
aircraft.
The
turbulence also has an effect on the
development of a turbulent boundary la)er This
has been studied by Green (Ref 33) who suggested
that it was possible to transform turbulence Into
ffective Reynolds number. Thia led to the
usuggestionIn scme quarters that Increasing the
turbulence of the stream could be one method of
Increasing the effective test Reynolds number The
difficulty with this suggestion however Is that
Increasing turbulence only Increases the effective
Reynolds number in respect of the boundary layer
shape factor (and hence. boundary layer separation
onset) in terms of boundary layer skin friction
and hence, drag, it reduces the effective Reynolds
number. This IsIllustrated by the results In rig
15 reproduc.d from Ref 39
In nost transonic tunnels, the turbulence level Is
far less than 1% and so. the effects shown In Fig
15 can be dismissed as trivial It has however
been recognsied (Ref 40) for many years that
accepting too high a level of tunnel stream noise
can degrade the accuracy of buffet data. Cambey
suggeaed that. to obtain data uncontaminated by
any interaction with the tunnel noise, the value of
(nf(n))i should not be greater than 0 002 where n
is the non-dlmensional frequency for say. the model
wing fundamental bending mode and ihere F(n) is
related to the non-dimensioraI pressure
fluctuations by the equation
q, r(n) dn
o
Qthre p' - acoustic pressure signal
Fig 16 presents an exampte of how the unsteady
wina-root atrain can be Inflenced by reducing the
unsteadiness of the tunnel stream In thiu
example. the stream unsteadiness was reduced by a
change of slotted working section wall from one
having a hard surface to one with a laminate. as .
consequence, buffet onset becoe more clearly
defined and the buffeting measurements ahoed much
less scatter
 t 4'll
" TUNNEL WALL INTERCFENCE
- by a uniform non-tapered wing,-havlngthe Isae
|,I The Classical Asoroach-
I:
S . Closed tunnels at subsonic sneeds
I The presence of the tunnel allsmodiffes the
effective angle of, Incidence and the effective
speed of flow over the model. These effects are
known, respectively as, tunnel constraint and
blockage ,and the measured data from tests In a
conventional tunnel must be corrected accord' ely.
In the classIcal approach to a prediction mthud,
the model, is replaced by singularities and the
wallsaby a doubly-infinite set of images. These
methods aredeveloped In detail In Agardograph 109
(Ref 42) which Is the major reference on the
subject. A full oat of formulae and graphs are
given in this reference for closed, open and
ventilated tunnels. Different standards of
approximation will be needed for different types of
testing In various tunnels but In the author's
experience, the formulae discussed below sumarlse
a reasonable set of corrections staying within the
limitations of this classical approach which, It
will be realised, Is based on the assumption that
the flow Is uniformly of the snall-porturbation
type.
These formulae can be listed as follows:
()Tunnel constraint
In the simplest approach, the basic equation for
the Interferenceupwash angle Is
*O- 6j scjc (2) such wings beginto stall,resembleaxisyssnetric
values of the factors 6a and 61 are presented In
Ref 42 for square and rectangular working sections
with aiternatively 4 closed, 4 open and 2 closed/2
open wlls For a square section, go - 0 13 and 01
- 0 25 if the walls are closed. This simple
formulation should not be used If the model wing
span Is greater than about 0 5 x tunnel width
From the author's experience. one should then use
ts, relations In Rsf 42 in serms of a paramet.e
(o) If the span/tunnel width ratio Is 0 8, the
value of 0 for a square section with closed saIls
then becomes 0 162. ie an Increase of 2S% relative
the value for a small model
The presence of thu tunnel walls modifies the flow
around the model even at zero lift In a closed
tunnel, the flow around the model Is speeded up and
vice versa In an open turinl This Interference is
due to the volume of the model and Its wake. In
general, It is acceptable to treat solid and wake
blockage as independent of each other, this is not
necessarily true at high lift (see (c) below)
for the calculation of blockage by the classical
rathods, the model Is replaced by an appropriate
distribution of sources and sinks Simple formulae
are listed In Agardograph 109 but. In the Wk, the
standard method that has been used for many years
is that produced by Evans In 1949 (Ref 44) This
method was based on earlier sork by Thoa and
Toimpson (Refs 45. 46) A fe points about the
method are worth noting
(1) Eapirical terms are Included to allow for the
effe-t* of wing thickness/chold atin and body
fineness ratio
(11)Evans,showed that most wings can be represented
volume ,mean sweep and thickness ratio as the
original wing but with a span equal to 2(3)1k
x
where k. Is the radius of gyration of the
original wing about the x axis.
(il The value of P in the denominator of the above
expression should be based on the corrected
Mach number. This my seem to be a trivial
point but early experleniceIn the 1940s showed
that if 0 was based on the uncorrected Mach
number (the more straightforward procedure),
the blockage corrections could be seriously
underestimated. This is an Important point
which was not always remembered'In later years
Having determined the Interference velocity, dU -
MU, corrections to the stream quantities and force
and moment coefficients follow as set lut In both
Refs 42 and 44.
(c) Interference at hlsh lift
The corrections for tunnel Interference described
above can be applied to the results of tests when
the flow past the model Is attached. When the flow
is part:ally separated, however, a less rigorous
approach bze to be adopted. The general practice
In the XX and elsewhere has been to adopt the
method put forward by Maskell and described In
Agardograph 109 (Ref 42). It Is not possible to
represent tliewake as a plane sheet of streamnlse
trailing vortices. Maskell based his approach on a
study of the flow past a bluff body. Experimental
measurements described In Ref 47 confirmed that,
for wings of soderate to small aspect ratio, the
localised
regions of separated flow that develop as
bluff-body wakes and iaskell concluded that the
tendency to axial symmetry In the separated flow
region could be assumed to be universal, applying
to most wings of practical Interest The formulAe
derived from askel's model of bluff body flow are
applied to the separated-flow part. CD . of the
total drag. ultimately giving a blockage correction
In the form
2;-
q 2 C C x2 (CD - CD - "CN) (3)
there CD, is given by an extrapolation of the drag-
due-to-i fs in the attached flow range (see Fig 17)
and q. Is the corrected value of the dynamic
pressure, q The exaeple In Fig IS taken from Ref
42 shoms that, for this case at least. the formula
Is very successful
8.1.2 Tunnel with ventilatedsals
AL sgbonl sgeeds
Ventilated tunnel walls were Introduced In the
early 1950s In general, the walls have either
longitudinal slats or perforations, the primary aim
is to alias air so pass between thy sorking section
and th surrounding plenum chamber and so. to
reliev the choking of the flow that would
othrwise occur before reaching M - I 0 A
supplementary s Is to reduce and. If possible,
eliminate the nall Interferenceat subsonic speeds
Early studies showed however that It was very
unlikely that complete elimination of this
Interference would be possible with either slotted
or perforated saIls
~4-12
!n this early work for slottedtunnels.'
it was reasonswhy Ref 49 concludedthat slottedwalls

assuaedthat the real wall couldbe replacedby an were preferableto perforated walls for testsat
equivalenthomogeneousboundaryhaving a similar subsonicspeeds As notedabove,thin Is however
Influenceon the flow ear the modelas that of the not a clear-cutIssuebecausethe viscouseffects
t
real wall. The Ilnearlsed
his euvln wal anb boundarycondition
eprse bytefor witha real
probably slotted
smaller) wall might
effects. Theproduce similar
results In Fig(but
19

following
equation: are for a rectangular
perforated working sectionwith two
walls; subsequently,AR calculated

*K an -#004 (4) f ... circulartunnelusingthe formulaeIn

+ f 8; numerically,the values are slightly
differentbut In principleand Indeed,In general
where 9 Is the perturbationpotential,x Is magnitude, the resultsare very similar. Finolly,
masured In the streamdirectionand n alongthe Fig 20 0shows the variationof the constraint
outward norms to the surface. The boundary factors and 61 with P/P for perforated walls.
conditionrelatesto Inviscidflow past a slotted Comparedwith the Idealslottedwall,this picture
wall;on thisassumption, thereIs no pressuredrop at firstsight looksencouraging In that 60 pases
acrossthe wall and this Is In directcontrastto throughzeroat a valueof jl/Psimilarto the value
the porousor perforated walls where there is a thatgiveszero blockage.As notedbelow,however.
pressuredrop -hroughthe wall giving a boundary this does not moan that one can Ignoreconstraint
condition of the form: effectsIn existingperforated-wall tunnels.
Despite the fact that all this material had bosn
ax Ppublished by 1966,many operators of tunnel with
ventilatedwalls continuedfor many yearsnot to
whereP Is a porosityparameter definedby applyany corrections to theirresults. Theyhoped
that if the models were kept small (le blockage
ap 6)are
......tio lss than 0.5), the corrections would
P---, (6) be trivialexceptcloseto i - 1.0. They felt that
they could not apply the corrections as outlined
Severaldifferent typesof wall can be Identified. above because they did not know the porosity
factors,K and P for the wallsof theirparticular
Closedwall : K o 5, P - 0 tunnel. Determiningthese factorsdirectly by
Open Jet K - 0, P .s- measuring the pressure differentialand flow
idealslottedwall P Im throughthe wallswould indeedbe a difficulttask.
Real slottsdwail . bothK and P termspresent However.to Ignorethe existence of the corrections
Perforated wall K - 0, P dependenton wall simply becausetheremay be some doubt over the
geometryand wall boundary precisevaluesalwaysseemedto the presentauthor
layerthickness to be the wrong attitude ARA almost from the
outset applied lift constraint corrections,
or a perforated wall with normalholes.P varies blockageand blockagebuoyancycorrections These
with the pressure-differential throughthe wall; corrections werederivedas follows
earlytestsat AEDC showedthat,withnormalholes.
the valueof P was very dependent on whetherthere (I) porosityfactorsfor the wallsof the ARA
wes Inflowor outflowthroughthe wall to obtaina tunnelwere obtainedby Interpolation of
sensibly linear characteristicfor the wall the AEDC data containedIn Ref S0 for the
porosity, one needsa wallwith the holes Inclined characteristics of various perforated
at 60" In the direction of the flow,this reduces plates with differentplate thickness,
the resistance to outflow holediameterand open-area ratio,

Agardograph109 (Sef 42) containsmany figures (11)
showinghow tunnel blockageand lift constraint
varywithK and P In different typesof slottedand
perforated-call tunnel It will be realisedthat
theseestimates were made by the methodsavailable
aheadof 1966and, numerically, couldbe Improved
today Nevertheless, the figuresstill serve to
illustrateso"e Importantconclusions. For
example,for an Idealslottedwall,the open-area
ratiofor zeroblockageIsvery different from that
needed for zero lift constraint. eg In a working
sectionwith 2 ventilated and 2 solidwalls, tha
open-arearatio giving zero blockage Is still
calculated to give a liftconstraint factorof 70%
of that for an open wall However,allowingfor (iii)
the viscousflow !n the s*otsIn the real slotted
wall.Increases the chancesof findingan open-area
ratio that will give completelyInterference-free
flow (Ref 49) However.the viscousflow In the
slots Is also predictedto give a longitudinal
gradientthroughthe workingsectionand bnce, a
buoyancycorrection.
TurnnS to a perforated tunnel, Fig 19 shows the
longitudinal distribution of the blockage effect
This Is a most Important graph. It will be seen
that the longitudinal distribution for f/P - 1.28.
which giveszero blockageat the modelmid-point,
Is strongly asymmetric This can lead to a
sizeable buoyancy effect Calculationsfor a
typical subsonic transport model might show that
this buoyancy effect would Increase the drag
coefficient at high subsonicspeedsby as much as
KD - 0 0010 - 0 0020 This Is one of the main
thesevaluesof P were thenused to obtain
lift constraintfactors and also. the
blockageat the aid-pointof the model
The derivedvaluesshowedthat the tunnel
was too open to give zero interference
As regardslift constraint,the factors
nere about70% of those that wouldapply
In an open tunnel The blockage
correctionswere predictedto be about
-0 2S x thosethatwouldbe calculated for
the corresponding closed-walltunnel For
a typical subsonic transprt model with
about 0.7% blockage area ratio, this
Impliesthatam - -0.005at N - 0 65,
finally, blockage buoyancy corrections
were derivedon the basisof Fig 21 To
understandthis figure.one has to be
awareof the open-areadistribution along
the wallsof the ARA tunnel oppositethe
forwardpart of the model, the open-area
is stillclotbingup to its finalvalueof
?2% shich Is then held constantopposite
the rear of the model The suggestion In
Fig 21 that the buoyancy effect Is not
felt by the nose of the model was
conflrmd in a pressure-plotting teston a
civil transport model. comparing tie
pressures measuredIn two testswith the
holes In the walls respectively open and
sealed In effect, this meansthat the
buoyancy correction Is only half that It
wouldhave been If the open-arearatiohad
ben 22% along the full length of the
 4-13

model; eveq so, the correctiont Is still Inthe UK In the late 1950s,In %whichseveral models
"
.highly significant;if. It were nut to the same design but'at dilfferent scaleswere
applied,a spulous drag-creep, at'RA£,and
amounting testedIn two slotted-tunnels In the ARA
t6 ,mie than 0.0005, In CD, would be transonictunnel. The'resultsof thesetestsare
present:a seriouslymisleading result. reportedIn Ref 53. The model was,a,wing-body
combinationwith a 61'thIcksymmetrical wing having
In the same comparatlvetest with the holes In the an aspectratioof 2.83,a taperratioof 0.33 and
tunnel walls alternatively open and sealed,the 45'sweepon the O.Sc line. The valuesof'blockage
wing trailing-edge pressureswere-measured. These near M- 1.0 revealedby these,tests are, of
resultssuggested a modelof a reasonablecourse,a functionof the open-arearatiosof the
that,fots
size,eg 0.5 - 0.7% blockage,one couldassumethat walls,of the tunnels being compared. It Is
the blockagecorrection(note:not the,blockage therefore of more generalinterestto comparethe
buoyancy). was- zero up to M - 0.85. This valuesderivedby the analysisof the experlmental
contradicted beliefthat at H - 0.85. data with any theoretical
the earlier, predictions that may be
AM - -0.005.The new evidenceappearedat the tine available.The only theoretical methodavailable
to be unchallengeable and It became standard In 1959was thatproducedby Pageof NACA Ames (Ref
practiceat ARA net to applyblockagecorrections54). The formulaeproposed by Page for the
for this size of model up to U - 0.85 and to blockagecorrection, AM. at M - 1.0 are given
subtract 0,005 from the values that be below:
would
calculated by the previousmethodfor Mach numbers
aboveN - 0.85. It was feltthat It was betterto AMo - -0.9g(rt/h)S/7 (r*/x*)'/l
accept the direct evidencefrom the comparative
test than to relyon the earlier methodwhichwas for rectangular slottedtunnel, and
basedon the unprovenasuption thatdata fromthe (7)
AEDC experlments on perforated platescouldhe used AMo - -0.82(r*/R)S/7 (r*/x*)?/?
to forecastthe porositycharacteristics of the ARA
tunnelwalls. The weaknessIn the originalwmthod for circularperforated tunnels
was that it restedon the unprovenasasumption that
the boundarylayerthicknesson the walls of the whereg dependson theopen-arearatio,
ARA tunnelwas comparable wth the thickneaas on the r*,x are the coordinates of the sonicpoint
AEIC platesof similargeometry;If this was true, on the noseof the equivalent body of
it would be somewhat of a coincidence. The revolution to the modelundertest,
practiceof takingthe blockageto be zero up to M h Is the tunnelsemi-height
- 0 85 has been retained since1968 for the sake of and R the radiusof the circulartunnel.
maintalning date-bankconsistencyalthoughthere
has alwaysbean someuneaseas to whetherthis was Valuesare comparedIn the tablebelow
the correctapproach. For example,the comparison
betweenwing pressuredistributions measuredon a RAEslotted ARA perforated
model of the SuperVCIO had showngood agreement, wall tunnel wall tunnel
as reportedIn Ref 52, with those masured In
flighteven thoughblockagecorrections derivedby Predicled AM0 for
the original method had been applied; to have 0.05%blockagemodel (1) -0.007 -0.020
assned that 454- 0 up to M - 0.85 would have
reducedthe standardof agrelemt. Recently,it Predicted. for
has howeverbeen reallsedthat the resultsof the 0 S% blockagemodel (2) .0 016 *0.049
perforated versussolidwall comparative testcan.
in fact.be challengedon the grounds that by M - Difference between
0.85.the resultsIn the solid-wall tunnelare not (2) snd (I) 0.009 0.029
correctable, to use modern terminology, by slmple
Ace and AM corrections. There should also be a Difference as derived
wal-induced camber effect which, for a given from exporlmntal data 0.010 0,020
correcteda., would increase the auctionsnear
mid-chord and hence, the adverse pressure gradient The estimates In the above table wor* obtained
back to the trailingedge This camber effect usingthe numericalvaluessuggestedby Page.g -
couldmodify the boundarylayerdevelopment over 0 35 for the slotted tunnel and a numerical
the rear of the upper surfaceof the wing and constantof 0 02 for the perforaed tunnel The
hence,It nay be wrongto expectthe trailing-*dgecoparisons suggestthat the valuefor the slotted
pressure to be the sam In the solid and tunnel Is reasonable but that a smaller value than
perforated-wuli tunoeIs Calculations suggestthat that proposed should be used for the perforated
tIhis could account for the discrepancy discussed tunnel On tis and other evidence obtained later,
above It shouldbe stressed that for the majority ARA have used 0 6 as the numrici constant In an
of tests on civil transport models. %here the expression rewrittenin termsof tunnelseml-height
cruise Mach number Is near U - 0 $0, this rathertItan radius
uncertaintyIs of trlvlalimportance but It has 11 be seen from the above formulae that
been described atthat sone length here to IllustrateIt le
the difficulties can arise In applying the blockage area ratio Is no longer a relevant
classicalmethods Thin Increases the inportance parater at A - 1.0 The variationof AM with
.1selcalwthds
Tis icreses he lporsme ar. size is mtuchmore In sympathy with the linear
of adoptinga moremodernapproachand takingfull dl nsionsomth mordaland the distanceol the
advantageof the developmentsIn CPD mthods. den f the moel t followsthat the
ia
Thesemethodsare discussedlaterIn §8 Isflosttth
model from ithetunne -si significant
tunnelinterference Is still for very
smallmodels,eogeven for a pilottube while, on
8 2 IAllInterferere as cSgeeds the other hand. Increases In model size can be
Near end AboveU4- I0 tolerated without as much pnalty as one might
intuitivelyhave expected.AnotherImportant point
8 2 I alockae correctlons aboutthe interference at apeedaclose to M - 1.0
is that the Interference can be greater for a
Clearly, the classicalapproachto the calculationslender model than for a model of low fineness
of blockage correctionsby *hlch,for a ventilated-ratioand of the sam size This was pointed out
salt tunel, AM- a factorx (4)closedhas to be by iarndtIn Ref 55, the reasons Is that the lteral
abandoned beforereachingM - I 0 To obtainsome decay of the flow field Is less and hence, the
gudanve as to the Interference closeto and above potentialinterference at the wailgreater lit,the
4 - i 0. a majorcooperative programie*as launched slendermodel
4-14

Strictly,It As not possibleto obtainmeaningful flow fieldaroundthe actual

results, at literally M -
1.0. The ,results of the high subsonic speeds near Ml'- model. At
1.0, recent
comparatlve, tests discussed above also showed-that US work (Ref 57) has suggested that one
the aft movementof the terminal
re~o Cho base of ,he Lmdel just shock which should has to undertake Navier-Stoke's
labove M - 1.0 was calculations; the results of' Inviscid
considerably delayed on the 0.05% blockage models. Euler calculatlons can be complete)y
This means,that, In a test at an uncorrected Plach misleading,
number of say, M - 1.05, the flow over the front
part of the modelgenuinely resembles what would be (I) the second type, known as two-component
expected in free-air at 4 - 1.05 but the flow over methods, do not require a calculation of
the rear part of the model is more representative the local flwfedaroundth oebt
of what mightbe expected at N - 1.0. Such data Involve the measurement,of a relatively
are completelyunrepresentative of the fra-air large number of streamelseand normal
results and theycrnnt be corrected. It canot be velocities near the walls. Methodsof the
elaphas
load too st-'onglythet ame should not test at second type art therefore easier to apply
Mach numbersver near to and just above M - 1.0. in the case of solid-wall tunnels where
All test programmesshouldomit the rangebetween one can make the assumption that the flow
say.M - 0.98 and N - 1.05dependent on the sizeof near-the wall Is parallelto the wall
the mdel. This situation wouldbe Improvedif It (strictly,parallelto the boundarylayer
worepossibleto reducethe wall open-area ratioto on O'e wall) and hence, one still only
a very low valuewhen testingnear M - 1.0. neat. to masuse one flow comp'onent.
At higher Mach numbers, tunnel interference takes Methods of the first type were developed by Smith
ttneformof wave reflections fromthe tunnelwalls, of NLR (Ref58) and Capolier, Chevalier and Bouniol
Clearly, In a solid-sall tunnel, one Is not In the at ONERA(Ref 39). In the US, the Initiative came
clear until the reflectionof the bow shock has from Kemp at NASA Langley(Ref 60) followedby
passedbehindthe baseof the model. The situation urman(Ref 61) and recentUS work Is describedIn
is such the same in a slotted-wall tunnel but Refs 62, 57 and 63. The second type of method was
perforated wallsprovideso e alleviation. The 22% developedby Ashilland weeksat RAE Bedford(Refs
open-area ratio, normal holes of the ARAtunnel ar* 64,65) and currently, serloos use of this technique
successful In largely cancellingthe reflections of is being explored In the RAE 5 metre tunnel (Ref
incident shockwavesat M - I 15 and above(seafig 66) Historically, It can ho arguedthat the idea
22) but, with normal holes, expansion flow fields of using wall pressure measurements as a guide to
reflectas discreteshockwaves. It followsthat model blockage correctionswas Introducedby
the data In the ARA tunnel do not becom Coethertas long ago as 1940(Per67).
effectively Intsrference-free untilthe reflectionsA relatively simple mthod of the first type Is
of the forebody expansion flow field have passed beingused to correctdata fromthe RAE 8 ft x B ft
behind the base; inclined holes would improve this tunnel (Ref 17) Measurements of static pressure
situation,for the reasonsexplainedearlier. In are made at fourpointson the tunnelwalls - two
any new perforated-wall tunnel, one would choose In the roof close to the model centre of volume.
walls with Inclined holes of variable open-area and a corresponding pair In the floor. The model
ratio. is sulated by a distribution of pointsourcesand
sinks and calculatiolns are madt of beth the
L 3 The Modern Aenroach Increment In streammlet speed at the position of
the wall holesdue to both thesesingularities and
itwas notedin §8.1 thatthe classical approachto their Images,and of the blockage IncrementIn
the calculation of tunnelInterference at subsonic velocityat the model. Thisprovidesthe ratioof
speeds suffered from several Important weaknesses the blockage Incremeont to the arithmetic man of
To listthesebriefly the calculated increments in speed at these four
holes it is thenassumedthat thisratioapplies
(a) the methods rely on a small-perturbation in te real tuseel flow and henc* one obtains the
representationof the model, blockage from the wall pressure measurements
(b) for tunni wihslotted wails,the homgenous Results from applying this approach ha-e been found
wai borundars
u onditon
i Is is (e 56)obe
kown (Ref (Ref 64) to be In good agreementwith results
to obtained by a potentially more accurate two-
unrepresentative, component method and It Is believed that the
technique the
(c) for tunels with perforated sails, the porosity approaching Is choking
accurate up to Mach numbers
value
characteristics are uncertain,

(d) the methods do not take proper account of the An obviousapplication for a method of the second
fact that the wall Interference can be ver) type Is to the correction of dataobtainedat high
dependent on the boundary layer development model lift in a low speedtunnel. The flu.around
alongthe salls, and the mdel beingpartly separatedIs difficultto
simulatemathematically with any accuracyblt this
(e) as one approaches M - I 0, It Is no longer Is not needed for a method of the second type The
valid to assume that the interference Is method developed by Ashill and Weeks (Ref 64) has
correctableIn torsoof simplecorrections
to therefore been appliedto the resultsof testson a
endS very largehalf-model In a landing configuratisn In
the S metre tunnel (Ref 66) Measureento of
Since 1978, there has been a major effort at many pressures ers made at aboutI5 tappings on each of
research establishments to develop sme, Improved 10 streamlse rows and upwash, sldewash 'and
methodsof estimating wall interfersnce Most of streasweash corrections have been derived Typical
these inolv, the wmasuresent of pressures on or results are shown In Fig 23 Resultsobtalned' by
near the tunnel walls, most involve the use of the using the standardcorrectiontechniqueare also
powerful CfD tools that have now becomeavaltable shown for comparison Reasonable egreemer -s
2
Rroadly,the methodscan be dividedIntotwo types shownfor the Incidence correction in Rig 3a but a
significant dlscrepecy
(I) the firsttypecan be describedas 'mdel stremeash correction In figIs231evident in the
It appears that
representation
methods' These require the standardtechniqueleads to an appreciable
only a relativelylimitednumberof wall overpredlction and these results constitutea
pressure measurements but need a
reasonablyaccurate calculationof the
warning that iLaskel
satisfactory
i's approach may not be
for sow realistic casesof partially 4
 4-15

separated flow. It seemslikelythat,despitethe Individual pressure has been corrected by

need for a large number of pressure measurements Interference termswhichvary alongthe chord. In
extending far upstream and downstream of the model, other words, the AN, Ac approach has been abandoned
two-componenit methods will find increasing and thereisnow somehope that correction methods,
application in the future,particularlyfor models beth pre- and post-testhave been developedthat
with complexflows,eg modelswith bluffshapes, will remainvalid up to very-close to M4- 1.0.
ASTOVLmodels,helicopterswith rotor simlation However, researchand developmentwll have to
and modelsat high lift. continue for some time to come before one could
claim that a correctionmethod Is availablefor
Ref 64 containsan exampleof blockagecorrectionsroutineuse. Ref 63 notesthatthe WIACprocedure
calculated by methodsof both typescomparedwith was apparently not completelysuccessful in
the value obtained by the classical method correctingsome experimental data fromthe NASA 0.3
discussed earlier.This comparison Is shownIn Fig metreCryogenic Tunnel,but It ispossiblethatthe
24: the application relates to a two-dimensional lack of full agreement between a corrected
aerofol| test in the 8 ft x 8 ft tunnel at RAE experimental and theoretical result, cay be due to
Bedford. Cood agreementIs shown between the Inadequacies In the turbulence modelling In the
resultsfor the odelrepresentation and the two- Navier-Stokescalculations, rather than any
componentmethod&but all these resultspredict fundamental flaw in the correction method.
notablygreaterblockagethanthe classical method.
particularly for Ctlwhen the flowover the aerofoll 8.4 AdaotlVeWalls
issupercritical.
None of the major transonictunnels used for
The recent experience at AEUC In applying these performance testing are fitted with adaptive walls
modern methodsto perforated-wall Interference at and so a discussionabout the developmentof
high subsonic Mach numbers near M - 1.0 Is adaptivewalls Is reallyoutsidethe scopeof this
describedIn Ref 57. rwo types of technique are lecture. Nevertheless, for the sake of
discussed: completeness, It should be noted that. In many
research establish ents, there has been
(a) A pretestpredictivetechniqueIn which the considerable progresswith adaptive wails since
based on a 1975, Achievements are described In detail In the
wall boundary condition Is not (Ref4)
global approach as In classical methods but finalreportof ACARDFlDPWorkingCroup12
allows for local variations In the porosity which contains many references on the subject, and
is
characteristics. This meansthat the slope or a ssmary of some of the main achievements
the characteristic Is no longera constantbut available In Ref I
is a function of the boundary layer thickness
on the wallsas shownIn Fig 23 takenfrom Ref The basicconceptof an adaptive-wall wind tunnel
62 7his graph refers to the 60' inclined Is to match two Independentflow-disturbance
holesof the AEDI perforated wallsbut similar quantities measured at an Interface In the tunnel
graphscould be createdfor othertunnelsIf experimentto the same quantities computedfor an
the necessary experlments were made interference-fr-a outer flow beyond the Interface
Increasing the lift on the mde will Increase Application of the concepthas been greatly helped
the pressure variation Induced on the wall at by advances In wind tunnel Instrumentation. wall-
high subsonicspeeds and. as a result, the control echanlsms, control technology, computer
boundarylayerthickness on the top wall. This hardwareand.more particularly. CFD algorithms and
Is the major reason for the Increase of AM with codes In two-dimensional floe. many
lift referred to shove In the pretest establishments have shownthat It Is possibleto
predictive method, the tunnel flow-fieldreducethe residualInterference aftershapingthe
calculationis made with the AEDC boundary walls to a very low level Th. residual
conditionspoclfied on the tunnel wall. interference can be calculated by th, methods
discussedearlier using the Informationalready
(b) The US VIAC approach for correctingthe availablefor shapingthe walls The concepthas
measuredresultsIn which the flow aroundthe been successfullyapplied to Group 2 Flows
modelis calculated with the pressures measured (supercrltical flow *vtondlng-o and beyond the
on a boundary close to the tunnel walls test-section waills) In the context of the present
definingthe boundarycondition lecture,the most significant development has been
the evidvnce sulgest ing that two-dimensio.,al
Initially. the calculations were made by an Euler adaptivewalls can be used succesfully to liniwlst
code whlch was expocted to be more than adequate the interfer.nce in tests on three-dimensional
for an applicationIn which the model was a wdels This evidence Is presented In detail In
wing-body com1bnation with 30' swept wings with Chapter 4 In Ref 4. the aspct ratio or the tunnel
NACA0OO 4 synmetrical sections However, these working section is an Important parameter
calculatIons failedIn that the derived corrections xperieste at supersonic speeds Is limited .t
seriouslyovercorrected the results for the large present
blockage model In the small tunnel when compaled
against those obtained with the same model in a
larger tunnel Use of a Navler-Stokescode, 9 ndit,sUPPORTINTFPFrIgENC
however,goes a long way towards bringingthe
corrected results from the two tests Into 9-1 R tInr Interference
agreement Thesecomparisons are presented In Figs
26a.b. r In this figure Is the waillopen-area In high sFeedand transonic tunnes..the modelsare
ratio 1he authors of Ref 57 draw the conclusion usuallysapportedon a sting from the rear of the
that It is necessaryto allowfor viscouseffects model rrotrudlngeither from the centre of the
In the model flow-field calculation This may well rear fuselage or as a blade from underneath or
be true but the present author believes that the occasionally from the top of the fin As already
Eulercode comparison couldhavebeen significantlynote, In §3, the consequent Interference effects
Improvedif the free-airand model calculationscan be significant They arise for two main
had been made for different Mach numbers, the reason. First the presence of the sting itself
difference In Mach number correspondingto a and particularly, of any taper on the sting can
first-orderM correction In case the procedure have a forwardInfluence on the flowover the rear
of these WIAC calculations Is not clear, It Is fuselage In general,the flowvelocityIs reduced
north noting that the values of CL are obtained by anidthe drag reduced Panel mthods can be used to
Integration of pressuredistributions In whlcheach estimate these effects Secondly. the rear
4-16
fuselage has to be truncated and distorted to admit employed In the design of the new rig. the stings
the sting; in this respect, calculations~are less are very slender and have reduced torsional
-
effective becauseviscouseffectsare paramount, stiffness; the model 'is mounted further forward
relativeto the yoke. As with the previousrig.
The techniquein regularuse,In the IK to-obtain the sting corrections will be determinedas the
th(sestingcorrections experimentslly Is to mount difference between the results for two
the modelon twinstingsfrom the wingsand thento configurationswith alternatively the true
measure the forces on the rear fuselage with 27 and afterbody and the distorted afterbody and dummy
withouta simulation of the rearsting. Fig a is sting.
a dagrammatic pictureof the rearmodel layoutfor
Such a test. The balancemeasures the forces on Some typical sting correctionswere discussed
the rear fuselage with the dumy central sting In earlierin §3, on the basisof the resultsIn figs
position as shown and with the sting removed, the 3a,b. It shouldbe notedthat theseresultsrelate
bore filledand the rear fuselage restored to the to stings designed for tests at a stagnation
correctaircraftshape. The difference betweenthe pressureof I bar For tests in a pre-surlsed
two sets of balance readings gives the sting tunnel,It Is likelythat the degreeof distortion
corrections. This may sound simple but much of the rear-end would be greater. A recentpaper
development testinghad to be undertaken beforethe (Ref 69) from NASALangley has quoted experience
techniquegave satisfactory, repeatableresults, which Indicates that stingcorrections can amount
Allowancehas to be made for the pressureforce to 9-10%of total aircraft drag and can vary In a
actingon the Internalfuselagesurfacesaft or the non-linearfashion with Mach number. it is
splitand,when the dummystingIspresent,for the therefore likelyto remainas a majorproblemin a
pressureforceactingon the seal plate. Accurate pretsurised tunnel.
determination of these terms is vital; In an
examplequotedIn Ref 15, the forcesacting in the 9.2 strutInterference In Low SpeedTunnels
drag direction were:
For mostof the testingIn largelow speedtunnels
(I) forceon externalwettedsurface: suchas the RAE S metretunnel,the Fl tunnelat Le
CD - 0.0022, faugaand the DM tunnel,the modelsare mountedon
(11) forceon Internal fuselagesurface- stiutsfrombelowand the forcesare measuredon an
CD - 0 0015, underfloorbalance(Ref 70). Two differenttypes
(III) forceon sealplate: of mountingare commonlyused: either a 3-strut
Co - _0.0016. mountingwith two underwing and one t $l strutor a
single central strut. The Interferenceis
Thus, the unasntedpressure forces are each of determinedexperimentally In a similarfashionto
similarmagnitude to the actualrearfuselagedrag, that describedabove for sting Interference.In
Thosecorrections are obtainedby measuringabout otherwords,the model Is mountedIn a different
S0 pressuresInside the fuselageand about 10 way, le eitheron a rear stingor on a strutfrom
pressureson the seal plate. Variousprecautionsabove, and comparativetests are made with and
have to be taken.the gap betweenthe forwardand without dumny replicas of the standard strut
rear partsof the modelhas to be kept small,the supports Possible layoutsfor such tests are
modelhas to be designedto Inhibitflow In and out shownIn Fig 29. for the 3-strutarrangement and In
of thisgap and to givenar-uniformity In pressure Fig 29b for thv centralstrutscheme Such tests
over the cross-section at the gap. the response to determinethe interference can be laborious and
characteristics on both sides of the pressure time-consumlng and so, there Is a great Incentive
diaphragmIn the transducers have to be carefully to findwhetherthese Interference correctionscan
matchedand finally, one has to be able to ove the be predicted by a theoretical method This has led
forward part of the dummystingb) meansof a small to such activityIn recentyears and It Is worth
Integialactuatorto locate it correctlyin the Including a briefsuemmary of what has been learnt
bore. from these studies. Furtherdetailsare to be
foundinRefs 70-73
The successof thistwin-.ting technique dependson A typicaltestprogramme for the 3-strutcase would
4 numberof basicassumptions- be
(a) one can Ignorethe possibleeffectsof the rear (a) testswith the modelsupported
on a rear sting
stingon the flowover the forwardpart of the but with ne representationof the guards or
m.odel, struts.
(b) one can Ignare th possible inorerence (b) testswith the model supported
on a rear sting
effectsof the twinstingson the fIowover the In the presence of all three dum y guards
Ong - at least to the extent,that these moMotedon the floor,but withoutany struts
effectsmightaffectthe differunce betweenthe (Fig29s),
two tests.

(W) one can calculate,og by a panelmethod,the (c) tets onthe tmodel, togetherwith duany front
osiingleinterfrstut
possible supportedon the stingIn the presence
ntw n e effects f tra yoke of all threedu.myguardsmountedon the floor
joiningthe twin stingsat the rear, for these tests, the struts would be
On a closelycoupledconfiguration represented by replicasof the upper part of
such as that the realstruts,thesewouldbe hung from the
shownIn Fig 27, assumptlons (a) and (b) are open wing and would terminatejust Inside the
to question. Te techniqueas practisedIn the guards.
past Is only viable if thereIs a fair lengthof
uniform flow upstream and downstreamof the split (4d) tests on the exposedstruts moutted on the
and one cannot met this requiremnt with a underfloorbalancewith the guardsmountedon
configuration such as Fig 27b ARA are therefore the floorbet with no modelpresent,this test
developinga modified form of the technique as servingto establishthe basicstruttares
Illustrated in fig 28 The model Is stillmounted
on twin stingsbut now, forcesare to be measured Such a test programmse is clearlyextensiveand
of'the cuspletemodelwith balancesfittedIn the addedcomplexity arisesfrom the fact thatwhenever
forwardend of the pair of stings The balances the IncidenceIs changed, It is necessary to
will be calibratedIndividually and with the modeI readjuste fittingin eachduaeystrutand possibly
Installed In the rig finiteelementanalysiswas alter the fore-and-aft positionson the doamy
 4-17

guards to avoid any contact betweenthe dummy will be more serious than with the 3-strut
struts and guards;.hence, a multiplicity of short arrangement.If the strutIs circular,partof the
runs are required, undersideof, the model will be exposed'to an
interferenceflow fieldwhich.In principle, could
A test programeas set out above recognises the be sensitive to changes in Reynolds number
needto separate the- effectsof the struts and of according to whether the flow around the strut
the guards. The near-field Interference of. the containsa laminaror turbulent separation. Such
struts largely depends on viscous effects and Is an effect, greatly Increasing the strut
not readilyamenableto theoretical calculations.Interferenceat low Reynoldsnumber,has been found
However,the far-field effectsof the guards.which in the test range of the RAE 5 metre 'tunnel.
are generally the more Important effects Experience suggests that the Interference depends
numerically can be calculatedby panelmethods, stronglyon the localgeometryand is greatestfor
This Is not easy: a typicalcalculationfor a configurations where the underfuselageis notably
3-guard/model configuration couldneed approachingnon-circular (Ref 73). Therecan be a significant
4000 panels. However, as shown in Fig 30, interference with the aerodynamic lateral
relativelygood agreementwith experimentcan be characteristics; this can be minimised
by reducing
obtainedup to near the valueof C L at which the the strut diameter.Ideallyto 0.2 x fuselage
wing stalls,this appliesto the interference on diameter or less.
both CL and CD A full panel calculationcan
therefore be succeasful but there Is still a need 10 BOUNDARY LAYERSIMtOATION ANDSCALEEFFECT
to find whether any simplermethod will give
comparableresults.Ref 71 presentssucha method. 10.1 The Need to FixTransition
Ref 71 Is Illuminating In that It contains a The standard practice in moot transonic and low
detaileddescriptionof the physicalnatureof the speedtunnelsoperating at ReynoldsnumbersIn the
interference, Four significanteffects are range up to R - 15 x 109 is to test with boundary
identified: layertransition fixedartificially near the wing
leadingedge and body nose. The case for adopting
(i) an upwash due to the strut guarC thisapproachhas been established for many years.
displacement effectgiving a term of the Thereare two maIn reasons-
form,ACL - constant,
(i) allowing transitionto occur naturally
(i) a streameash,again due to the guard would mean that the transition position
displacement, giving a term of the form, could vary with both CL and Mach number,
ACL proportional to CL, Extrapolation of the data to full scale
would be difficultunless the transition
(1ii) an upwash Inducedby the effectsof the positions at all test conditionswere
trailing vortex wake from the strut determinedaccurately To date, this
guards. This wake is associated wi,,,the would have been very laboriousalthough
side force Induced on the guards b. the there is now some hope that this nay be
lifton themodel The ACL fromthisterm possible In the futurewith the use of
is proportional to the lift coefficient, liquidcrystals,
CLon the guards.
(il) It Is Important to ensurethat,as on the
(lv) and finally,a sidewashAnd streamnis. full-scaleaircraft,i is a turbulent
effect again due to the guardside ferce. boundary layer that interactswith the
In this case, ACL is proportional to the whack The need to avoid a laminar Cr
productof CL x CIC transitionalboundary layer interaction
was established as long ago as 197 (Ref
It follows that the total lift Interference Is of 74). A separated laminar boundary layer
the form can reattachas a turbulentlayer, thus
giving spuriously optimistic results
1CL - KI 4 K2 CL . K3 CL' relative to those with a turbulent
boundary layer ahead of the shock
where KI and the upwash dependent contribution to
K2 are proportional to the wing Wlft-curve slope Exanples of misleadingresults obtained with
and the sign of K3 dependson the wing s*eepbeing naturaltransition are shownIn fig 31 The bucket
negative for a swepthack wing and positive for a In the CD - M curve is not a genuine bucket, it Is
septforward wing Fig 30 shows that the new due to transition moving aft on the wing upper
Featuresin thisanalysis,viz the Introduction of surfaceas the localsupersonic regionextendsaft
term (iv) and the empirical use of tie measured betweenM - 0 72 and 0 7S. The retent ion of a high
lift-curve slope including its non-iirearity at lift-curve slopeup to beyond a - 2' with natural
high C L produces reasonable agreement with transition is related to tie ability of a laminar
experiment even at and beyond the stell This separation to reesinas a closedbubbleand for the
success, to quote from Ref 71, "isolds out tie boundery layer to reattach as a turbulent layer
prospoctof predicting at leastsoe aspectsof the There is a danger that these resultsCould have
model support system* lift interference on sings been seriousiy misinterpreted For some aerofoilis.
through the us& of fairly simple panel method buckets in the CD - Mi curve have been found In
calculations' One has to adult, however.that transitionfixed resaits.these sould have been
this simplified method cannot provide a genuine features of the aerofoil design but a
sufficientlyaccurate predictionof the drag bucket due to transition movementsin transition
interference due to the guards This is thoughtto free results has to be dismissedas haing no
be due to the relativelylarge changes in relevance to the full scale porfornance.
interference over the area of the wing these Similarly,without a clear understanding of what
effects cannot be averaged accurately in a simple can happen wit a lazinar boundary layer/shock
fashion Also, there is significant viscous drag Interaction one might have been tempted to treat
Interference due to the struts that has to be the differences in th liftcurvesas an exatpieof
determined experimentally genuine scale effect. in fact, it is likely that
Turning to the central single strut mountIng the lift-curve slopeIn the transition-free results
arrangemnt, In general, there will be no side near a - 2 is higher than the value that would be
force on the support but, on the otherhand, the obtained with transition near the leading edge at
blocikage Interference effects of tie strut/guard any Reynolds number
4-18
The general advice, therefore, Is to test with
fixed transition. There are however some cases
where this advice does not necessarily apply:
(I) as noted later In §10.4, transition-free
tests can be Included In test pregrames
for diagnostic purposes,
(11) transition-free tests my be the
appropriate choice If It Is known that,
for reasons of either relatively high test
Reynolds number (say. R - i5 x 10),
relatively high tunnel turbulence or
simply adverse pressure gradients In the
pressure distribution, transition will
occur naturally rnar the leading edge,
(iii) cases where the test obective Is to
measure the hinge moents on a trailing-
edge control; for these, It may be
Important to obtain the thinnest possible
boundary layer over the control,
(Iv) tests on medels of aircraft designed to
achieve extensive laminar flow In flight.
For these, new model test techniques will
have to be developed an discussed In
§10.7.
12.2 Methods for fIxine Transition
The basic requirements are to fix transition with
the mintmum disturbance to the flow and In a
consistent, repeatable mannr In the l, the
favoured method Is to apply a band of glass balls
known as ballotini. Thiese are preferred to
carbotundam because the) offer better control of
roughness height Tha ballotinil balls are sieved
and stuck to the model surface by blowing them
lightly on to a tacky cement such as Araldite
103/951 In the search for consistency,
alternatives to ballotlnl .ro favoured In certain
quarters, eg
(I) IOe Brough have used transfer characters
devised for graphic w-rk (Ltraset) to
produce regular transition strips,
(11) RAE have developod a technique in which a
row of holes Is drilled In a tape at
regular Intervals and the minute munds so
formed provide a consistent distribution
of roughess.
(III) Boeing% have devised a somewhat similar
method %hereby a tape with a row of beies
drilled at regular Intervals Is stuck to
the wing surface and then an epoxy-ased
filler such as Isopon Is spread over the
tape; the surplus filler Is removed and
the tape is lifted froa the sing leaving a
ro* of xcrescenc s
Various criteria are available to determine the
required roughness height Of these, the best
Inoan are those due to Braslow and Knox (Ref 75),
Van Driest and Riuaer (Ref 76), Evans (Ref 77) and
Potter and Whitfield (Ref 70) The Braslow and
Knox criterion states that
- 600
-k'
wh"e Rk' is the Reynoldo nuxber based on the
roughness height. k. and the floe conditions at the
top of thi. roughness All the criteria forecast
tht the required roughness height Increases with
Mach number - by about 15.-201at M I 0, 33% at M
- I 5 a,,d 80% at H - 2 for the Braslow and Knox
criterion (with the values someshat depondent on
Reynolds number) This Is an Important point not
nre'y for tenting at supersonic spedst, It Is also
the explanation why general exporlence has shown
that one needs a greater roughness height to fix
transition at buffet-onset than in the cruise in
tests at subsonic speeds. -Roughness height Is not
the only significant ylraeter; the width of the
roughness band and the density of particles In the
band are also'important, The width of the banys Is
usually either 2.5 m- or 1.25 wi. The re4 ulred
roughness height to fix transition depends on the
Interpretation the wind tunnel engineer places on
the phrase 6a sparse roughness band'. Even a
change In density from 4% to 16% can be
significant: the .4% band has to -avea greater
height to fix transition on a given wing at a given
Reynolds number. The desire to use a very sparse
band (to avoid a substantial drag penalty) appear
to lead. In general, to a need to use a roughness
height greater than suggested by the Braslow and
Knox criterion.
Traditionally, the roughness drag penalty has been
predicted by a relation such as
ACD - 2 t A/c
where a is a magnification factor that can be
eatimated by Ref 79, c Is the local wing chord and
40 Is the Increment In momentum thickness at the
trip and Induced by the trip. However, recent
trends In aerofoll and wing design are such that
the effects of the trip should net be thought of
simply as an Increase of drag. The increase in
boundary layer thickness can also give a
significant reduction In rear loading and hence,
often, an Increase of wave drag for a given total
lift. An approximate relation for the Increase In
monentum thickness at the trip is
l - N Ar t CDR
here N Is the number of excrescences per unit
area, Ar is the frortal area of individual
excrescences and t Is the streamwise width of the
transition trip CER Is the drag coefficient of
each excrescence based on Its frontal area. Ther
Is little available evidence for an accurate
estimate or Cm but clearly, CDR - 1.0 Is an upper
bound. On the assumption that CDR Is unlikely to
vary rapidly with lach number, the values in Ref 80
can be used The effects of the trip can then be
estaleted by mans of a CFD calculation Including
Ad as an Input parameter
The choice of a suitable chordwlse position for the
transition trip lll be discussed later In §10 4
but, for the present, one can note that, to obtain
a turbulent boundary layer/shok Interaction
without any undesirable Interactions between the
flow over the trip and the shock strength and
position, the trip should always be at least 0 10c
and preferably 0.15c ahead of the shock
Another technique that has been used successfully
(ef 81) in research exporiments is to Inject air
Into the boundary layer In order to fix transition
This is a much more elegant technique in a
tso-dimensional test with on-line ienltoring of the
data, It *1i1 always be possible to see whether one
Is being successful In fixing transition. One does
not have to be very precise as to how much air one
uses. In contrast with tests with distributed
rughness, the penalties of using more than the
mlnimum required amount of air are trivial
103 Mthds for Dtetrmnns TraMLEi. lLLLLW
The standard method in most tunnels of determining
the transition position and of checking whether a
roughness band has been effective In fixing
transition Is by mns of a sublimation test with
say, a 1011solution Of acenaphthone In Inhibisol.
Closed circuit television is used to judge %hen the
sublimate has evaporated in areas shere the
boundary layer Is turbulent and photographs are
 4-19

taken at regular Intervals. There Is some 1: Collection of relevantInfoation

difference of view asuto whether one should spray
the entire wing surface or merely the areas For example,
downstream of, the -roughness band. Some elleve
that ,to spray ahead-of the band and In'the'bend Whatare the alas of the test?
reduces the effectiveness, of the band. This Whatare the important design and operat.ng
Implies that lf the wing has been sprayed ahead of conditions?
the band, one should acceptsome turbulent wedges What transit-ion Reynolds numbercan be
downstream of the 'bend; otherwise, the roughness achievedin the tunnel?
size that Is acceptedwill be largerthan that
neededto fix transition on a cleanwing. If the 2: Preliwinary theoretical calculations
wing is merely sprayed downstream of the band, a
'goodtrip'In a condition wheredrag Is ImportantCalculate by the most advanced theoretical method
Is probablyone thatgives somevery smellwedges conveniently available the wing pressure
but In a buffet-onset condition, It my be distributions, boundary layer development and, If
preferable to choose a band that leaves no wedges. possible, the wave drag and viscous drag at the
One should always choose the smallest possible Important operating conditions.The generalaim of
roughness heightthatmeetsthe criterion as agreed thesecalculations Is to give the testengineeran
between the wind tunnel engineer and the customer earlyIdea of whetherand wherethe flow over the
for the testsand one should he consistent In what model Is likelyto be subjectto scale-sensitive
one accepts. viscouseffects,eg

It may he difficult to apply a sublimation is therelikelyto be a rearseparation in the

technique In a pressurlsed tunnel because of the modeltests?
time neededto pressurise the tunnel.A plotof CD Is therelikelyto be a laminar separation near
versus Reynolds number and a comparison of this the leadingedgeaheadof any possible
plotwith theoretical predictions willhe usefulIn transition tripposition?
Identifying ranges In which the transition fixing
has not bean fullyeffective but cannotbe regarded These calculations will also providea guide to
as a completeanswerto the problem. A decrease whereto locatea forwardtrip,eg it shouldnot be
with Reyn-IdsnumberIn the excessprofiledrag on placed at or inmediately behind the peak suction
one part of a three-dimensional wing could, for position, and to the range of positions where a
example, mask a failure to fix transition on trip would still meet the requirement mentioned
another part of the wing. A visual aid for usa In earlier of heing 0 10 - 0.15c ahead of the shock
pressurisedand cryogenictunnels Is therefore
needed:hence, the Interestin liquid crystals.3: Initialdatumtestswith forwardfixed
Other novel techniquesare being explored. For and with freetransition
example,Cartanherg at Old DominionUniversity (Ref
82) Is using an Infra-red Imagingsystem. Use of The alas of the test with a forward trip are
such a system becomes difficult at low
temperatures, partly because the differencein (a) to establish the absolutedrag levelsfreefro.
recovery temperatureIn laminar and turbulent any uncertainty due to an unknownlengthof
regionsdecreasesat low temperature and partly laminarflow
becausethe sensitivity also decreases. However.
thereseemsto be somehope thatthesedifficulties(b) to comparewith the resultsof the theoretical
can he overcomeby monitoringthe reactionto a calculationsundertaken In step 2. any
transient heat flux thisshouldbe more rapid In disagreemeont should he explored as it may
the turbulent areas indicate the existence of a strong viscous-
inviscidInteraction,
10,4 Siemlation Methodology. TestPrRg£Am
(,.) to find how the shock positionvarieswith CL
Complete simulationof the full-scaleboundary and uch n.cber and so to define what will he
layer behaviour In a tunnel test at reduced possible In later tests with different
Reynoldsnumber Is obviously neverpossible All transition positions.
thaton can hope to do Is to devisea methodology
that will placethe testing and the extrapolation (d) to study the nature or the pressure
to full scale on a sound wclentific hasis. ACARD distributions aft of the slcik to establish
recognisedthis med and In 1984set up a Working whether any separation*hen presentextends
Croup to review the subject and propose an rearwardfrom the shock(classA flow)or
appropriate mthodlogy This Croup reported it spreadsforwardfrom the trailing edge (class8
1988 (Ref 8) It Is hoped that. its the future, flow),the distinction originally Introduced by
increasing use will be made of the AGARD Pearcey (Ref 83) Particularly If It Is a
methodology It Is based on the best of currenit class D flow, strong scale effects are to he
practice and It represents an at-empt to use the expected and It Is o.tly recently that
wind tunnel and CFR as partners In an Integrated theoretical methods hase been developed that
approach The de3cription blow and In §§10 5 and are capableof dealingwith these(Ref84)
10.6 sumsaarlsesthe waSi.features, for further
details and a background study of the subject, the Ibe test with free transition Is Included largely
reader should consult t" compteh.tive treatment for diagnostic purposes for example.It will show
In Rf 8
(I) whther a laminar boundary layer can be
maintained backto the shock,
There Is m.Dc more to a viscous simlatIon (11) whether any rear separation observed In
,tethodology than making declslons about whether, the transitton lxod test Is still
how and %here to fix transition the methodology present,if so. it will not be possibleto
as proposed requires action before, during and avoid this at the model test Reynluds
afterthe tests It containssix steps nuber.
 4-20
(iII) the furthest aft shock position that can
be achieved at'the test Incidence and Mach
number, the boundary layer thickness being
z less In a transItIon-free test than In any
test with a trip.
4: In-depth study of viscous effects
S el atrip
Steps 1-3 have In a sense all boon preliminaries to
step 4. The data taken In Step 4 will be the
definitive data that wll form the basis for the
prediction of the full-scale aircraft performance.
In practice, steps 3 and 4 may frequently be
combined In a single test programe In the tunnel.
Step 4 will be described below,
5- Itweroretatfon of the data after the tests
This step will be discuassedIn §10.5.
6: Extrapolation of the dat. to eredLct
the full-scale verformance
This step will be discussed In §10.6,
Returning to step 4, there are two approaches
• to an
In-depth study of the viscous elfects one can
eIther, If possible, conduct Reynolds number sweeps
with transition position held constant at the
position forecast for flight at the full-scale
Reynolds number or second, one can conduct a sweep
through a range of transition positions at a given
test Reynolds number. It will be reallsed that, In
both cases, the tests are rosily a sweep through a
range of boundary layer thicknesses. Mhnever
possible, both types of sweep should be Included In
the programme.
There are limItations on the use of both
approaches. Reynolds number sweps can only be
accomplIshed satisfactorily In a variable ontslty
(or variable temperature) tunnel. Admittedly, two
models at different scale. og a complete and a
half-model can be tested but, since It Is unlikely
that one could obtain precise agreement between
complete and half-model data at the same Reynolds
number, one still needs to be able to vary
stagnation pressure (or teaperature). le one uses
the half-model to extend a trend as Indicated In
fig 35 The range of transition positions that can
be covered In a transition sweep Is limited by the
ned
(i) to ensure a turbulent boundary layer/shack
Interaction,
(II) to avoid any local Interaction between the
trip and the floe near the shack,
(iII) to mInilise. as far as possible, aty
serious disturbance to the superurllcel
flow development over the forward part of
the wing surface,
(iv) to ensure that one can claim that there Is
laminar flow upstream o the trip In all
test conditions, otherwise. interpretation
of the results will be laborious
These lIgItation Imply that with any one
transition trip,
3 2 one can obtain valid data In a
corridor (Fig s) between two boundaries, AA and
RB. corresponding to the Mach number (AA) at which
the shock wave moves 0 10 - 015C downstream of the
trip as Mach number is Increased and second, the
AcAch number at ohich the shack wave haa moved
forward to 0,15c behind the trip under the
Influence of a shock-Induced seperalon If the
wing Is being pressure plotted, these haundarle
can be determined easily but, even If only overall
forces and moments are being measured, they can be
detected witn fair certainty AA I*s Just beyond
a spurious hump In the drag polars as Illustrated
In Fig 32b. The excess drag In these humps arises
because of a local Interaction between the trip and
the development of the-supercrltlcal flow as the
shock passes over the trip as It moves downstream
with Increasing Mach number. As shown In the upper
picture In Fig 32b, theflow accelerates over the
and a second shock Is furmed downstream of the
trip; with a small furvher Increase In Mach number,
the two supersonic regions combine to give a final
shock wave that Is stronger and lies further
downstream than If there was no Interference from
the trip: hence, the extra spurious wave drag.
Similarly, on the approach to the boundary OB, the
forward movement of the shock Is arrested and the
shock hesitates downstream of the trip and this
hesitation can be recognIlsedby a slight Increase
In lift-curve slope and, generally, a nose-down
blIp In pltchl 3 moment.
Ideally, one needt 3 or, If possible. 4 points on a
transition sweep to establish a trend. This Is
only possible In a relatively small part of the CL
- M plane s shown In Fig 32c but fortunately, for
a subsonic transport, this Includes the cruise
conditions and most of the buffet-onset boundary.
The shock pattern over a three-dimensIonal swept
win$ Is likely to create further limitations near
the wing tip and root but on a transport wing, this
Is unlikely to be too troublesome because
separation-onset generally occurs Just outboard of
the Intersection of the 3-shock patters near aid-
semi-span. The three-dimensional mature of the
shock pattern will pose mote serious problems on a
combat aircruft wing of moderate aspect ratio but
the technique has still been practised
successfully. The above description has bosn
somewhat simplified. ag as noted earlier, trips of
different height my have to be used In the cruise
and near buffet-onset. UsIng a trip that Is
effective (but only Just effective) In the cruise,
will be excellent for drag but It liable to give a
spuriously optimistic estimate of buffet-onset,
while using a trip that Is adequate for buffet-
onset will give a pessimistic idea of the drag.
Other qualifications are to be found In Ref S.
.15 Simulation M4ethodology.Interpretation
2L IIgiDAU
Fig 33 presents results from some two-dimensional
serofoll tests soef 8s) shere It was possible to
undertake both Reynolds nusber and transition
sweeps The results eoreobtained before the ACARD
Group wa set up bt they Illustrate the way in
which results should be Interpreted It step 5 of
the methodology A' Is a Reynolds-number sweep
wlth transition near the leading edge: fixed
artificially at R - 2,3 i 108 but occurring
neturally ear the leading edge at higher Reynolds
nsmbers Isi transitIon sweep at R - 2 3 x
0l: it appears that, by testing at R - 2 3 x 10
with transition at 0.30c, It Is possible to obtain
results comparable with those that would be
obtained with forward transit ion at about R - 8 x
lOg This example suggests that all test results
from both Reynolds number and transition sweeps
shauld be plotted as In Fig 34 against either
Reynolds number or an effective Reynolds number
havIng found hw to convert transition position
Into an effective Reynolds number One would not
necessarlly choose CD as the 'simulation criterion'
because the drag will Include a strong skin
friction contribution and there Is no Intrinsic
reason why Cf should vary with R In the sane manner
as the wave drag and other scale-senltive
parameters LookIng at tha past literature, one
might be tempted to choose say. shack position, hat
recent research suggests that shock strength or
some function of the boundary layer over generally
the wing upper surface my be a better choice
Wefort discussing the major Issue as to how to
 4-21 .. -

convert transition position to REFF, the aim In In wave drag. The fundamental Importasce of these
plotting graphs such as that Illustrated Indirect effects suggests that an appropriate
dlagramneatlcallyin Fig 34 must be discussed parameter on which to base the equivalence of a
transition position and an effective Reynolds
Graphs such as Fig 34 are plotted as a prelude to number would be the boundary layer displacement
the extrapolation to full scale Reynolds nmbers In thickness at (or near) the trailing edge on the
step 6. The primary aim Is to compare the measured upper surface. This has been confirmed In research
trends with the computed trends from the undertaken sInce the publication of the ACARD
preliminary calculations In step 2. These methodology (Ref 86)
calculations were rade by 'the most convenient
method readily available'. At the tm the ACARD Results from this research are presented In Figs
methodology was published, It was assumed that this 36a,b,c. Tests had been made In the RAE (Bedford)
phrase Implied that the calculations would not be 8 ft x 8 ft tunnel on a 14% thick aerofoll (RAE
able to allow for any form of strong viscous- 5229) with appreciable rear camber. Tests were
Invlscld Interaction Methods (Ref 84) have made at Reynolds numbers of R - 6 x 100, 10 x 10
however now become available that are capable of and 20 x lOs with transition at 0.05c and the range
allowing for a lImited separation near the trailing of data was than extended by calculations for other
edge This does not Invalidate the maIn deduction Reynolds ntbers and transition positions. The
from Fig 34 that below RcrIt, where there Is a first picture. Fig 36a shows
major divergence between the measured and computed
trends, It Is probable that a strong viscous- (1) good agreement between measured and
Inviscid Interaction Is present In the experiment, calculated results at R - 6.05 x 106 with
Extrapolation of the results to full scale has XTR - 0.05 at M - 0.735, CL - 0.65. the
therefor, to be based on the measured trends up to design condition for the aerofoll,
Reit but can be based on computed trends above
Rcfit. Ref 8 Identifies 5 simulation scenarios (ii) appreciable Indirect scale effect between
according to the relative values of Rfllght. Rerlt. R - 6.5 x 1O and R - 30 x 106 with
and the maximum R or REFF In the tests. In transition at 0 05c,
practice, one Is most likely to encounter scenarios
3 and 4 which are defined by the relations: (111) a reasonable but net perfect correlation
between the c- ustedresults for R - 6 05
,
Scenario 3. Rzrit < axtimumR or REFp In tests x 104 xTR - 0 40c and R - 30 x 10. XR -
< Rfllght 0 0Sc The significance of this result Is
that this correlation of XTR - 0.40c is
Scenario 4: Maximi R or REFr In tests < Rcrlt what would have been predicted using the
< Rfllght zero-level simulation criterion proposed
In Ref 8 This criterion, the boundary
Clearly. extraolation Is easier in scenario 3 layer momentum thickness on the equivalent
because Rcrlt Is within the test range. Indeed. flat plate. is often remarkably successful
one could describe the vim of the aft-fixing and, in this case, as in many others, it
technique as being an attempt to bring test data gives a good match as regards shock
nhlch would otheraise be In scenario 4 Into the position However, bearing In mind that
orbit of scenario 3 The greater certainty In the the criterion Is not related to the
scenario 3 situation relati., to scenario 4 can be boundary layer development over the real
appreciated frca a study of Figs 55a.b wing. this most be somewhat coincidental
It will b sees that it does not product
Returning to the issue of how to convert a close agreement in the rear loading
transtiln position Inti an effective Reynolds
number, one must consider the nature of the scale Turning to the more soundly based criterion
effects that may exist Rlserar Introduced the suggested above. Ie the boundary layer displacement
concept of direct and Indirect scale elfects thickness on the upper surface of the real
serofoll, comparisons based on this criterion are
(I) direct Reynolds number (or viscous) presented in figs 36b.c This
t
criterion yields
effects arise as a result of changes In REf - 20 x 106 and 30 x 10 for x"R - 0 28c and
the bundary layer (and wake) development 0 3)c respectively Fig 36b shows that in
for a fixed or "frozen" pressure subcritical, attached flow, this criterion gives
distribution xamples Include the perfect agreement In the pressure distributions and
variation of skin friction *Ith Reynolds this Is maintained at the design condition, CL -
number and changes in the length of a 0 65, except in the supercritical region on the
shodk-indutced separation bubble for a upper surface Analysis has confirmed that the
given pressure-rise through the shock, and diflerent supercritical flow development can be
eoplained it terms of the different boundary layer
(ii) Irdleect Reynolds number (or vixcous) development In this region The shock save is
effects associated with changes It, further forward and weker I the aft transition.
prnssure distribution reaultintg from too Reynolds number rosal, then in tie forward
changes with Reynolds nsmber In the transition, high Reynolds nmber distribution Fig
boundary layer and wake development 36d shoss that no othr choice of xTR would have
helped in giving agreeaneot in aave drag This
The indirect effects are surprisingly Important In complicates the Interpretation of aft transition
the context of scale effects on aircraft wings In results by just converting to an effective
subcritical. attached flow, the only significant k*ynolds nuaber, one cannot equate with higher
scale effects ( tvlng aside th, changes In skin keynolds number antsers, oe ls to Include a
friction) are due to the changes in pressure correction to the measured save drag It is
distribotion that fol:ow from the changes in Ioseer possible to calculate this correction
boundary layer displacement thickness In theoretically and there Is no doubt that this Is
suporcritical fNow. these changes become icre the correct ph)sical approach In other words, the
significant as increase In Reynolds number procedure has to account for to distinct effects
decreases the boundary layer displacemnt thickness a change In the viscous mvelopoent at the rear.
and this leads to an increase in rear Ioadcg. a hich Is alloted for by the choice " xR and a
reduction In the lift contribution that is needtd change is, suporcritical flow development which Is
from the forward upper surface to achieve a given alloued for by a correction to CD.WAVE MAG
total lift and uence. In many cases to a reduction
 1I~
4-22

At higherCL, when the shock Is strongenoughto determining Rorit It shouldnot be takenas the
Inducea separation, the Instinctive approachis to Reynoldsnumberat which the extrapolated measured
convert a transitionposition to an effective trendwould intersectthe computedtrend This
Reynolds number on the basis of obtaining a wouldimplyblindfaithIn the absolutevaluesfrom
separat ion bubbleof the saw. length. The bubble the computedresultswhichobviouslywouldnot be
length is a function of the boi.ndary layer momentum Justified.Rather, one should extrapolate curves
(or displacement) thicknessat the foot of the of, for example,skin frictionnear the trailing
shock(Ref 87) There is no Intrinsic reasonwhy edge againstREFF to find the valueof REF - at
use of the bubblelengthas a correlating parameterwhichCf - 0 In practice,the relationset out
should give the same relationshipbetween aboveshouldprobablybe reshapedif the results
transition and effective Reynolds number as would are In scenario 4 so that terms (1) and (3) are
be obtainedwith the boundarylayerdisplacementdetermined not for Rcritbut for the furthestaft
thicknessat the trailingedge He*ever.In the transition positionin the modeltest programe and
example discussed in Ref 86, perhaps a furthercorrection has to be ncludedIn term
coIncidentally, this provedto he true. (4). This extracorrection termhighlightswhy the
extrapolation Is uncertainIn scenario4. The
In the example quoted above, It was assumed that correction Is. In fact, an estimate of the anount
when the transition pooitionwas noved aft at low by whichthe resultsat the furthestaft trAiItlon
Reynolds number, It was moved aft on bothsurfaces position In the model tests are affected because
Bearing in mind that the main effects are this value of REFF lies below Rcrlt In a very
associatedwith changes In rear loading, the approximatefashion,this can be estimatedby
;eneralconclusionIs that If transitionis not observing the difference betweenthe slopesof the
movedaft on the lowersurface(a practiceadopted measuredand computedtrendsand allowingfor the
in some test programmes), the change in transitioneffectof this difference as It would affect the
position on the upper surface has to be extrapolation up to Rcrit.
correspondingly greater Details of a nodified The computedtrendsin CD with Reynoldsnumberhave
criterionto allowfor this pointare givenIn Ref to allowfor changesIn bothviscousand wave drag.
86 Refs 88-91shouldbe helpful.
10.6 SloulatlonMethodoloty:
Extranlastlon 10.7 Simulation
Mehg.tbocy. LaminarFlowAircraft
Procedure
There Is only one paper (Ref 92) In the open
The general principle in the extrapolationliterature addressingthe particular problemsof
procedure is that one should follow the measured obtaining wind tunneldata for aircraftdesignedto
trends up to Rcrit and then the computed trends maintain extensive laminar flow. There are two
from RcrItto Rflight As notedIn §10 5 above, typesof problem first,extensivelaminarflowhas
this Is much easierin scenario3 than In scenario to be achievedIn the tunnelsostaand second,one
4 To take CD as an example, In scenario 3, the has to be able to forecast and simulate the full-
full-scale valueIs ohalned fron a simplerelation scale transition movements with CL and Mach number
of the fore In off-design conditions

CD.filgit - (1) s (2) - (3) . (4) The abilityto maintainextensivelaminarflow In

the model tests on a suitably designed shape
where dependson
(i) - measuredvaluefor transition positionthat
converts o Rcrit. (I) tie tunnel flow havinga low turbulence
(2) - computedvaluefor flightR and transition level,say, les than 0 13,
position.
(3) - compued value for test conditions as In (I), (il) the tunnel being a quiet tunnel with the
(4) - the suest ion of a seriesor corrections for valueof Cpirs ideally0 it or less a
certaini) no marethan 8, 0 This depends
(a) excrescences on theaircraftbut not on more than Just the design of the
represented on the eodel. tuntl, there Is evidence(Refs36, 92)
(b) propulsion affectsnot represented In a that It can e adverselyaffectedby tie
normal complete model teas, presence of the model support.
(c) trimmsing effects I flight.
(d) differences in aeroelasstic effectson the (ff) the successIn keepingthe modelclearof
aircraft and the model contalnation frogsiteImpactof particles
in the flow The allowableroughness
is addition allowancehas to be made for the height is hated on a roughnessReynolds
increase is drag and lois In rear loading due to number defined by the height of the
the presence of the roughness band Th:s can e roughness and the flow conditions at the
done by either allowingfor it In (3) or as a top of the roughness Criticalvaluesof
correction to (I) about600 for three-ditlensionl or 10 for
two-dimnslonal disturbances are usually
It shouldbe notedthat the conversionfromXTR to quoted but experience suggests that
R plays no part in the final prediction or ite semeshat larger values can be tolerated
full-scalevalue, it has merelybeen used In the near siteleadingedge,presumably because
procedureto identify that the results are in of favourablepressure gradients To
scenario 3 The. is Just another way 'f Poin1ing achieve these standards, It may be
out the advantages of using art fixing to bring the necessaryto filterthe flos.
results Into scenario 3 Ir nevertheless the
results are still In scenrlio 4, the extrapolation (Iv) the successin Inserting pressureholes in
ia necessarily more uncertain The measured trends the model that do not trigger transition
have to be corrected for tite fact that, with (Ref93)
forward transition at R - RfF. the supercrltlal
fio dcvelopmnt and hence,the wave drag would be Ref 92 by Elsenaar contains a detaileddiscussion
differentard then.the trends are extrapolated to of how naturaltransition Ia likelyto varywith CL
Rcritand thismeansthat the conversion to IF Is and U at both flight and model test Reynolds
involved in the calculationto ploduce the nuabers. assumingtlitthe points In the preceding
full-scalevalue It controls the slope of the paragrapithave been negotiated successfully
measured trend There are also problems in forecastingthe natural transit ion position is
 4-23
N
generally undertakenltoingthe e methodbut there Half-odels have frequently been used for tests
is stillSr at uncertainty overwhat valueof N to with powerednacelleswhere one is merely seeking
choose, if the aims of the preceding paragraph the drag Increment due to the nacelle Installation.
have been met, naturaltransitionIs likelyto be Experience has shownthatsuchtests,even on wing-
furrFier aft in the tunnel than In flight both at mounted nacelles, should be made with a metric
the design condition and at strongly off-design half-fuselage Thiscontradicts someearlyreports
conditions,thus allowing one possibly to use on the subject.
noratl trippingtechniques.In the Intermediate
range Of CL, however,the forwardmovementof Despitethe problems discussedabove, It seems
transition with CL is likelyto be delayedand to will continueto be used
likelythat half-models
occur core abrup:ly on the model than In flight, for
If these comparative movementscan be predicted,
aft tripping may havea part to play In givinggood (I) tests for determining differences in drag
simulation betweentwo configurations,
(11) highspeedtestswithpowerednacelles,
One majorissuenot discussed In Ref 92 arisesfrom (ill) tests aimed at achievingthe highest
the fact that In flight with a laalinarflow possible test Reynolds number and, In
aircraft,transitionIs likelyto be triggered by a particular,extending the range of a
laminar boundary/shockinteraction. Little Reynolds somber sweep.
research has been undertakento determinethe
scaling lawsfor such Interactions 12 PEOPTSIO INSTALLATION TESTTECHlOIL ES:
SUBSONICTRANISPORTS
I HALF-5M)DEL
TETING. SPECIALPROBLEM
12.1 Jet TurbineEnelnes
There have been several referencesIn earlier
paragraphs to the growingpracticeof lestinglarge 12,11 Tyes of simulator
half-models of subsonictransportaircrafta. a
meansof obtaininga higher test Reynoldsnumber The ulscussionIn thispar& Is takenfrom Rer 10
(RefII). This practiceaccentuates problemsthat Different types of simulator are shown
have to be consideredIn all testing. diagrasmatically
in fig 37

(I) the lsrgemodelmountedasywentrically in Most completemodelsare fittedwith through-flow

the workingsectionIs likelyto have more nacelles(TFNl) - see top picturein Fig 37. This
effecton the steadiness of the airstveam, Is the simplest form of simulator. They can
providethe correctinletgeometryand the correct
(11) the sall Interference corrections will be mass flow ratio If the exhaust geometry Is
more difficultto predict, particularlyenlarged. Alterustlvly, If It Is felt important
for tunnels with ventilated wallsbecause, to retainthe corlectexit geometry,one has to
for half-model testing,one wallwill have accepta reducedInletmass flowand It may thenbe
to be solidto act as a reflection piame, necessary to modify the Inlet geometry to avoid
spillage drag the- would not be present, full
(111) buoyancy effects - both empty tunnel scale With an usolerwing nacelle.It Is probably
buoyancyand In perforated-wall tunnels. Important not to modify the exit geometry for the
blockage buoyancy effects will be larger sakeof obtai cKthe correct Interference with the
and more difficultto predict without flowover the wing
extensive pressureplottingin the actual
tests. The weaknessof a TEN Is that the exhaustflow is
unrepresentativ In both total presu-e and
(iv) In many tunnels. the standardof flow temperature and consequently In exhaustplumeshape
angle uniformity Is mot as good near the and stream shears Attempts to Include a hard
wallsas In the centreof the stream(see shapedextensionto the nacelleto representthe
§7 I) correct plune shape have not generally been
successful Whenever possible.the TFt should
there are also problems directly associated with retain the geometry of the separate fan and core
the miod, of testing (Ref 94) There was streamcxlts
considerable activityin the 1960s to solve the The generalpracticeIn high speedtestingis to
lealage problemsat the root by sealing schemesbut correctfor the lackof Jet effects with a 1FN by
thesewere oftenunsuccessfulThe normalapproach undertakingcomparative tests on a corresponding
is to mount the modelwith the aircraft centre-li e half-modl ith both a IlN and one of the powered
ot at tie tunnelwall but displaced away from the simulators describedbelow
wall by a distanceequalto aboutthe wallboundary A blownnacellehas both practicaladvantages and
layerdisplacement thickness Opinionsdiffer as practicaldisadvantages.On the one hand, since
to ubether one should measure the forces on the all the air that exhausts from the exits has been
extra piece of fuselageInsertedto create this fed Into the aodel, the Inst.tsmntation
displacement Whateverone does in this respect, requirements are simplified but,ot te otherhand.
it It unlikelythat tilemeaturedlift-curve slope the air requirements can be verygreat,ag perhaps
will agree with %hat would be masured for the three times those for a turbine powered simulator
corresponding complete IdelThere are too many (lP$) Also,problems arisefromthe fact thatthe
reasons for satll differences eg the tunnel wall exhausttotalpressureof bothprimaryand fan are
may met ant as a fullyeffectivereflection plane, very low in comparisonwiththe supplypressure(by
there wIll he a reduction in the dynamic pressure perhaps I 15) Complex pressure-dropping systems
close to the wall and. in somecases,theremy be can lead to non-unifor pressure and teeerature
some leakage between the model and the wall Most distributions The apparent advantage of a blown
tunnel operators adjust the lift-curveslope to nacelle to permit oer-blowing for calibration
agree with that mleasuredwith the complete model purposes,is to providethe correctflightpressure
and have developedsel-empirical metbods for ratios at the mzzles In a staticcalibration, my
modifyingthese correctionsfor the next model also proveto e an illusion It is dangerousto
havinga differnt geometry Clearly.this Is not assume that the flow distributionit the nozzle
a fullysatisfactory approach It mroally leavesa remains the same in ,hesooverblown renditions and
residualerrorin pitchingmomentamountingto 0 01 also.thisappro..hrequiresthat the dependence of
- 0 02c In aerodynaic centreposition mozzle thrustand discharge coefficienton internal
ReynoIds numbercan be quantified
4-24

There are also practicalaerodynamic difficultiesthe tank, thus enabling the upstream nacelle
In the use of blownnacelles.A shapehas to be stagnation pressureand the nozzlestaticpressure
designedfor the fairingover the front of Che of the tunnel tests to be reproducedin the
nacelleand the flow over this shapehas to be calibration whilstmaintaining quiescent conditions
representative over a reasonable rangeof CL and in the flowsaroundthe Inletand downstream of the
Mach number. The displaced intake streaatubenozzles. The aim Is to calibrate the grossthrust
entersthe gullybetweenthe wing (or fuselage) and and inlet=aso flow In termsof the sane reference
nacelleand the effectsof this are difficultto pressuresand temperatures as will be used In the
quantify. tunnel tests and to use the Internal
Instrumentation to calculate the net thrustand ram
The greatadvantageof an ejectornacelleover a drag.
directblownnacelleis that It requiresmuch less
high pressureaIr. AssumingsMat one can achieve The originalNSTI was designedfor high flow rates
an ejectormass ratioof about 1.5,the inletflow and relatively large models; It Incorporates
with an ejectornacalleshouldbe about60 to 65% criticalventurimonitoring of mass flow ratesand
of the designoperating value. The real challengetwo slx-component balances. ST2 was developedto
with an ejectornacelleIs to obtaina consistent.neat a need for greaterprecisionfor the smaller
repeatableflow at the nozzle Instrutmentation models; it uses single axial component force
referenceplane, This referenceplane Is always balances The aim of this MST2 designwere to
likelyto be nearer the ejectorplane than the obtain
rules of the complete mixing would allow.
Proponents of the ejectornacellewouldclaimthat (I) force measurements of 00.1 lbf
thisdistanceis nevertheless acceptablebut others repeatability, and
believe that It Is too close to guarantee (i1) enhancedmixingof the TPS exhaustflow
repeatability The accuracy of an ejector ahead of the tank ames flow
simulator Is dependent on the repeatabilityof the Instrumentation
flow fros a multitudeof minute condl ejector
nozzlesand their mixing with a distortedflow To produceenhancedmixing,the flow for UST2 Is
field, first extractedfrom the tank Into an annular
mixer/plenum priorto flowing alonga high velocity
Finally,turbinepoweredsimulators(TPS). these feedduct and Intoa furthermixerat entryto the
have been used extensively.Som establlshmants. '-mas flow,plenum,as shownIn fig 38. The model
notablyARA. tiNWand OI4ERA have acquireda large axis is verticaland threesinglecomponentBofors
amountof expertiseIn theiruse. Initially.In 'ahearforce'high precisionload cell are used
some quarters,therewere some doubts abouttheir for the measurements.A speciallayoutof metric
use in view of the largenumberof rotatingparts and non-metric componentsfeaturing annularcells
but in practicethe units.designedand built by was devisedto compensaste for the pressurearea
Tech Developen: Inc. have proved to be very tera arisingon the modelmountingzonedue to the
robust Most TPS units are associatedwith a basic tank external to internal differential
particular full-scaleengine and appropriatepressure The tank top is equippedwith a novel
cladding is manufactured In the testing arrangementof rollingdiaphragmseals specially
establilhmentor by the customer to suit a manufactured by the patentholders,BelloframInc.
particularInstallation Technically, TIS units Flat diaphragmsealstried Initially did not give
have severaldistino t advantages.eg the requiredaccuracy The overalluncompensated
load on the basic metric area at 6 psid Is
(I) both Inlet and exhausteffectscan be approxlmately1200 lbf but the arrangementof
adequatelyrepresented In the sam test compensating cellsreducesthe net metric load to
A typicalfigurefor the intakeflow Is less than IS lbf at 6 psid The RDS give an
50% of fullscale, essnlally linearresponsewith ...hysteresis and
good repeatability Calibrations with exlernal
(11) a linkedaccounting systemcan be used to loadsup so I0 lbf and with 6 paid differential
estimate the ram drag and the gross have produced less than tO 05 IbF forces data
thrust This alnlasea he potentialfor spread,
largeerrorsso be presentas a reaultof
having to subtracttwo relativelylarge Repoateduse of MST2 has shownthat it Is possible
termsIn obtaining the externaldrag. to achievetO 1s accuracyIn boththrustand mass
flow calibrations This is a notableachievement
Crest care has nevertheless to be taken in the but. bearingin mind that typically, ram drag,fan
calibrationof the units with much diagnosticgrossthrustand coregrossthrustare respectively
Instrumentation to seek out faults. These 300. 500 and 230 counts comparedwith a nacelle
procedures are discussedIn the next para externaldrag Increont of say. 20 counts. this
standardof accuracyand repeatability is necessary
One detailedfeature worthnotingIs thatuse of an If external drag differences are to be
epoxybasedfibreor glassclothlaminatematerial discriminated to the accuracydiscussedIn §3
(Tufnol)baa providedan acceptable solutionto the
problemsof Ice formationsdue to the very low Detailed monitoringtechniqueshave had to be
turbineexhausttemperatures davelopedto ensure the safetyof the TPS units
during the testsand to be ble to diagnosethe
ILLL2CallbrII Lacn chnlcusg sourcesof any apparentInconsistency In the data
One particular featureof the reduction of the data
All siamulators with their claddinghave to be i that they are 'poser corrected' Ref 10
calibratedIn tanksthat resemblethe altitudetest containsan examplesheft the measurements, then
chaubersthatare used for the full-scale engine sampledat a finiteset of duct locations, led to
Boeings were the first to develop such a nozzle coefficients *hich shoved apparent
calibration tank but theynow existat uanysites variationswith rpm at fixed values of the fan
eg C0c, OIRA, M88 (Brwen). NASA Aes and ARA nozzle pressure ratio The 'powercorrections'
Th discussionbelowIs basedon a description of approach Is based on the assumptionthat these
the facilities at ARA. (Ref10) apparentrpm effectson the nozzlecoefficients are
due sampling
=o variationsan opposed to real
The Mach Simulation Tanks (MST)at ARA are shen effects Ref 10 describesa methodfor correcting
diagiamrstically in Fig 38 It will be seen that for those apparent poer effects and, In the
%he unitsare mounted partly In and partlyout of exaspie discussed the spread of the nozzle

coefficients at different rpm at a given fan nozzle
pressure ratio was reduced from about 0.7% to less
than 0.3%. This was a cast where a large nuber of
doct pressure and temperature samples were taken.
The published literature (Refa 95,96) contains
examples with fewer samples where the apparent
power effects before correction were as great as
3%.
Mach Simulation Tanks can, of course, be used and
are used for the calibration for a forms of
simulator includingTFs. The calibrations of TFPs
are undertaken to determine the Internal drag
correctilons.
12.1.3 Accountinn technioues
Fig 39 shows schematically the essentials of the
MST and In-tunnel bookkeeping process. The
calibration phase yields a set of nozzle
coefficients which represent the characteristics of The main test sequence Is that Illustrated In the
the nozzle and Instrumentation combination. it is three pictures on the right
important to recognise that the nozzle coefficients Is to create a test programe including tests on.
will change If the Instrumentatlon Is changed. It
Is essential, therefore, that the Instrumentation (a) TFN/pylons mounted on a long strut.
remains the same In the tunnel as In the
calibration The ram drag and the fan gross thrust
are computed using an Identical mas flow term.
Multiple methods are used to estimate the fan
nozzle mass flow; comparison of the results bulds
up confidence In the results and helps in
fault-finding
(b) TPS powered nacelles/pylon combinations again
It Is Important that the thrust/drag bookkeeping
sche m Is defined clearly and agreed This applies
even In the simplest case of tests with a through-
flow nacelle Several different definitions for
the Internal drag of such nacelles are In use
according to whether one Interprets it in terms of
the change of momentut from upstream to downstream
Infinity or morely to the duct exit. Any
deflni'ion can be used provided that other terms in
the full thrust/drag scheme are adjusted to suit
Statistical analysis techniques are applied to the
results These techniques are discussed In detail (c) a half-model fitted with alternatively TFNs and
In Ref 10.
12.1 4 Prooolsion Inteeration high sind
test DroLrgmf
A number of different models and rigs have to be
used in a typical test prograerse to study and
optimise the propulsion Installation on a subsonic
transport The description below Is again based on
the facilities at ARA but similar approaches would
be followed elsewhere
The range of possible rigs and models Is
Illustrated In Fig 40. The pictures on the left
show two special rigs for Isolated component
testing on respectively the external cowl shape and
second, the nozzle and afterbody lhe three
pictures on the right shoe a nacelle/pylon model
being tested In Isolation at the top of a long
swept strut, on a half-model and on a coaplete
model In the last three pictures the nacelle can.
In princiOle, be any of the simulator types
described above
The coal models tested on the Isolated rig shown in
tha left top picture are appreciably larger than
those used for the installed teeta. Thia enhibla
the tests to be made at a higher Reynolds number
and also, the models can be a more feithfei
representation of the full-scale nacelle Imluding
asymmetries sch as Intake droop and any exters;al
bulges to house accessories on tie full-scale
engine The external drag is obtained from
pressures measured on a rotating raks aft of the
nacelle and the mass flow Is deteralnd from
pressures measured on raes rotating in the dwcts
Tests can be made on a complete cowl with a
4-25
truncated afterbody but primrily. It Is a rig for
refining the shape of the forecowl and for checking
that no avoidable spillage or wave drag Is present
in the Important operating conditions. It can also
be used for designing the modified shapes of
cladding to use with powered simulators with
limitations on the maximum available mass flow. It
Is not suitable for studies on afterbody shape
because of the effect of the downstream support
mountIng.
The second picture shows a rig that can be used for
checking the performance of the afterbody/nozzle
design. It Is a two-stream strut-mounted rig. The
rig has been used extensively for tests on
axisymmetric nozzles, the effects of a non-metric
wing panel on nozzle performance and full
nacelle/pylon configurations. Som typical test
results are prsented In Ref 10.
The general practice
These
teats, taken In conjunction with evidente from
the Isolated forecowl rig, will reveal whether
there Is any nacelle/pylon Interference. Care
has to be taken to avoid or at least, allow for
any buoyancy effects with respect to the
non-metric part of the strut,
on the long strut Results from these tests
will form a datum for the later test data from
the Installed tests but also, comparison of
results from (a) and (b) will be of Interest as
an Indication of jet effects !n a free-stream
environment. The comparison also serves to
confirm whether the design of the forecowl for
the TPS unit is satisfactory Finally.
carrying out these tests first will man that
one arrives at the start of the installed
programe with added confidence,
IPS units and on a corresponding complete model
with 7T"s The data from these tests can be
used in several ways
(I) comparison of results for different
builds of the TPS nacelles on the
half-model will indicate how to
optimise the complete Installation
bearing in mind that all effects are
represented In these tests.
(11) subtraction of the results alIth the
TIN and IPS nacelles on the half-
model will yield corrections that can
be applied to the data from the
complete model tests to allow for the
jet effects not present with the
TINs.
(ili) suboraction of the results with the
TPS units on the half-model and those
obtined In (hi will provide an Idea
of the aerodynamic Interference
present is the total Installation and
hence of the Improvements that may.
lit theory, be possible. In this
connection, it should We noted that
zero Interference is not necessarily
the beat that can be achieved:
favourable interference Is a real
psslbillty Fig 41 Is an exaaple
taken fr Ref 9 Tbe aim should be
to design a propulsion installation
and wing that together give optlmu
performance at Ia almost axiomatic
that this Irllies that this
performance Is better than the sum of
4-26

the clean wing and nacelle cell as with the jet engine. This Introduces
Installation performances when engineering problems in the design of rotating
determinedseparately. This is balances and, with modern propeller/spinner
obviousIn the case of aft-mounteddesigns,thereare difficulties In separatingdrag
nacelles where the presence of the and thrust and, as regards propeller efficiency,
of the wing can thereare difficulties In comparing experimentand
have a downstream
nacelles major Influence on the theory because it Is often not practicableto
positionof the shock waves on the measurewhat one can calculate. Theseadditional
wing hut it Is also trueof underwing issuesare considered In some detailbelow.
nacelle sntallations.Ref 97
identifiesS differentsources of In the UK, Industryand Government cooperatedin
interference for such Installationsthe developmentof new facilities(Refs102-105)
at high speed and Ref 10 adds a for modeltestingwithpropellers' a specialTest
further4 sourcesImportantat low Housewas built at DA for provingtrialson the
speeds. modelpropellers aheadof the tunnel tests,three
compactand powerful*lectri motors for testing
Even with half-models, the high pressureair feed relativelylargemodelpropellers (up to 3 ft in
to a TPS simulatorhas to be taken throughthe diAmster for single rotating propellers)were
balanceoutsidethe tunnelwall but the associatedacquiredand have been used in tests in both the
problems are not as seriousas theywouldbe If the ARA and MW tunnels,air motorswere obtainedfor
TIPSunits had been Installed in a complete model, tests on aircraft models with both single and
Such tests are however feasible as was shown In a contra-rotating propellers and finally,a linerwas
resoarch experlmnt on a 2-engined Lockheed lOll designed to create an 8 ft x 7 ft acoustically
model withoutits rear engine. An air transfer treatedworking section for the ARA transonic
bellows system was designed successfully and the tunnel. For convenience, the author will use the
comparative testdata for two configurations showed ARA experienceto commenton the problem mentioned
reasonable agreement with flightdata (RefI0). At abovebut It is, of course,recognised thatvarious
low speeds. it Is howver more important to use other establishments have tested model propellers
coplete models and, by now, DKl have acquired either in Isolation or on aircraftmodels,eg the
considerableexperience In this field (Refs de Havilland (Canada) 30 ft x 30 ft low speed
98-101) tunnel (Ra 106). the ONERASI tunnel (Ref 107),
The twa completemodel testshave been meadewith the NASALewisfacilities (Ref 108),the facilities
two types of large TIPS unit, one designed and at United Technologies ( Rer 107). NASAAmesand
manufactured by TDi and one by ND, The aim of McDonnellDouglas(Ref109) and finally,one should
the testshavebeen' mentionNoelngs,wo were the firstto developan
acousticworking sectionfor a transonictunnel
(I) to establishthe jet interference effects (Rer110).
on the drag In the secondsegmnt climb.
the drag Is needed to an accuracy of tl Propeller testsat ARA can be mode at two different
aircraftdragor about1i0 drag counts, mdel scales. The engineering and aerodynamic
problemscan be Illustrated by a briefdiscussion
(11) to determinethe jet effects on the of the hardwareand typicaltest progranes for
stabilityand controlcharacteristics in testson contra-rotating propellers at the smaller
groundeffectduringtak-off, scale

(111) to investigate the trrust reverser
characteristics Including braking
capacity, handling qualities and
relngest
ionboundaries,
and
(Iv) to studythe natureof the Interference by
mans of surfare pressures and flow field
measurements
The crucialengineeringproblemin the complete
model testing with IPS unlhiis iw to bring the
high pressure air scross the balance In th
fuselage The air pipe aust be flexible to
mininlse interactions with the blance measurements
but stiffenough to malntainits positionIn the
modeland to withstand the high pressure of about
40 bar The MW design Is shon In Ref 98. there
are two air bridges,one on each side of the
balance, in the models to allow for independent
controlof to engines
IL2.tr Milu
tharehas been considerable Investmentin recent
years In new facilitiesand techniquesfor the
testing of modelpropellers and of asrorwit models
fittedwith propellersin both low and hgh speed
tunnoeIs ilany of the isn,,es discussed above in
connectionwith aircraftwith jet engi-s still
Apply but thre are none additional problems Ill)
First, model tests are needed on the propeller
It.lf to determine its performnce ar1
asroacoustic characteristics and second, in the
testson aircraftmodels,the propeller thrusthas
to be measureddirectlyIn te wind tunnelrather
than Irdirectly by mans of reference prstratesand
temperatures alliedwith a calibration In a test
(I) fig 42a shows the rig that has bees
developedto obtain the basicpropeller
thrustIn the presenceof the realspinner
shapebut followedby an unrepresentative
nacelle, being merely the miniarasbody
requiredto house the 101700 air motor
This combination Is mounted on a metric
struthoused in a non-metric shield The
aIm of the design oere to provide
sufficient rigidity coupled with
aerodynamic cleanliness and as sual a
tare drag as possibleon the underfloor
balance readings the achievement of a
satisfactorycomprostisebetween these
conflictingrequirements was a far froa
easy task The propellers are clearedfor
tunnel testing by monitoring the output of
blademountedstraingauges%hichprovide
a mans of assessing rotor dynamic
disturbances, criticalpointsand flutter
Also, the rig Itself is fitted with
accelerometers.Ihe compressedair for
the air mtor entersthe metricmodelIn a
dire.tionperpendicular to the thrustaxis
hut It is still necessaryto insert the
naceIle/nzzee system in the Iach
SimulationTank discussed earlier to
determine the notee thrust and discharge
coefficients In a quiescent environent,
fig 42b showsthe hub design scheme, the
attachments to both the shafts and the
componentpropellerswere designed to
producea sysuntriclow-ttress torqueand
thrustpath to the balanceflexures The
balance electrical signals were
transmittedby slipring for the front
rotorand by telemetry for the rearrotor.
 4-27

(1ll) the shaft strain gauged balancedesign, contextare the differencesbetweenthe

Fig 42c, comprisesa set of flexuresIn a variouscurves,
basicallysymmetricallayoutwith strain
gauges placedso as to providesymmetry (ii) the substantialdifferencebetween the
and duplicationof the key elements. A blade and net thrustsIn the theoretical
repeatabilityof ±1% was achievedIn a resultsconfiro.s of the
tl'e importance
staticcalibration, blade effectson the pressureson the
spinner,
(Iv) the development of the telemetry
Installation providedto be a challenging(ill) the differences betweenthe apparentand
task: the high CF loads dictated a net thrusts Is significant In the
specially configured housing with experimentbut relatively minor In the
coposite retention rings. After various calculation. The most obvious explanation
structural and electrical refinemients, a of this Inconsistencyis that the
i%1 standard of signal processingwas calculations do net include the skin
obtained, frictionelementIn the effectson the
nacellebut It ray alsobe due to detalied
(v) the test programmeand methodologymay differences, blades-on versus blades-off
appear complicatedbut. In fact, the In the flowthroughthe spinner gap. More
bookkeepingprocedureas set out at the prosaically, it may merely reflectthat
bottom has been somewhatsimplifiedfor the theory has its limitations. These
thispresentation. compalsons have been discussedIn som
detail merely to emphasisethat, at the
For the aircraft nodal tests, the precise presenttime, one is in some difficulty
definitionof propellerthrust Is unimportant trying to use theory to settle
provided one retains consistencythrough the uncertainties In whetherthe experimental
accountingin Fig 42d but. In tests on the data have bean handledcorrectly. The
propeller In Isolation (phaseA In Fig 42d).aimed propellerdesignermay wish to know the
at determining the propeller thrustand efficiency efficiency of his designto I% or better
and comparingwith theoreticalprediction,the but at presentthis Ia difficult eitherby
definitions become crucial As we have seen, In experimentor theory' It Is another
the experiments, measurements are made with botha example where comparativeaccuracy Is
shaft and an undsrfloor balance The difference better than absoluteaccuracy but even
between the blades-onand blades-offshaftthust comparativeaccuracy is likely to be
yield%an apparent
uesurenents thrust The net sensitive to the Interferenceissues
thrust can be obtained In two ways either by between propeller and spinnerdiscussed
differencing the blades-sn and blades-off above. More researchIs needed.
underfloor balance thrusts or by correcting the
apparent thrust for the difference. blades-on and The model tests discussedabove related to an
blades-off,In the rear nacelle axial force aircraft with wing*mounted engines Similar
obtained by integrating the pressures measured on activityhas been undertaken by McDonnell Douglas
this nacelle Assitsingthat this Integration can In connection with a design with aft-mounted
be performedto the requiredaccuracyand that engines(Ref 109) Tests on powered complete
allowance Is made for the skin frictiondrag of the modelsat both lowand highspeedsweremade For
nacelle,these two methodsof obtainingthe nat the high speed model, the high pressureair was
thrustshouldgivethe sameresult routed forwardalong a sting locatedbelow the
modeland then up a bladesurportInto the forward
An essential elementin the design of an efficient fuselage and then backthroughthe fuselageto the
propeller installationfor operation at high powerednacelleat the rear A contra-rotstlng
subsonicspeeds Is the slowingdown of the flow pusher arrangementwas simulated Poer-Induced
over the thickrootsectionsof the propeller by a effectson taillpowerand overal stabilitywere
wa stlngof the spinnersurfaceopposite ad ahead matsured and also,a n clle-based rotatingtotal
of titepropeller (seeFig 42b) At the very least, pressure wake rake *as used to explore the
any theoreticalestimateof the propellerthrust slipstream
and efficiencyshould allow for this effect but
tls Ix net enough to produce a theoretical The finalpicture,rig 44, concernedwitit propeller
estimatethat can be compareddirectlywith either testing, shout the large scale tV rig with a
the apparent or net thrusts from experiment Any contra-rotating propellerInstallationInstallediln
calculations by strip theorystill nd refinement tite acoustic working section of the ARAtunnel
by allowln for tie effects of the pressures on the Points to note Include
Inner surfaces of the blades adjacent to the
spinner and for ith pressures Induced on thit (a) titepropellers are driven by two AC Induction
spitter by the presence of the blades 7batse eta electric motors mounted In tande These
obviously part of the apparent thrust from the motors are designed and manufactured by the
suggestthatthey
measuredresultsand calculations Able Corporationof the US and are eachcapable
can accountfor 5-10% of the final answer All of generating 660 SHP at 7000 rpa. they are
these complications suggestthat a field method verycompact eachcan be containedIn a volune
should be used for a comparisonwith experiment 25- longby 14' diameter.
The resultsof such A comparisonusingthe Denton
fieldmetbodare shown in Fig 43 taken from Ref (b) a co-axialsystemof threeshaftsconnectsthe
ill Variouscomuentscan be made about this rotors and, in this case, stationarynose
comparison bulletto the Ablemotors.

(t) the apparentovarpredlction of the theust (c) Sitsprimaryinstrumentation of the rig was a
and poser coefficients at a given blade pair of shaft-mcounted thrust and torque
anglemay not be the most Important issue balanes and a set of surface pressuresto
It shouldperhapsbe thoughtof as being enablethe rotorperformance to be evaluated,
due to a discrepancyin bladeangleeither coupledwith extensiverig and iotor"health'
because of an undetected blade twist in Instro.ntation including strain gauges on the
te soperimntsor becauseviscous effects blades,
tavebeen ignoredIn the calculatoss Of
more direct Interest In the v-esent
4-28

(d) the larger size of this rig carries many The standard approach Is to test a stite of at
advantages- a wore acceptableReynoldsnumber leastthreemodels:
on the blades and the abilityto attempta
wider rangeof tests, eg dynamicand steady (a) a normalcompletemodel of the aircraftwith
pressuremeasurements with transducersflush the best possiblerepresentation of the intake
mountedon the blades and a lasersystem to through-flow and the leastpossibledistortion
monitor the twist and camber of the blades of the rear fuselage,
underload.
(b) a partialmodelof the Intaketo a largerscale
(e) despitethe relativelylargeblockageof the and Including a faithfulrepresentation of the
modeland the microphonetraversing rig In the Intakeductsback-o the engineface,and
tunnel with the acoustic liner, tests were
possibleup to M - 0 9 In passing,it is (c) a partialmodelof the trueafterbodyshapeof
worth mentioningthat Ref 112 is a useful the real aircraft Includingthe facilityto
reference on the effectof propeller thruston blow the exit nozzlesat representative jet
tunnelwall Interference presureratios. The distorted afterbodyshape
of model (a) Is also testedon this afterbody
In the performancetests with this large rig, model and the differences betweenthethat
results
supplementarytests were made with beth laser for the two shapesprovidecorrections can
anemometryand laserholography. For the laser be appliedto testdata from(a).
anemonetry, the flowwas seededby plumesof 0.5 pm
particlesof mineraloil Injectedfrom a special Clearly,as configurations have becomemore closely
struterectedIn the tunnelsettlingchamber Two coupled,doubtsarise about the validityof this
pairsof focussedbeamswere used,the orientationthree-pronged approach As a smallmove to meet
and meetingpointsof thesebeamscould be rotated thia point, both intakeand afterbody models now
and translatedto enable velocities to be ten Includerelevantparts of the rest of the
determinedIn different regionsof the flow field, aircraftto whateverextentIs permittedby model
eg the tip vortexregion,the In-rotor (ie between blockageconsiderations. However,with a closely
blades) region, the between-rotors region and coupled layout It may be wrong to assume that
upstreamand downstreamof the rotors. In the intakeand jet effectscan be studiedseparately
holographictests, features that were observed
Includedthe tip vortexpath,the choppingof the The techniqueswill be discussed under two
frontvortexby the rear rotor,the shearlayerin headings. Intake testing, afterbody testing
the wake region and supercritlcal flow features Including a verybriefdescription of the prospects
such us the expelledbladeleadingedge bow shock for fullsimulation of the propulsion effects
The measurements and testsare decribedin detail
in Refs 105 and 113 This wag a majorexerciserun 13.1 TestsonlIntakModels
on a cooperative basis with Rolls-Royceas the
major partner The brief descriptionhas been 13 1 1 Scourof flitake pets
Includedhere since this programe is a good
exampleof %hat Is going to be possible on a more To quote from LeynaertIn Ref 117. the purposeof
regular basisIn the future. IntaketestingIs to qualify the flow they deliver
to the engine, and to determine the effect they
13 PROPULSION INSTALIATION. TESTTECHIQOUES- have (In terms of drag, lift and moment) or the
C21.ULASR external aerodynamics of the aircraft Most
testing Is carried out without any engine being
for many year., the ACARDFluid Dynalcs Panel has present In otherwords,the conclusion of Ref 110
devoted much attention to engIne-airframe that the engine has littleeffect on the Intake
interference a.l. in particular,to the test pressurerecovery, the levelof turbulence, and the
techniques thatare requiredin this field An ad mxlessa instantaneousdistortion Is accepted.
hoc committeereported (Ref 114) In 1971 on the However, at a relativelylate stage In the
resultsof a detailedstudyof the testingmethods development of a new aircraft-ensgine combination,
In use at that time and this was followedby a testsare sometimes made on the real Intake-engine
lectureseries on the same subjectIn 1973 (Ref in the very large facilities at ONERAModane (the
115) In 1974.the FDP field a 4-daysymposlum on S1 tunnel)or AEC Tullahoma(the 16 ft PVT) (Ref
airfraie/propulsion Interference (Ref 116) as 119)
regardsOind, tunnelteating,this symposlum almost
esclusivelyconsidered problems In afterbody Specificalm of IntaketestingInclude
testing, eg strut Interference,temperature
effects More recently.two WorkingGroups have (I) to obtain the pressure recovery/mass flow
considered different facetsof the subjectWorking characteristics,
Croup 08. whlch reported(Ref 12,13) In 1986,
dealtwiththe aerodynamlcs of aircraftafterbodles (Ill to obtainthe spillagedrag as a function
and Workling Croup 13, *hlch Is reporting In 1991, of mass-flow. Mach numbarand Incidence.
Is concerned with intakesfor high speedvehicles
and speclflcally Inludes a chapterIn Its report (1i1) to refine the details of the intake
devoted to testingmetlds and techniques(Ref design,eg to optimisethe boundarylayer
117) This part of the presentlecturedraws bleedscnd/ordiverter.
extensively on thisrecentmaterial
lv) to study the unsteady
Copared with the subsonic transport discussedhis respect, one characteristics
should diutinguishin
above, combat aircraft introduce 4 major between unsteady distortion and the
coeplicatloss surging of the Intake DistortionIs
relatedto Instabilities In the intake
(I) a greaterspeedrangeup to supersonic Itselfand so. thereIs littledeponderce
speeds, on how the internalflosvalvingsystemIs
(iila greaterrangeof angleof attackat high arrangeddownstreambut when surgingIs
subsonic and transonic speeds, being studied,or any other relatively
(ill) a morecomplicated and closelycoupled low-frequencycharacteristicsInvolving
geometry, wave propagation tlmesbetweenthe engine
(lv) a lackof provenenginesimulators thatcon and the intake,a valve system must be
be used In routinetesting largely due to provided at the positionof the first
severegeomtrical constraints compressor stages in order to reproduce
 4-29

p the phenomenaexactly, particularly as deviationmeasurements with the local deviation

(whichshouldbe
regardsreducedfrequency measuremnts found by measuring the total pressure
Inversely proportionalto the model fluctuationsand cornertingto axial velocity
scale), fluctuations but this elaborateapproachhas sot
yet been adopted.
PressureRecovery.
Performance:
13,12 Internal the
Swirl-DynamicDistortion When a floometer can be usedas In Figs45sa,b,
mass flowcan be measureddirectlyand precisely.
assumed that the static pressure In the
For many combat aircraft, the primary design It Is
conditionfor the intakewill be at supersonicsettlingchamberof the flowmeter Is uniformand Is
speeds. In two respects, this simplifiesthe as measured at a hole In the side of the chamber
testing:at supersonicspeeds,the flow into the and calculations are made as describedIn Ref 117.
intakecan only be Influenced by the shapeof the to determinethe sonicthroatarea When the test
aircraftupstream of the intake plane and hence, Mach number Is not high enough for the flowmeter
the restof the aircraftneed not be represented on throatto be choked,or when the pressureloss
the mdel and second, the ratio between the accompanying a sharp reductionin mass flow leads
can
stagnationpressureof the Internalflow and the to an unchokingof the throat,the same set-up
external static pressure is such that It Is still be used, treating the flowmeter as a venturi.
relativelyeasy to capturethe naturalflow with In this case,the staticpressureat the throathas
the Intake Figs 45a,bshow two testset-upsfor, to be measuredalthough ideally,a calibration
respectively, an Isolatedand installedintake shouldbe madeagainsta reference floweter.
test In both cases, the aim Is to obtain the
highest possible test Reynolds number. Ti., limit If it is unacceptable to Includebotis Stations(2)
on modelsize in the Installed Intaketest Is set and (3) as separatesections, the mas flow has to
by the need to keep the Intakeplanebehindany be measured at the station at which it Is
reflectedshocksfrom the tunnelwills. In the controlled If the throatat this statiorIs ot
example Illustrated,the Internal flow ducts choked,the static pressurein the Isternalduct
contain upstreamhas to be measuredand combinedwith the
area of the throat cross-sectional area to
(I) Instrumentationat the enginefacestation determinethe mass flow. Ref 123 should be
(I), consultedfor diagramsof sonicplugsthat can be
adjustedby translational movementto vary the mass
(ii) a station (2) at whichthe flow through flow. A unit incorporating one of these plugs Is
the duct can be controlled either by an shown In Fig 47 There Is no settlingregion
adjustablesonicthroatas shown or by a upstream of the throat in this case and the
non-sonic variablepressuredrop suchas a aerodynamicdefinitionof the throat Is less
butterfly valve,and finally precise The flow easurement may therefore not be
as accurateas when there Is a separatesection
(III) a station(3) at which the mass flow is (3) When no downstream throat can be choked and
measuredby, for exaple, a flowneter with the flow profileIs not uniform,one can use the
a sonicthroat, measurements at the engine face station (I) to
computethe mass foe, The accuracythendependson
In other cases. It maynot be possible to use two the detail in which the flow at this station has
throatsinseriesat (1,2)eitherbecausetho space been explored In one examplewhere a detailed
is not availableor becausethe Internalpressure exploration was made by a rotatingrake supported
dropshave to be limitedto achievethe desired by a flowmatchinghypothesis for the waIl boundary
flow,In such cases,the mass flow is measuredat layers. Ref 124 claimedan accuracyof 1%.
station(2)
In contrastso supersonic speeds, the Intake flow
Fig 46 shows three examples of the engine face at subsonic and transonic speeds is Influenced by
instru entation that was adopted by lAe as d 118 In the entire aircraft Strictl, therefore,one
one of their test prograres It is generally shouldtest completemodelsbut by comparing full-
believedthat about 40 stagnation pressures are model and partial-modei tests. MAch number and
sufficientto obtain a reasonablemean pressure Incidenceconditionscan be defined for the
recoveryand similarly, 40 pressuretransducers can partlal-model tests that will bring their itse
be used so obtain the maxlmum Instantaneousresultsclose so those of the cmplate model
distortions Variouswetbodshave been proposed Testsat thse speeds have to be extended up to
for eastilating the unsteady distortion fro a very high Incidences This Is noraily
saller numberof wasurements and, Indeed,Ref 120 accomplished by transferrlng modeIs designed for
quotes a 'rule of thumb' to use In cases here no testing in moderate size tunnels to larger tunnels
unsteadypressuremeasurements have beenmade this for the high incidence testing For example, a
rule correlatesthe unsteadydistortionwith the partial nodel of the Rafale without wings and with
man Internalstagnation pressuredrop throughlb. truncated canardsthathas been testedIn the ONRA
duct startingas tirediffuser. This approach $2 tunnl (cross-sectional area3 an) was converted
conflicts, however,withthe generaltrendshichis Into a completemodelof the aircraftfor tests at
to take more measurements than in the past In high incidence in the Si tunnel (cross-sectional
particular. it is often considered mandatory that area40 a')
the test instrumentation includes measurements of
swirl, eg in the case shown In Fig 46. sixteen 13..1 E.et&aL.ilriS
fve/hioe probes were used A paramter for
quantifying the rotational deviation has been in addition to Che normal tests on a complete model
proposed in Ref 121 This Is defined In an of the aircraft,testsare made on the air intake
analogous mannerto the 0(260definltion, the swirl alom or ot the forwardpart of the aircraft
S60 Indexis the maximumaveragedvalue In a 60' including the Intake She purposeof these tests
sector of the circumferential componentof the Is to establishtho effectsof detailedchangesin
velocity, divided by the axial velocity As long Intake design and of Intake ass flow on the
ago as 197'. Carriere(122) rooeoended that the externaldreg the partialmodel allo*s usteful
differences In relative Incidence of the engine Increase in Reynolds number and a mere faithful
face fluid stream with respectto the rotating representation of the detailof the Intakeof the
blades- In the differemes that give rise to the full-scale aircraft The majortechniqueproblem
distorton effect - shouldbe consideredfrom a itt such a test IlesIn knowinghow to 4determine the
global point of view by combining the fio doonstream momentum accurately Fig 8a shows one
4-30

miss flow was periodically injected by

possible experimental set-up for which another negative
problemlies In obtaining adequate stiffness at the compressed air supplied through the vane.
Jointbetweenthe live and earthedparts of the Comparison with flightevidenceshowedthata good
model. In thiscase,the Internal momentum at this simulation of the engine surge phenomenon and Its
Joint is calculatedfrom the measurements of the effect on the Intakewas obtained In this way.
flow at the engine face On the assumptionthat Anothersimilardeviceis presentedIn Ref 128
the flow Is being mesured more accorately
elsewhere, the probe measurements at the engine
facecan be corrected to givebetteragreement with
this more accurate value and a corresponding13.1-6 Conciuding Remarks
correct ion can then be appliedto the momentum
Fig 48b Illustrates another arrangement (Ref 123) A major comparative test programueof Intake
in whichan earthedplug Is placedat the outletof measurements has been organised by AGARD and the
the Intakeduct and the momentumIs evaluateda resultsare currentlybeinganalysed.Models to a
Ilttleupstreamof the plug by measuring the static comon design have been manufactured to slightly
and totalpressuresIn a cylindrical part of the different scalesand testedIn wind tunnelsat RAE
ductand the onlycorrection that Is neededIs for (Bedford), ONERAand DLR. Both steadyand unsteady
the drag of the cylindrical part of the tube measurements have been made over a wide range of
between the measuring section and the outlet incidence at M - 0.8 and at low incidence, over a
section a smallfriction term. The mass flow Is wide range of Mach number up to M - 1.8. The
obtainedin a separatecalibration models represent a simple subsonic-type pitot
Intakewith a circularcross-section and bluntlip.
Detailsof the instrumentation used In the various
13.14 Acouisition and analysisof distortion tunnelsand examplesof the resultsare given In
MgILrNU In Ref 117 Tb, first Impression from this exercise
is thatthe resultsshowan Impressive standardof
The distortion Indices come from the forty unsteady consistency, even when differences In the absolute
transducers of the engineface rakes The highest valuesof the distortion Indicesare observed, the
frequency thathas to be consideredIsof the order trendswith mass flow are broadlysimilar The
of 1000Hz fullscaleand thishas to be dividedby finalconclusions from thiswork will be presented
the scale of the model One way of obtaining a at an ACARDsymposiumIn September 1991. It is
particular distortion IndexIs to buildan analogue likelythata similarcooperative exercisewill be
cumputerwhlchdeliversa signal proportional to proposed on a morecomplexIntakedesign
the desireddiatortIonIndex. These are wide!y
used,they providea resultIn realtine but their 13-2 Testson Afterbedy .odels
usefulness is limitedto the one distortion Index
for which they were designed Hence. as a Wind tunnel testing to determine the true
complement, the transducer signals are recorded on aerodynamic characteristics over the afterbody of a
magnetic tape for off-line coaputar analysis full-scalecombat aircraft Is perhaps the most
Better performancecan be obtainedwith a PO4 difficulttask In all the problemareasdiscussed
(Pulse-Code Modulation)record, The distortion In this lecture She normal completemodel test
Indicas can also be computed digitallyusing with the model supported on a solidstingfrom the
analogue-digital conversionwith a suitablearray rear Is deficientIn two respects first,the Jet
processor coeputer effectsare beingignored(sinceIt isonly In rare
casesthat the stingItselfprovidesan acceptable
The aircraft designer will want to know the maximum representation of the jet plume)and second, the
values of the various distortion Indices as shape of the afterbody has probably been distorted
recordedduringa given lengthof timeof orderI appreclably to admitthe sting for example.If
minute, full scale, for the flight conditions at the aircraft afterbody has two nozzles with their
shlchseriousdistortion is present The recorded exitsat the bodyrear and, the gullybetweenthese
distortion can be analysed statistically to define two nozzles my wellhave been partly filled In to
these maxlajatvalues according to a given admitthe sting,thiscouldhave a dramaticeffect
prohahlilty(Ref 125) A detailed map of tie on the viscous flow development affecting not
instantaneous flowmay also be of interestbut the merelythe externaldrag but also the effectiveness
Irportunt Issue Is knowinghow to selectfrom the of any tallsurfacein the vicinity Earlyflight-
vant amouni of data that Is typicallytaken tunneI comparisons for aircraft such as the
Systems for doing this have been developedat Lightning reealed aerlous differencesIn the
various establishments and In Industry, eg at AEDC directional stability characteristics which sere
(Ref.126.127) subsequently traced to the unrepresentative shape
of the model&fterbedy Supplementary model tests
If no analogue computers or high speed data most therefore be made but many questions then
acquisition systemsare available, a firstestimate arise,eg shouldone test a partialmodelor ahouId
of the variousdistortionIndicescan be made, one test the completemodelwith the trueafterbdy
based on ihe Wl5tvalues of each Individual total but iaunted In a different mnner and howshould
pressure probe i the rake The etatisical either Of thesemodels be supported? Also,what
analysis techniques employed are described In Ref should one leasure. eg should one test a partial
I1? model or should on test the complete model with
the true afterbody but sounted In a different
L ntakefiatdynlac study mannerand what should one measure,eg total thrust
minusdragor separatebalancesfor thrustand drag
To design a control systemfor a variahle-geotry or drag by means of a pressure Integralion?
intake.the dynamic characteristics of the Internal Further, how should the jets be simulated, eg by
flowbase to be studied It Is alao Important to high pressure air ducted to the nozzlesand direct
identifythe levelof the wall pressurerise,In blow or by use of a turbineor ejectorsimulator?
transientflo. for the design of the intake Thereis no simpleor uniqueanswerto any of these
structure To perform such a study, high speed quest ions It all depends ot the aircraft shape
rotating vanescan be Installed at the compressor and on the test requirements A study of the
facestationto producea periodicvariation of the literaturesuggeststhat every conceivable answer
reducedmass flow The Intake Is equippedwith has alreadybeen triedbut It Is stilldifficult to
unsteady trassducers which measure the amplitude arrive at any general conclusions The chapters
and the phaselag of the pressurewaves One such (Refs 12,13) by Bowers and Carter In the -CARD
device Is describedin Ref 115,in thisexample.a Sorking Cioup WCOS report are the mat recent

attemptsto reviewthe sceneand the following text (I)
Is broadlyin line with theirconclusions.The
ieading questions outlined above are discussed in
turn ht it iI soon be realisedthat they are
very Interrelated, le the answer to one question Is
likelyto dependon what answerhas been givento
one of the otherquestions
13.2.1 Completeor partlalmodels?
One cannotgive a generalanswerto this question
except to commentthat, as combat aircrafthave
beconemore closelycoupled,the case for testing a annular stings have been Used to support
complete model or at least a closer approxlmation
to a complete model has strengthened. Jaarsma In
Ref 129 gave a good review of the relative
advantages and disadvantages of testing partialand
completemodels. In favourof partialmodel$,one
can quote largerscale,betterpotential accuracy,
abilityto Incorporate moreInstrumentation, a more
faithful representation of the primary and, when
necessary,secondary and even tertiaryjet stream
and probably cheaper testing for parametric
investigations On the other hand, the common
practice of using a cylindrical forebody may mean
that the afterbodyis being tested In a very
unrealistic environment In favourof testinga
complete model, the principal advantages are better
external simulationand duplicationof nozzle
environcent, better accounting of mutual
Interferences and forebodyinfluence, moreaccurate
simulat ion of aircraft aerodynamicsand plume
Interference.On the other hand,the models are (it)
smaller, toe Instrumentation more limited and It Is
difficultto Includesecondaryand tertiaryair
It Is temptingto say that It Is not a questionof
either/ort.t tather of decidingthat oee needs
both the complete model for overall effects and a
partialmodelfor the development of the nozzle/aft
end
It Is arguable that the past literature on this
subjectdoes not place enough ephasis on the need
for a representative approachboundarylayerahead
of the afterbody The flow over the afterbodyIs
stronglyviscousand it Is Justas Important as on
an advanced wing to have a good slmulation of the
full scale boundary layer The advances In CFD
methodsnay nake it possibleto do this much more
scientifically than In the past This concern
about the boundary layer does not necessarily
favouruse of a partialmodeldespiteIts larger
size and the probability that one can more easily (1l1)
modifythe approachboundarylayer The pressure
gradientsImposedby the flow fieldof the restof
the aircraft way be core Important factors In
determining the boundary layer development
Increasingly. the trend Is toward a compromise
between a partial and a complete model 1IMle is
shown by Fig 49 which Is a picture of a nw rig
being developed for RAE (Pyestock)by ARA
Strictly, this Is a strut-supportedpartial
afterody model but it can Include a correctly
scaled representation of the aircraft forebody,
forward lift ing surfaces and th Inner wing thich,
o the underside, forms the upper part of the
supportstrut
ILI' ethods of Colel pqn
Many different types of model support have been
proposedand explored,Includingsuch Ideas as
mountit.g the complete model from the nose at the
tall-end of a long Interference-free tube
stretching from the tunnel settling ctamber It
general, however, one can characterise all rigs In
commonuse as beingof one of threepossibletypes,
viz sting-mounted on an annular sting(s) wing-tip
mounted and strut mount,k (rigs 50a-cl
Considering cact of these in turn
4-31
mountingthe modelon an annularor a pair
of annularstings is perhapsthe obvious
method of testing a complete powered
model. it certainlyis the best approach
for minelsingsupportInterference and,
for this reason.my be the only way of
obtaining datacloseto M- 1.0. However,
there is one Important Interference
consideration as to whetherthe free jet
plune Is representedcorrectly In the
presenceof the sting This questionhas
been studied at AEDC (Ref 130) where
largemodelsof aircraftsuch as the F-16.
In a research exercise at AE., It was
foundthat the stingflare shouldbe at
least 3 body dianeters downstream of the
nozzle base with a 10" boattall and 5
diameters downstream of a cylindrical
boattail.The stingInterference couldbe
determined experimentally by mounting the
model, with alternativelythe true
rear-end and with the modified rear-end
and dumeysting,on a sweptsupportstrut
The decisivefinal pointas to whetherone
can use an annularstingsupportis the
extent to which the afterbodyhas to be
distortedto admit the sting It is
likelythat to avoid seriousdistortion.
this methodof mountingcan only be used
for testsat low Incidence.
Ref 12 concludesthatwing-tipmountingIs
a viable alternative especially for
Incremental afterbody/nozzle testingbut
only if the Mach numberrangebetweenM -
0,8 and ii- I I can be avoided. In one
unpublished case. however,the subsonic
rangewas extendedsuccessfully up to M -
0 92 by the use of speciallydesigned
bodiesat the wing tip The wing planform
geometry has to be modified near the tip
for structural reasons The rig
Interference has to be judgedon the basis
of comparativetests with and without
dumuywing tip supporthardwarewith the
model mounted on a slender sting
Hopefully,this interference would not
change significantly between
configurations *hile testinga seriesof
different but similar afterbodles/ozzlos
Clearly,a strut mounting is the best
sciteme From the point of view of support
strength,rigidity and duct space for
Instrumentation and high pressure air but
the overriding Issue Is whether the
aerodynalmc Interference Is acceptable
Also, obviously, the technique cannot he
used for testingundersideslip conditions
and also, there nay be difficulties at
high Incidence Close to M - I 0. very
large Interference drag values have been
reported. eg 20 or even 80 drag counts,
but the magnitude of this Interference and
the Mach ntuabar range over hich It Is
unacceptable will depend on the geometry
or the strut support and on how much of
the Installation Is tmetric A side range
of different strut geomet ries were
comparedIn Ref 131 R.f 12 concluded
that despite all the problems, the strut
supportwouldcontinueto be used but all
new arrangements should be based on
erpirical guidelines, past exprience and
Increasingly, theoretical OFDtools should
be used In the design It will be noted
that, In the most recentdesignshown In
Fig 49. the strutIs sweptforwardrather
than swept aft as In mny past
arrangements Also, forces are being
measured on the entire odel/rtg by means
4-32

of an acrate utderfloor balance It IsOIAPS technology In test programes was still In

hoped that the relativelylargesize of Its Infancyand, apartfrom an early programme of
thisrig will enablestudiesto be made of operating tests at AEIDC, the only recorded
not -erely the afterbody drag but also of
application of OIAPSIs thatdescribedIn Ref 132.
the unsteadyflowover the afterbody Fig 53 showsthe Instillation of OAPS In the model
for thisapplication: it will be seen thata single
13.2.3 Tyseof measurewents supportstingbringsthe driveair intothe model
and takes the turbine air out of the model. The
To illustratethe potentialvariety,fig 5Ia-f sting entr) Is from below the fuselageat the
shows six different strut-supportedmodeI centreof gravityup intoa manifoldsystemwhich
configurations with afterbody forces being measured distributes the high pressureair ductsout to the
withone or more forcebalances The totalmetric two earthedsimulatorsin the wings. The live
-o
dei thrust-minus-drag arrangement (A) Is modelshellIs mountedon the liverear end of the
considerably differentfrom the three afterbody-balance Considerable efforthas been put Intothe
only thrust-minus-drag configurations (B,CD) and developmnt of OIAPS and appropriatecalibration
the afterbody drag balance models (E.F). Ref 12 facilities at NASA Amesbut the vitalfeaturewhich
cocucotsthat there is no conventionor standard Inhibitsits application to modelsof VSTOLcombat
for afterbdy/nozzle force balance arrangements aircraft Is its geometry: an Inlet to nozzle
separation lengthof 9.5 enginediameterswhichIs
Multipleforcebalances are often used to determine much too long to allow Installation In a close-
sefrtrately the forces on differentpirts of the coupled configuration Design studies for the
model A typicalsyst,,c uld consistof a main design of a powered simulatorof more relevant
balance to detern ne lift and thrust-minus-drag of geometry are being made in the I and one can
the afterody togetherwith a thrust balanceto expressguardedoptimismthat,In the long term,
measure nozzle normal and axial forces; the theseeffortswill be successful
weakness of this approach Is that drag Is
determinedas the differencebetweentwo large The other possibilityIs to developan ejector
quantiti.s Anotherpossibleway to determinethe poweredsimulator CarterIn 1986concluded(Ref
drag Is to pressureplot the afterbody. thiswy be 14) that these were capable of providingan
a sensibleIdeawhen testingralativelysimple,eg adequate simulation of the flow requirements of
cylindrical aeterbadies but, in general, It way be currentengineshut thatthe length/diameter ratios
difficult to include enough holes on a complex of these slmulatcrs were likely to be even higher
shape to obtain an accurate integration, than for 04APS Hene, at the present time, for
routinetestson model%of combataircraft,there
The force balancesused Iliarrarck nt such as is no practical alternative to the direct blow
soe of those illustratedIr Fig 31 ate often approach
complicatedand theiroutput osl-is orrections
to provide data with acceptable a*u stibllity In finally, It should be noted that none of these
additionto the balance Interac os det,-1i wed is simulators providesslmulation of the full-scale
a calibration of the bare balanre. cor'cction.-. 4re jet tempt , ure Modern turb.-Jet and turbo-fan
needed for pressure area tare turcee istlualtg effluxev operate in the region 1500' to 1500' R
cavity, metric seal and base pressurs and f w while tise ajority of model afterbdy testing is
mosentu tares Any bellows 3wu.m als, hex , b- conducted with a cold Jet near 500' R rhereare
calibrated These corre-.ionsny svtsl, A tso says In *hih the jet affectsthe afterbody
greater than the final rorrete4 dr. If t1l drag first the drag is reduced by the Jet plume
model Includes both metric and tn-Imetrlc orts forward pressure Interference and second, the arma
the position of the breal bets.e- Ciese h.- to c is increased by the jet entralinuent Experimental
chosen carefully, thinking of n-th arol)ytsv sd work reported in Ref 134 studied how the jet plume
structural considerations It swis d be Ir a egion shape and *ntralnoent depended on the physical
of relatively uniform proesarc and at i pe-.t.-o properties or the exhaust Carter in Ref I3
there any flexing of the model ur er lod cots ot concludes that te effects of jet temperature are
Introduce a step at the break likely to be most significat in tlietrassosir flow
range where latse erect o' base or separated
Ref 12 concludes that new msodel cnfigurations and afterbody flows occur Th effects are greater for
balances should be desigted and built to suit the large afterboy angles and can be as large as 35%
teat objectives. tIhe test facility and the of the jet.offafterboly drag for high jet pressure
configuration Itself and In the light of past ratios 20% Is perhapsa mor, typicalfigure: the
eperierrce cold jet resultswill give pessimistic afterbody
drag predictionsTh eff..t$of temperatureare
13,2., lot Ulatic thereforesignificant a- configuration-dependent
but It Is unlikelythatany seriousattemptwill be
The above discussion has conce-trated on wdeis adr to develop methcdafor heating the jets In
with direct blow exhaust s but with the
Imuiatlo re, tue model testIng Thleeffects shouidhowever
close coupted nature of many modern aircraft and -' he 1.0 ored
evenware fien one looksforwardto ASTOVLdesigns,
It is cx lunger trictlyadmissibleto ignore LL.[
possible Interact Ions between intake and exhaust
floss The need to test Inlet and efxaust floe- In Tht lecture has revie-ed the expe. maenta
combiat ion s recongnlsed more than 10 years ago techniques ittuse Its eind turnZi t.odol tests for
In tim US and this led to te developmets of the performac. predictfion Ike r-o0. Is inevitably
modeI engine unit known as OdAPS (Compact tonged with personal blia bat I' Is hoped that use
Mullimission AircraftPtopulsion Siwalator) ihis subj(I. .overed In detail%nd the largenu ber of
Is shoon n Pig $2 and descriptionsare to be fotnd reftrontcas will be of contituedbenafit Looking
In Ref 132 and 133 and various other refernuces to the future,oe ale clearlyat ti-s thrsold of a
quoted In Ref 13 This unit has a 4-stageaxlal largeexpansion In the use of non Intrusive optical
compressordrive by the power generatedby a techniqueslaserholography, laseranamowetry and
single stageturbine file turbineis driven by the particle imagevoelocietry to study and .. asure tite
high pressureinletair which Is then mixed with flow field Thesedevelopments are vital for the
cospressor air througt a alxer/eJector module to salidat Ion of new CIO methods and so, one can claim
provide the exhaust nozzle total pressure air that experlotetal techniquesand their further
supply Petforware details ace summuarised In Ref refinewantare th key to future progresa In
13 Carter In 1986 notes that the application of aerodynsalcs isl geeral
 4-33

Acknowledgements 22 CrossC, Juanarena 0 B, Electronically sc.nned

The author wishes to acknowledge gratefullythe pressurescanners, 1981,Transducer/Tempcon '81
helpof Mrs A Ellum and Mrs M ConnollyIn preparing Conference, Wembley,England
this lecture, various useful discussionswith 23 BerghH, TijdeamnH, Theoretical and
members of ths staff of ARA and RAE (Farnborough experimental resultsfor the dynamic response
and Bedford) and the permission of MOD(PE)to of pressure measuring systems, 1965,
publishthe lecture. NLR-TR-F238.
24 WelshB L. Pyne C R. CrIppsB E. Recent
developments In the measurement of time-
Referencs dependent pressure,1983.ACARDCP-348,
Paper no 36.
I WolfS W, Statusof adaptivewall technology 25 WelshB L. McOwatD M. PRESTO- a systemfor
for minimisatlon of wind tunnelboundary the measurement and analysisof timedependent
Interferences, 1990,ICAS-90-6.2.1. signals,1979,RAE-TR-79135.
2 CoodyerM J, The selfstreamlining wind tunnel. 26 MabeyD C, WelshB L. Measurements and
1975.NASATM-X-72699. calculations of steadyand oscillatory
3 CanzerU, IgateY, ZIemannJ, Designand pressures on a lowaspectratiomodelat
operation of TU-Berlin windtunnelwith subsonic and transonic speeds,1987.Journal
adaptable walls,1984,ICAS-84-2.1.1. of Fluidsand Structures. 445-468.
4 HornungH (d), Adaptivewind tunnelwalls. 27 HorstenJ J. Recentdevelopments In the
technology and application. 1990.Reportof unsteadypressuremeasuringtechnique, 1981.
ACARDW112,AGARD-AR-269. NLR-TR-81-0SSU.
5 BarnwellR W, EdwardsC L W. KilgoreR A, 28 HainesA B. JonesJ C M J, The centre-line
DressD A. Optimumtransonic wind tunnels, Mach-number distribution and auxiliary suction
1986.AIAA 86-0755. requirements for the ARA 9 ftx 8 ft transonic
6 BritcherC P. Progresstowardslargewind windtunnel.1960.R&N 3140.
tunnel magnetic suspension and balance systems. 29 BinionT WJr. Potentials for pseudo-Reynolds
1984,AIAA84-0413. numbereffects.1988,ACARD-AV-303. Chapter2
7 Eilgore R A. LawingP L. Cryogenic wind tunnels 30 KennedyT L. An evaluation of wind tunneltest
for high Reynolds nunber testing, 1988, techniques for aircraftnozzleafterbody
ICAS88-38 4. testingat transonic Mach numbers.1980,
8 LasterM L (ed). Boundarylayersimulation and AEDC-TR.80-8(AD-AO91775)
controlin wind tunnels.1988.Reportof ACARD 31 Aulehla F, Pseudo-Rynolds numbertrends.1987.
W.O9.ACARD-AR-224 AIAA Sth AppliedAerodynamics Conference.
9 iarrisA E. CarterE C. Wind tunneltestand Monterey
analysistechniques usingpoweredsimulators 32 Baxendale A J, CarberryJ. Day J. GreenJ E.
for civil nacelle installation drag assessment, Replacemetnt of the flow smoothing screen in the
1981.AGARD CP 301-24. ARA 9' x 8' TWT by a longcellhoneycomb. 1990.
10 HarrisA E, PaliwalK C, Civil turofan ARA Memo 339
propulsion systemIntegration studiesusing 33 Dougherty N S Jr. FisherO F, Boundarylayer
poweredtostingtechniques at ARA Bedford. transition on a 10 dog cone wind tunnel/flight
1984,AIAA 84-0393 datacorrelation, 1980.AiAA80-0154.
II Coldhassner M I,SteinleF W, Designand 34 Dougherty N 5 Jr. SteinleF W Jr. Transition
validation of advancedtransonic wingsusing Reynldk numer corparlsons in severalmajor
CID and very highReynoldsnuaboer wind tunnel transonic tunnels.1974.AIAA 74-627
testing.1990.ICAS-90-2 6 2 35 MurthyS V. Effectsof compressihility and
12 BonersD L, Stateof the art assessment of Freestream turbulence on boundary layer
testingtechniques for aircraftafterlodles, transition in highsubsonicand transonic
Aerodynasics oF AircraftAfterbodlesReport flows.1986,AIAA06-0764
of KOS. 1986,ACARDAR 226 36 LongD. An experilmental evaluation of test
13 CarterE C, Jet simulation, Aerodynamics of sectionnoisein transonic wind tunnels,1990.
AircraftAfterodles keportof 08. 196. AIAA90-1419
ACARD-AR-226 37 MichelR, CoustoisE. ArmsID, Transition
i4 Wind tunnelflowqualityand dataaccuracy calculations in three-dimensional flows.
reqolreents., 1902.ACAOD-AR-184 1983.ONEATP 1985-7
IS CarterE C, PaIliate; K C, oeveiopmnt of 38 CreenJ E, On the influence of fren-strean
testingtechniques ina largetransonic wind turbulence on a turbulent boundarylayer,as it
tunnelto achievea required drag accuracyand relatesto wind tunneltestingat subsonic
flowstandards for wdern civiltransports, speeds.1972.RAE lR 72201
1985.ACARDCP 419. Paperno !1 39 Hrcock P E, BradshawP. The effectof free-
16 WoodM N. CappsD S. The accuratemeasurement streamturbulence onturbulent boundarylayers.
of drag in the 8 ft x 8 ft tunne 1i9835. 1983,Transactions of the ASME.Vol 105.
AGARD CP 429,Paperno 9 40 IMabeyD C, Flow unsteadiness and model
17 AshillP k. Privatecomunication. 1990 vibrationin wind tunnelsat subsonicand
18 EsaldB, ClesckeP. PolanskiL. SchenckC, transonic apeeds.1971,ARC CP 1!55
Automatic calibration machlno for cryogenic and 41 Mabey D C. A reviewof somerecentresearchon
conventional internal strain gaugebaiatce, time-dependent aerodynamics, 1984. Journal
1990.AIAA 90-1396 RoyalAeronauticai Society
19 CrossC luanarena 0 B. A miniature 48-channel 42 CarnerN C, RogersE V L. ACum W E A. Matskell
pressureu.,sormodulecapableof In-situ E C. Subsonicwind tunnelcorrections, 1966.
calibration, 1977,IS 23rd International ACARBograph 109.
Instrumentatlon Symposilu 43 B~rndt S D, Wind :untnl interference due to
20 Juanarena D B, A distributed processing high lift for delta wings of small aspect ratio.
data rate metiport winJ tunnelpressure 1950. KTi Sw-den Tech Note TN 19.
measurement system.1977.ISA 23rd 44 EvansJ Y C, Corrections to velocityfor wall
Internatlionai Instrumentation Symposlum constraint In any 10 x 7 rectangularubsonlc
21 JuanarenaD B, A multiport sensor and wind tunnel.1949.ARC R& 7662
measurement systemfor aerospace pressure 45 ThomA, Blockagecorrections In a closedhigh-
measurements. 1979,ISA 25th International speedtunnel.1943.ARC RAM 2033
Instrumentat IonSymposlum . Thopson J S. Presentmethodsof applying
blockagecorrections In a closedrectangular
igsh speed wi.sd tunnel 1948 ARC Report 11385
 47 Kirby D A, Spence A, Low-speed-tunnI model
tests on the flow structure behind a delta-win
8
aircraft and a 40 deg swept-wing aircraft at
high incidences, 1955, ARC RON 3078.
48 Baldwin B S et at, Wall interference in wind
tunnels with slotted and porous boundaries at
subsonic speeds, 1954, NACA Tech Note 3176.
49 Wright R H, The effectiveness of the transonic
wind tunnel as a device for minimlsing tunnel-
boundary Interference for model tests at
transonic speeds, 1959, ACARD Report 294.
Coethert B H, Traroconicwind tunnel testing.
1961, AARDograph 49, Pergamon Press
51 Kassner R R, Subsonic flow over a body between
porous walls, 1952, WADC Tech Report 52-9
52 Browne Miss C C, Bateman T E B, Pavi-t M,
distributins comparison
daies A B, A measured I.offlIlgh.
wing and
pr- on a
sure
winditunnelmodel of the Super VCIO, 1972,
53 ARC R&M
O'Hlara 3707.
F, Squire L C, Raines A 11,An
Investigation of Interferenceeffects on
similar models of different size In various
transoslc tunnels In the UK, 1959, RAE Tech
Note Acre 2606, ARA Wind Tunnel Note 27.
54 Page W A. Experimental study of the equivalence
of transonic flow about slender cone-cylinders
of circular and elliptic cross section, 1958,
NACA TN 4233
55 Berndt S B. lbeoretic.- aspects of the
calibration of transonic test sections, 1957,
rPA Report 74
56 Berndt S B, Sorensen H, Flow properties of
slotted walls for transonic test sections,
1975, ACARD CP 174, Paper 17
57 Sickles W. Ericisor J C Jr, Wall Interference
corrections for two dimensional transonic
flows. 1990. AIAA-90-1408
50 Smith J, A nothod for determining 2D wall
interference on an aerofoil fro. - .asured
pressure distrIbutions near the wall and on
the model. 1981. NLR tR 810160
59 Cupeller C. Chevallier J r. Bounol F,
Nouvelle 1dthode de correction des effets de
prols en courant plan, 1978, La Recherche
A;rospatiale.No I, pp I-I
60 Keep W B Jr. Yoard the correctable-
interference transonic wind tunnel, 1976,
AIAA-76"1794CP
61 iurman I U. A correction motod foe iransonic
wled tunnel wail Interference. 1979.
AIAA-79-1533
62 Kraft r M, Ritter A, Laster i L. Advances at
ArrC in treating transonic wind tunnel ail
Interference, 1936, ICAS Proceedings.
pp 748-769
60 Minect P Creen L. Wall interference
assessment/correct ion (WIAC) for transonic
airfoit data (row porous and shaped all
test sections. 1990, AIAA-90-1406
04 Ash.li P R. Wees 0, A method for determining
-Interference corrsctionu Is noild-wall
usrela from easurements of Ststic pressure
t te stails, 1982, ACARDCP 335
65 Ashill I'R, Keatlng R I A Calculation of
tuel *all ,otorfereore from wall-presauro
a-asreoen 1980, PA.$ Journal, pp 36-53
66 Kiripatrick ft, vuraard 11, Priorities for
iigh-iift treirg in the uture, 190
AIMA90-14,
67 Coetnert Bo,Wludaviorrecturen boi horen
Unterachaiigeu in*lr
'lgctetterlnr Besonderer
Berucks;chtigung des 'scIh;ossenmn reislanals
'940, t utsche tuftfthrtforschung
forschunguericht 1216, translated as MACA tech
14- 1300
68 Jacocks J 1, Aerodynamic characteristics of
perforated salts for transonic tunnls. 1977
ALDC-Tb.T7.61 tAD.A040904)
69 ilnachH t Jr, R,.sthnll IOH, Atronautical
2 0
faclit requiretmoentInto Ohs 0 0. 1990
AIAA4J,.I'75
70
Jelly A H, Mundell A R G, rlrkins A J. Wind
tunnel model support Interferencecorrections
for a three-strut mounting, 1989, RAE Tech Memo
Aero 2154.
71 Hardy B C. A numerical study of the aerodynamic
interference of a model support system used In
the RAE 5 metre wind tunnel. 1985. RAE Tech
Memo Aero 2046.
72 Sala M, Quenard C. Airbus A310. essals dans ]a
soufflerle Fl de I'ONERA. comparalson vol-
soufflerle. 1984, ACARD CP 238, Paper 22
73 Quemard C, WillaumoeJ. Calculs des Interactions
aerodynmiques d'un montage de type '3 mats,
1987, ONERA Rapport Technique No 283/1464 CG
74 Haines A B, Holder D W. Pearcey H H, Scale
effects at high subsonic and transonic speeds.
and for
methodsIn
t ransition fixing
model boundary-layer
experiments, 1957, ARC R&M
3012
75 Rraslow A L, Knox
determlnation E C. Simplified
of critical method
height of for
distributed
roughness particles for boundary-layer
transition at Mach numbers from 0 to 5, 1985,
NACA YN 4363.
76 Van Driest E R, Blumer C B, Effect of roughness
on transto on In supersonic flow, 1960, ACARD
Report 255.
77 Evans J Y C, Transition fixing techniques and
the interpretationof boundary layer conditions
on slender wings In supersonic flow, 1964, RAE
IN Acre 2946
70 totter L tleith,Whilfield Jack D. Effects of
unit Reynolds nuater, nose bluntness, and
roughness on boundary layer transition, 1960,
AEDC-TR 605
79 Nash J F. Bradthaw P, The mogniflation of
roughness drag by pressure gradients, 1967,
RAeS Aeronautical Journal, Vol 71, pp 44-46
80 Stallings R L Jr, Lamb M, Effect of roughness
size on the position of bou,'ary.layer
transition on the aerodynamic characteristics
of a 55' delta wing at supersonic speeds, 1969.
NASA TP 1027
01 Ashill P R. Fulker J L. Weels D J. The air-
injectin,, method of fixing bounda-y-layer
:ransitiloland investigating scale effects.
2
1997, RAeS Aeronautical Journaal,pp i4-2 2 4
02 Cartenberg E, Johnson W C Jr. Johnson C B,
Carraway 1 L, Wright R E, Transitl'n detection
studies in the cryogenic *nvironsent. In)0.
AIAA-90-3024.CP
83 Pearcey N H, Osborne J. lialnes A Ii, The
Interaction between local effects at the shock
and rear separation - a source of significant
scale effects in sled tunnel tests on aerofolls
and siege, 1968, ACARD CP 35. Paper II
84 AshtillP R, Wood R F, WacLu 8 J, As Improved,
se*l-inverse version of tht,viscous Carahedias
and Korn method iVCK), 1987, RAE Technical
keport 87002
85 Elyunaur A, EUperiences with transition fixing
In the high speed regime at NLR,
Crenzsclicht Steuerung dutch
Iranaltlnfixierun, 1964. I*VIR Mitteilung
94-17
86 Haines A B, Experience In the use of a viscous
sinulation mthodology for tests in transonic
tnnels, 1990. AIAA-90-1414
87 fulLer J L, Ahill P R A model of the flow
ocer swept wings ith shock induced separation,
193, RAE OR 8300fk
88 Loc R C. Prediction of viscous and wave drag
at high subsonic speeds by viscous-inviscid
Interaction tmchniques, 1985. ACARD R-725
89 A method of determining the wave drag and its
spanelse distribution on a finite wing In
transoni, flow. 1983. ESOII0O 83022
90 Melnik R E, Chow R R. Uead H R, An improved
-fscid/inviscid interaction procedure for
transonic flo- oer aerofolh;. 1985, NASA CE
3505
91 LockR C, Williams8 R. Viscous-inviscid 3
113firkerT, Procurement and tes ofa1 scale
.itrActions in vxternalaerofoilaerodynamics, Advancedcounterrotating topfn
odel,1990,
19853.ProgressIn Aeronautical Sciences. AIA-90 10o,.
Perganon Press 114 ACARD cCoummittee, Engine-airplane
92 Elsenaar A, The wind tunnelas a tool for interfetence and wali corrections in
laminarfinwresearch, 1990.ICAS.90-6.t I transonic nih ael tests,1971,
93 Soners StackJc'
S, P. Hrvey V D, infisence ACARI3-AR-36-71.
of ssrfacestatic-pressure orificeson 115 CarterE C, Experimental determnaton of
houndary-layer transition, 1984.N8ASATMd84492. Inletcharacteristics and Inletand airplane
94 RoeroenS J, ElsenuarA. Half-model nests in interference. 1972,ACARD-LS-33, Paper3
the t'iRhigh speedwIndtasselHST. Its 116 CarterE C, Technicalevalsation reporton
technique and application. 1983.ACARDCP 348. FluidDynamicsPanelsymposioum on alrfrane/
95 DecherR, Tegeler0. High accuracyforce rropulsion Interference, 1975.ACARD.AR-81.
accounting procedures for turhopowered lI7 LeynuertJ, Air Intaketesting.1991,Air
Imulatortenting.1975,AIMA 75-1324. Intakes for highspeedvehicles. ACARDWorking
96 Pugh C. HarrisA E, Estahlishment of an Croup13 Report
experi mentaltechnique to provideaccurate 118 StevensC H, SpongE D, HNo ck M S, F15 Inlet/
measorenens of the Installed drag of a full enginetentse.,riques and distortion
spanmodelwith turhinepoweredengine methodologies stien. Vol I - technical
simulators. 1981.ACARD-CP-301, Paper25 discussics. 1978,NASACRt144866.
97 Him$n A B, At- lynmic Interference - a 119 Mitchell J t;. Fluid dynamic aspects of turhine
generaloverview, 1983,ACARD-R-712, Paper9 enginetenting.1983,ACARDCP 348.
98 Iturgsmullor W, Akheinn E. Kool J W, Engine 120 AulthiaF, Scimit7D M, Intakeswirland
simulat ionwith turho-posared ifoulators, 1990. slnplirt..d methodsfu: dynamicpressure
136WColloquium, distort ionassessemot, 1985.WKI LectureSeries
99 KranzC, Engine/airframe lntcr*ronce,1983. 198884 - IntakeAerodynamics.
ACARD-R-712, Pape,14 121Coo R W, SeddonJ, The swirlin an S-ductof
100 Eckert0, van Ditsholson I C A. Nonniknoa B, typicalair Intakeproportions. 1983.
lBurgsmsller W, Lowapeed engine slm.,ut ion on AeronauicFal Quarterly
a large scale transport modelIs the tCiV, 1984, 122CarriereP. Aperfoda quelquesprohlewes
ICAS-84-210 1 asrodynasiques uctt~elsposespar lei prises
101 Dsrgsm~iler W, Scodroch J, Benefits and costs d'airsupersosiques, 1972.Icr Symposium
of posoredenginesimulation at low speeds, International nor les trogres des Racttors
1985.AIAA-85-0381 d'Avion.Marselille. O6LRATP 1102,
102 ReactsD C, Transonic wind tunnel testing of 123 SeddonJ. Coldsslth E L. Intakeaerodynamics.
propellers. 107, CanadianAeronautics and 1983,Collinsed
SpaceInstitute Symposium on Aircraft 124 NacirodiP A. Schmidt DOH.Esperienotelle
Propulsion System,Toronto.Canada Lntersuchungen an ewa Unterruapr
103 8-1av, D C. Pouniak O0M.facilities for the Rampeneinlauf hei tlherschAl,strnong
developmntof propollers and propeller 1986. Jahrhuch I der DELR
Installatitons at ARA. 1988. PROS International 125 Jarocka J L, Statist ical analysis of
Confrence on Advanced Propollers and their distortion factors. 1972. A]AA-72-l800
,4Installation on Aircraft 126 SurberL E. Fsglinees Clay.Inletengine
04Wood Nrs N E. The designAnd commissioning of coupatihtiity, 1988, WKI Lecture Series 1988-04
as acoustic liner for propeller wisne testinmg - IntakeAerodynamics
In the ARA transonic wind tunnel1,1989.1 Noth t27 Maroon3, SediockD, An anelogenditing system
E Aerolech 959 fur inletdynamicflowdistortion, DYNADEC
105 HarrisA E, RenderPH4,Pozslak0ON,%ood N E. Past,presentand future.1980.A[AA-80-118
Recentwind tunneltes.iogexperience of 128 Lotter K, Nackrodt P A, Scherhasi R. Engine
cotra-eotating propollers, 1998. surgesimulationIn wind-tunnemodelInlet
ICA$-90.4 II dacts,1988,16thICAS
106 Barber L J, Performance evaluat ion of fuli 129 JaursamaF, Enporlwentl dtermination of nozzlee
scalepropailers by wind3tunnel
I tst. 1914, characteristics and nozzle airframe
ALARI-CP-3h6 Interference. 1972.ACARDL.3-53
l07 NetzgerF B Ptop-fandesignand test 130 PriceE A, Investigation of F-16nozzle-
experiernce, Iv88. RAeSInternational Conferenc afterhody forces At transonic Mach namb~ers
with
a.,AdvancedPcvpovllers andStheir Installation emphasison support system Interference, 1981,
sonAircraft A[1X-TR-80-27
108 Gromet. e F, Aeroacouss ice of advanced 131 German R C. Strut support Interference on A
propellers 1990, ICAS-90-4 1 2 cylindrical miodel boattall 4t Mach snmhers
withi
109 V-rm- D F. Hiugh-eJ F. Aerodynamic Integrat ion frow 0 6 to I 4. 1976, AEDC-1TR-76-40
St aft- m id DUD propulsion system,. 1987, 132 Halley R 0, hrac N. Hiley P, She design of A
A[AA-97-2920 wind tunnel VSTO.fighter modelIncorporating
110 Dengeliok R L, DoerzbachorR P. krysytZly A j turbine poserodengineulmlators, 1981,
She developmant and calihrat ion of an acoustic AIAA-81-2635
sail transonic teatsection,1986, 133 SmithS C, Determining compressorme~t airflow
Alok-86-0759-CP In the compactmultilion aircraftpropulsion
Ill WungPHW C, Mam a N. forseyC R, BouciA J. simulatorsIn wind tunnelIapplicatiloss.
1983,
Singleand contrarotation highsspoed AIAA-83-1231
propellers flow calculation and performance 134 CoaptonH B, An oxporimentalstudyof jet
predirm i,..1988.ICAS-83.2 4 2 unhauwisimullttion.ACARDCP 150-16
112 SsefkoC L..JerackiR L.,Porouswind tunonel
correct ionsfor counterrotas ion propeller
tsssig, 1988.AIAA-88-2055
4-36

WD~
0'00 0 -o Ii 00010

05
01 02 03 4 L06 0 01 0,2 03 04 CL 06

FIG I WITHINSA GIVIN TEST

R[F EATAIIILITY STANDARD Mi 2 REPEATABILITY STANIDARDBMUREN TESTS
(ARA TRATISON-C2TNNEL, lEGQl REF 15) (ARA TISANSC*IICTUNSNEL,FROMIREF 13)

NWNWfo-~ 17.4 K 4M 2Rs Side1 - 4.181(

K W eN
pmt" 141,81 226KN08 1170lb h Ao*Mo1(
14011.0 N.72 63S8 AbI

FIG 4 EAL SIRAIN CAM[I BAIAC

o 25 0 00 8011-,

O ID 2 20 010.) /

~ ~f(A~
it(~~~~~
RM M ~5 ")tO ltWAA 1
 4-37

TIC 3. AIRCRAFT MODEL WITH 2 AFT-MOUNTED NACELLES

000 L0
AC0 . - . WITH NACELLES
0 I __ _ _ WITHOUTNACFLLES
06 07 VC 0a
00011 Co02

0 001 CLj0 1
01
O 07 IA oe

PG 3b STING CORRECTIONS, WITH AD WITHOUT NACELLES FOR 4OEL IN FIC 3a

i/2

/ .

FIC 3c AKECKrT HOVEL |TH 4 AF-M-O10TEO NA.CLLLIS

 4-38

2.0

co
a~l
D Ado~e ,o 9

A ILMOAXIAL '
.2.0 FOACEUtA*) 0.
* ' XI.'AXIAL
SIORtFOC
REWiOUAL RM iAL

ANAAL to
FOR e AXIAL
FORCE

0 0

AE.L2ENORM FORCE

FORCE AXIA N
I &= ' FORCEN_'OA)

400JE GMAN &MOEX -2 0 2x0 0025

APPLIED
PITITNGLOMELhT

6
FIC . BALANCE CAIIPRATION A
ACCEPTABIU RESUITS FiC6b AL NCE CALIRATIONLNACCEPTABLE
I SIOLTS

O CE GENERATORS
. ... . . .. ..

OALAUCE LOAO)NOTREE

MESURING
I - - ACHINE

CI 7. IRAIIIONAL BALANCE~
C.LIATI(,N F1*.7b III% lUA C ALA.NCECAL16MITICAN
 4-39

12

0
0 04 08 1.2 M 16

FIG 8. ERRORIN MACHNLMRERTO GIVE I DRAG COINT ERRORIN AFTERODY DRAG

(FROMIREFS 29,30)

I- IsDX
u -- I moRX

MAXIMUM
OfIANR . M

MtAII fl*.CI*O 01 A

0 02

00

000 I

rE0t 101 2930

4-40

Hetght
above
1100,

-.02

-00 -02 0 02 04 -01

C.oe. cglo. do

FIG 9 MFASUREDWIND TUNNELCROSSFLOW 0

1
tliSTRIftIMON (NASA AMEAsIIx 04 06 00 1o
TUNNEL. FROM4
REF 1ii) M-of -ob.
Oo.Wtd tunoo 0&11-o,

02

000100,0p
-047 -058C06

01 2 03 0'. 0 0

Typi.MtMOooot 0.01000
d-ll 01nc~g
. ;,pot.%' %
Polo, from in c offs
00o1thod

02~

IT -.
AO

0203

0 0 0 07 03 04 0 5 00
Pot., from dmg polo, ,othoo method

E,,o~
U.0000,0.0000Ca.0
10% o. t - CL

litIC FIFFM S Of VARIAtILITY IN M~oMlNtUBFXE

I10 SIMY.-IL2tIAL .L.'1XL 'ROSS111 LIUt)MiNATION

prvmo Pt itt
 4-41

- Measured Oata

-Correcte IdData
P rb

on [ . ._ _ _'_... _ _
CL

4
460 470 80 TIME 520 530 540 550 TIME
(L- C? seconds CL-0 s sec,--s

TIC 12 TIMIE VARIANTODATARECORDSFORMd 0 8 T"TINEI., FROMREF I5)

(ARA TRANSON~IC
4-42

Tunel Sm Tunnel
o AEWC Turn1 16T 0 NASA/As - PT
AEO, TunnelAT {WallsTTred' ' RAEBedford8x 8 SWT
AEOC Tunnel
4T
with TapeorScreen)
4T(Wals *
NASA/t~oley 16T
NASA/Longley
rFreon
I6TOT(Test
9 ONERA6x 6 S.2 Modone NASA/Lonqt% 8 TPT Idwe
V NASA/Ames I TWT * NSR&OC7x 0T
r" NASAAnes 11TWI(WallsTaped) a NASA/Lagley4 SPT
4 NASAAmes 1 TWT RATBedford 3 x 4 HSST
k NASAnAmes 4 TWT(WollsTaped) 1 NASA/Aes 9x7 SWT
CalspanB7WT j9 NASA/Langley 4 SUPWT iTSNo1l
o ARALtdBedford9x8 ;light Data Fig17
20

FairedLine
Mean

2 N ist r°oe -oaaeBy Lao-tT IBond.j

Overalliee

002 004. 006 0 ol 02 04 0-A yB 10 20 30 40

0 100,per -ent

FIG IS 7TBATSITIcNBr1fNOL[o N~IlBO DEDUCEDFeceM TEATS WITH I0' CONE (FROM EE" 33)

--- 00 ATCll TWT

- -- 30
ci rel
O'rl q(urs
ARCt2 PT A-
- - ->4 ARfC 4 TWT
__ _.
A RC 8TPT
FLfGHTDATA ENVELOPE
Open symbOls Tubuleuce (massBusfluctuaton)da
Filled sy,bo s Peesure Iluc'2tl0R data
60
5'0

40 ""

. .
P.A.I.R 8 T. b
1 5 1 . ....
-A , .,, . .

2 005 0 02 O 10 2 0 40

AC S0
1Ppu RCprms,°/ 3

-I A14 T RN
 4-43

-0-12
Doo
02 0 0H

Acf "I, Ha 0 08 _o
Cfo -006
01 Ot-
V,,, -0 04- AH
/\,
T,=:0 47LC
_'';
=0 02 a

*20)01 ACf 02
(U1l 100/(e
Ue 6995 Cf
with UYUe: turbulence intensity 0

Leu = length scale of free

turbulence
(05< LeU/995< 5)

fIC 15 OF SKIN FRICTION AND S.APE FACTORON TI.NEL TURBULENCE

DEPENDENCL

M 0$0

is>

F - . 01

~Nj

F,C 16 DEPENDENCEOF RMS LNSTLADYWING-ROOTSTMAIN ON SVRFACEOF UINNEL SLOTTEDWAJLS

(FROM REF 41)
4-44,i

Mred C

CCO

Stollb.9'..

\C

FIG I? DR
M ANALYSIS FOR A LIFTING WING

Uncorrected Corrected
SIC -0,07 0

S/C -0-13 +

0'9

0'7
C L and
CD
CLLEL

0'6

05---- -- /

:;1
0 5 10 IS 20 25
TI7
30 35
(a(deg)
lit IN APIR AItON Of lIOAXACI CORICIONS AT H41(1Lill IR(, ill 42)
p

4-45

I.1 /

UP'STREAM DOW~NSTREAM

.50

FIC 19 LONCITUODIA. DISTRIR UIO OF CIce

AG. ABLOK
IN A 2D PERFORATEDWALL TUNNEL -0 iS
(FROAMREF 48)

oDip
0,

FIG 20 LIlT TIhNEI CONSTRAINTFOR A SMALL

MOISFLIN A PERFORATED CIRCULAR TINNEL
(FROMR F 42)

\Ctostd Tul
.. K 0 R% I -- //
am 0." Iev
to.

Assumed for
AI ptSst PK.. /a
AotiO1.,
o.0s',.
05VST
.
to.k

K 0 5 . . . . .

UPSTREAI -05 LWIIITIEAM4

l 1(, 21 BLOCKAGEBUOYANCYCORRCTICINS FIC 22 OPEN-AREA0 RATIO REQUIRED FOR

FOR ARA IR ISONIC TIINNEL CAMFLATIO OP INCIDENT SIIOCK
1 WAVESIN TlL AKATIDLNEL
F 4-46
V
WALL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS1

0 WALL PRESSURE
CLASSICAL MEASUREMENTS9
METHODS 110 * CLASSICALMETHODS

(o)-x (b) i
18-

16 () - -108

0/cLo
I4 /- 107 .....

12 -1

7Z7 103
0 7
02. . 102[
*, ::

0 "Of0

6 10 14 18 22 26 30 6 10 14 16 2 26
Geometrc Ind0nct (gsl Geo etra tntdenI.( deg

FIG 23 COMPARISONOF 2-COPONENT WALLPRESSUREMEASUREMNTSAND CLASSICAL METHODS

FOR PREDICTION OF TUNNEL INTERFERENCE (ROM REF 66)

0013 ~ 546 1N0)

0012. 0 2-co0po1tnt ,thod

0012 -_ i .sc . L.n.r Theoty LE TC

0 of 02 03 04 05,N 06 ?

FIG 24 COMPARISONOf PRLWICTIONSOF BLVEACL CORRECTION,20 MODEL.

RAF 8 T R F1 T INNFVL, - 0 71 (PROMREF 64)
 4-47

d~p/dg

bA

A 7.0 0L125 01 LI
A
10.0 0.125 015 7-
'40 012 0125 3S
A z0 0250 W%4 .

55001142
1.1

FIG 25 PERFORMTED
WALL CHARACTIRISTIC 60' INCLINED HOLES (FROM REF 68)

0000Cll021 ~COOSLClto toy C"

040 a 0ll(tx(.
MVS 50410 a4 045$ ~ 2f~

04251A,4310915 .7 "M.
C5 a I :3 25252N
VWIAC-ASMR-sl0ot
03 25251S14AV4051041 *1 52111 I

032- 2 0
4f4

028 -' 028 11 152.4

W200110251
DATA 024 DAT t- A-

0201 (U)00b)
30 to CO 1. 30 1.0 a0 5

FIC 20 C(#IPARISONOIF NAVIER-ST.ES ANDEULE PREDICTIONS OF TRNU LIFE CC46sIAINT CORRECTIONS

(A) P'RE TEST (b FOST TEST (FF602REF 37)
 +
5000lrots.
taOSe tOltS

oto
57\ 0,0 coiVo and
asofomty

lDotny -gS ~ 2 ~ __

FIG 27. DETAILS OF BALANCEDREAR FUSELAGETO OBTAIN STING CORRECTIONS

USING CURRENT TWIN STING RIG AT ARA (FROM4REF 15)

II

FIG 27b TYPICAL CLOSELYCOUPLED FUSLLACFLAYOUT RIJOIRINC TEST ON LSHANCEDIWI STING RIG

/ /

w"
/ /-- I,

C/.- ///

/
/ I
WllgAdaptr.
Roltt,O Ostol
S.q 0000t'it

fIG 28 ,LO 1AIN SINhG IG

CFNSLRALI*.IOKS OF i~OOFS iN FAHANCl
~4.49

---- central strut gurd

and dummystrut

FIG 29 (a) 3-STRUTARRANCD4.NT

(b) SINCLESTRUTARRANGEEt
T
LAYOUTS FORSTRUTINTERFERENCE
TESTSIN RAE5 METRE
TUNtNEL

0 ifs

ac o 'a

.... . ;. i.
0L I .1

FIG 30 c¢(PARISott OFGUARDINTERFERENCE

CORRECTIONS
 () --.- Transition- fixed
--- Tronsition free /
-
Duta valid betweeni
drat Boundaries AA and68

- -- ,J/" AA Shocki015c off of transition trip

- A 86 Ditto with Shockapproaching trip
Alt . ovemontof transition fromrear as a result at shock
is YmpathYwith extension Inducedseporation.

0-5 6
of supercrrticalflow
07~ 5
PB
DragOcrep CLBoundary
- Buffet-onet .
dQ.0O17Strarltioafree

06 At
nt of
tronatn.ni o Limit o
s"'Pathy wit iIL*0-Itt tranusition Subcritical
0 4 Ixtiruilori at fied. Flow
supericitlcul genin
02 ' /o result

-2 0 2* 4
()LitCurve Slope
Prior ToBuffet-Onset
FIG31 Or SPURIOUS
EXAMPLES RESULTS FIC 32a LIMITS 04 RANCEOr VALIDDATA
WITHFREETRANSITIONi WITHA PARTICULARTRA~SITION
TRIP

-10 Trips

-0 6 0 25c
-062C

-02 / A wit 6CL

trip at a 0t15c*0,25c
CO ----Rorqess%&to laid Infterwloa
betetian i d a aO1*1110*1
islIeferoiq lhe wane dm;
ofl
/uiri a o

tinOesCndto

2PointlTraosltioniSveepPossibI#
InRone 2
-F-, CL 3Point transition Sweep
Possible

FIG 32bi MIETHODFOR [ICIERNININIC

LOWER
CL t IG 32c, tSEFIULRANGCES
WITHDIITERIIIT
LIMIT TORANCEOF VALIDDATA TRANSITION4
TRIPS
 4.)!

T crtero. of . - w

A02 A.. Tr~fbnftOW

CIA

0.02 Rw nf

Lo --- R-4- MEASURED

DATA.TRANSITONSWEEP.
FORWARD
-ArT
021- CNE$NFArTTRAI4S*TIONTORmipFORTEST R

(A) Renod -w EXTRAPOLATION

TORtuom BASEDON
(~t tVmAitonnew led" tdgt)
(8) -s~n svoSftp , UPTORem
MEASUREDTREND
(e~tropolatdto None' RH"sbhw) (I) PARALLELTOCOMAPUTED
TRENDFROM
RCWtT
TORot

FIC 33 EXMPLE OF TW0 SIMULATION APRACHVq FIC 34 FIRST STEP IN EXTRAPOLATION

PROCEDURE
RFLIENT

atit FURTNEST
AFT afern AFT
FRTHEST
A4TERMEDLAI! ITERMEDIATE

NEARLL

0-4 _____Lfto

(A WII
AP.F XA1O F L)O -- MAm.I~
- AI -PI

R4wUP (voublowwIwoKqwRQ A SWELP

CV.IUbopI"m wet,

SIMULATION SMLTO

EXTPOLATION ATERTETS ExTRAPOI.ATFORAFTERTSS

RA4QM FWJ.MOO(LWANEFLLOE

R-K44C HVIAOWEA RAHOE HALFMODEL

FIC 35a SIMULATION SCENARIO3 FiC 35b SII4X)ATIEN SCENIARIO4

4-52f

+
-CALCULATED,
CALCULATED,
,* x
RESULT$
_EAUREq

roos
4_-1-MI'X.0 0
U1N 03UCEF SCXMN WoUUT
17 .- 7- CALCULATE,
R- 605 XI XTM'UO
4W o.to,*

V~~1 . 11N 0U10'Xvk.UU

B-08 -.- R.6.SXU'XmUU

p

06 06-

0404

020

0o 0 04
0 22 o X
1 6
02 '. -06 0 "

4
0-.04 COO M .073S

I0.1 CL M . 0.735 06

THEORY
ALLOWIN
FORSTAOO VISCOU-IWD ITERACTIONS FIG 36b APPLICABILITYOf OTECRITERION'CL 0 4

FIG 36s APPLICABIILITY

or ZERO-LEVEL
CRITERION
(FRop4 "r s6)

CH04OOu, C1r ) SUOGESTS

1~ ~ (0 1'.UOUI1I'0.&M
16,m
10

- 4.%I XTm.U2$

-( I- 0 1. 0

10 00010U.1.3

09 It.. 30I~
X Xm
--

11 005 C720 025 020 02 Xvi 035 OLD0

I 66 68 2 72 74 ItgR 7$ S
07

04U065 FG36(4) CEOSEQIICE0OfFAILURETO SIMULATE

06 UUPERCRITICALFLW~ EELOPMENT
(FROMEEF.86)
05
0 01 0'2 03 04 05 00

FIG 36c APPLICABILITY

OP 611i
CRITERIONCL - 0 65
 4-53 1

WAII
yLIS
Whoolc OF

FIG 37 TYPE+SOF SIMULATORI

(FROMIREF.9)

TANX SELINO& ?PC%)

I S OII.4U
MASP M LATO
FO E ,

MSTFL L F##
OWWV

j(2O~~) ~ 94'I OT oZSLE

>PctL/Y NACLE HW NAr

5 AA
SILCI TION
SUCUL 4 (JFO
0 0W

FI AAMCSLATO
9 AK FO E,
4.54

MEASURE ObR,
DEFINE CGMtEt

WFAW- WM

WTI 1 I. A W. V N c ot OW K

,. ~ UCY PTP. TP.AP.-PS CDPv'

p.- BL-G XGF am ""T

Xoq(f (PTF/k YiWFJVi)

CTw. CTF PAM

CoimlnCo PVA. TVA. AVA %W MVDMN

FrmMTBoxjd Thu nowit

PTP, TP. PS,AP CDP P~o =
T XGP f (PTP. PS)*WPfI~I-CT XGP GA TM
RPM TI CRPI- CRPMI -1t

C-W-I (CRPMI) Cwt m""{Opm

W1.CIc WIt r" Pim

T. Ho. PSI. Al. goI W12 0m

T PTF. TF. AF. PS, E

XGF. f(PTFIPS)* CTF *Wjrff
i£F WFAN Fm=L
XGF Fm ISI

ORA M .W F* M*I T DRAMPm ow

AF. NF ,U mkA NF

~
UFT ~ ~ ~
N.XFGXP nLAF NE

ric 39 BOOKMEIIC PROCEPME

(tROI REr.9)
 ... IS

I.w

coa an
ntc aW C Sa.ll

sct.tSIIsC Ia
41tI~t
FIG 4 MODW FOPTURcS A I
PERFOM CE EST IPC FRMRF.10
7

]I%
OWIS Alntu
ta 1 C Iflt A & II
1
OWQ, I

t7a'I/II 14

I 4 WWLLSOF~FVOM =INF~4A1TI SC (FRMU RL.t)

4-56

I*TII
AW
&TO SIN KI

00.
I'V4'
BAI,
IOLA , . ~ N A

Kit I SMALL I PEBmynT

IMEED ttLt~

IO\ SLM
"rN $LItA00

TRNOI TUNE (FRO RE(WUMOM

AW
N wt./-

EU It
M- !

0 0
A '~0~1W h~llow.A

A w!o4*Q
11"It 00 1*0*RT

o LI WO 10 411 1 .A 0

0
N
a I'U

100((0'0

-"lT- - noam mt*IOIOA

C3 Vow M
04
l0A.OoT UA1

DESIGNFORCONJIRA-ROIATINC
ric 42(e) BALjA(CE FIG 42(d) TYPICALMODEL FOR
TESTP'ROGRAMME
PROPELLER TUROPROPPROPENIERPRFORMANCE
(FROM REF.105)
 4-57

-Denton
S---Exprment

0
2:o " 646ton ,/04 x 'Blade
Net fThrist
sti AI
Experiment /'C / / -s
+ Apparent Thrust // //
- - -- xperimnt

rp / T

,I,

//

o +i
60 64 600 64"
BLADE ANGLE BLADE ANGLE

FIC
43 PROPELLER
pERFONIJTHC£: (FROMREF.111)
EFFECTSor THRUSTDEFINITION

BIILLMOUIH
LtP PERWH.RAL
FAIRI LINER
ACOUSTIC /SEAL

FIC 44 ELECIRIC-UOIOR
DRIVENlRCE SCALEPROPELLER RIG IN ARAACOUSTIC
IRANSONICTIUNEL(TFOM REF, 1OS)
4-58

ENGINE
STATION ()
FLOWSURVEY
(I) SCREENS

* * ..* SWIRL PROBE RAKE

..... * 56 To1 heaitubes
........................................
lFivehole probes
**.. *.
*. * .
~8Duct tatics
*ErdeT
3 1u~tSIat"~

-- / MASS rLOW
(FIXED MEASUREMENT
SONIC
THROAT)
(3)
SUPERSONIC XD N RA (- . DYNAMIC
DISTORTION
RAKE
NOZZLE MASSFLOW ADJUSTMENT
4 (SONICTHROAT)(2) - 32Totalheacltubes
FIG 5(a) ISOLATED INTAKEMODEL INSTALLATION t * 32Endevcodynamic tdxs
t{ ': , •3 ErdICVCO
duct stitic$

INCIDENCE
ANDROLL (b)
A04JUMENT
BLEEFLO * PERFORMANCE
RAKE
BLEED
FLOW t .*
ADJUSTMENT FLOW
BLEED . * 88 TOt head tubes
* 8 Erdevo dynamic tdi's
EASUREMENT ............... 8 Ductics
* . *. 3Endevcoducltstalcs

ENWNIE
SUR FLOW
E OW'J ENGIE FLOW
MASUREMENT FIG 46 TYPICALENGINE
FACEINSTRUMEIN4TATION
n.;. NGINEFLOWADJUSTMENTr
(SONICTHROAT)

FlC 45(b) INTECRATED

INTAKEMODEL
INSTALLATION

CRUCIFORM
PITOTRAKE EXITPLUG
(ROTATABLE) (TRANSLATABLE)

U FRWEIGNEDPART (a)

STATIC
HOLES
-&p, p.-AND EXTERNAL MOMENTUM

BALANCE (b

FUSELAGEALE
ric~~ ~ ASFO~ ~
NEASUEMENT ~
47D SRVLWTFRMAUIG
FORC

FIC 48 FOSSlEB SCIIL FOR

NTERNALFLOW
URVE
V ~REPRESENTATIVE 45

AFLBOY NOZZLE

- - -TWINNOZZLES
---UNNEL
- --- - -- - ---

ALTERNATIVE
O(=0 TO 6 RESARC
M~O O 12CONFIGURATION

SUPPORT
FLOWCGWT~t4INGSTRUT/AIRFEED
SYSTEM
& MEASURING

TWT TUNNELFLOOR_________

FEUE
5 COMPONENT
BALANCE
/AIRFEEO

COMP'RESSED
AIRFEED

FIG 49 NEWRIC FORAFER1OOPUiFORMANCE

TESTING

Blow Sting Stinort Ving Tip Support Blade Support

FIG $O ALTE$WIIVF 91CS FORAFIFUORDt TESTING

PERFORMANCE (Flu). REF12)
 4-60.

FIC SI A'(ER300Y TESTRIGS (FROMREF.12)

FIG 52 CROSS-SECTION&L
VIER OFOMAP (FROMREF. 133)
 PANEL
MEMODSORAERODYNAMIC
ANALYSIS
AND DESION
HW.N. lineijeakerKa'
National Aerospace Laboratory N1 a
Anthony Fokkerweg 2, 1039 CM Amsterdam. The Netherlands
SUHMARY
An,overviev to presented of several aspects
of panel methodsused in the aerodynamic analysis
and~deeign of aircraft oraircraft components.
Panelmethods can provide the flow about complex
configurstions and are routinely used,ln the anal-
ysls the+of
aerodynamicsof realistic aircraft
shapes. However., panel methods are based on a
mathematical mode.in which,much of the fluid phy-
sis ictignored. The report discusses the capbil-
itios and limitations of panel msthcds. the basic
concepts of panel methods, choices thxt can be
made in the Implementation of the basic concepts,
&sawollas possiblectypes
of boundarycondition.
that can be utilized to creatively model subsonic
and supersonic floe. The discussion also includes
aspects of the accuracy of the approximations
involved, consistent formulations, aspects of low.
o and
rder
higher.ordar panel methods, etc. Also
discussed are the computational aspects of panel
methods and possible extensions to nonlirear
compressible flows, coupling with viscous floe
methods and application to other flow probleas.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The computation of the aerodynamic chorac
e f o re the ofavaircraft configurations has been
bteristics
carried out bya ipanel
lab il itmethods
y since the mid 1960's.
following the pioneeringo fwork l a rgofe -sHess
c a l e &dSmith
i g i ta l
(Ref. 1) and Rubbert 4 Sasris (Ref. 2). But even
computers work vt done on surface singularity
methods, notably in Cermany by Prager (1,. 3) and
Martansan (Ref. 4). Panel methods are presently
the only computational aerodynamic tools that have
been developed to an extent that they era routine,
ly used in the aerospace industry for the analysis
of the subsonicand supersonic
floe about real-C
life, complex aircraft configuration.. Panel ath
ode have also ben used for the analysis of the
floe about propellers, automobiles, trains. sub.
marines. shiphulls. sails, etc. Panel methods have
been used so heavily *ncause of their ability to
provide for coeplex configuration. linear potenti-
al flow solutions of engineering accuracy at rea.
sonable expense. The latter applies to the com.
puter resources required for running the computer
code as well as to the manhour cost involved in
preparing the input,
The relatively easy input requirement of
panel methods, very important from a point
,ser's
of view, is directly related to the circumstancs
that a diseoretizationis required for the surface
of the 3D configuration only. This Ia considered
to be an order of magnitude saimpler than the vol.
am. discrstization of the space around the con!ig.
uration generally meded for finite-difference,
finite-volume and finite-element methods,
It say be noted that in aircraft devecopmont
projects the application of panel-mothodsis gre-
dually shifting from the.final,designphese
to.
wards the ptelimlinary design-phase andevencon.
ceptual design phAs o.,primarily
du oo:
- increased.demandson the accuracy of-predicted
aerodynamic charcteristicsin~the earlier
- phAses,of the designprocess.
the increase
• in computer capability (speed and
memory),, decrease of it, costs and improvement
of turn-around times,
modern data handling techniques,
- availability of graphic displays and work
stations for visualizing geometry and flow aolu.
tions.
Several panel methods. e.g. Ref. 5, 6 and 7,
have been developed and are in use in the er s.
space industry that are variations on the approach
d escribed
in Ref.. 1 end 2. Other investigators
extended the panel method to linearized supersonic
flow. e.g. Refs. 8 and 9. 3ecausa most of these
"first.generation
panel "methods do have some re-
strictions concerning their geometric and asrody.
nemic modeling capabilities and require improve.
ment of their computational efficiency several of.
forts have been undertaken to develop *second.
generation,
panelmethod.eg. Refs. 10-li.
c t
ONSET
BOUNDARY - LAYER
SEPARATION
L FI
I
HT ENVELOPE
C US
, t
MACH NUMBER
SUBSONIC TRANSPORT
CONFIGURATION
Fig. 2.1 Domain of applicability of panel method
(adopted from Ref. 33)
The major drawback of the present panel
methods Is War their range of opplicaility is
restricted to linear potential flow. I.e. non.
linear compressibility effects ate not accounted
for and the important case of local regions of
super-critical floe and shock waves cannot be
treated. The latter occur in the high speed region
in a large portion of the flow field and possibly
at low speeds (at the larger incidences used i u
start and landing) in smaller portions of the flow
field. To account for such regions of super.criti-
cal flow would require the use of a transonic
finite-difference or finitevolume code (full-p-
5-2
tentialor Euler)on a spatialgridcoveringthe
entirespacearoundthe configuration. However,
to the presenttimethe spatialgridgeneration
problemhas not been solvedsatisfactorily for
up
complexconfigurations as configurations
with ex-
tendedslatsand flaps.In addition, the computer
resources requiredfor present-day finitediffer-
onceand finite-volumta codesare quitesubstenti-
al. For the purposeof preliminarydesign,wherema
largenuiberof configurations and flowconditions' ditions*).Altho.'gh'thecomputerrequirementsof
are to be considered, full-potential
or-Euler -Euler codescan ,beearby the currentgeneration
methodsrequirefar too mucheffortin termsof
computer resources as wellas in termsof man-
hou-.
-Asecondidrawback'of current'panl methods
is thatthe compujational eff~rt.'andcost,is
proportional-toN , or-evenH , whereN is related
to the numberof panalsoThis implies that tht
methodbecomes rapidlyimpractical.i.s. for cur-
rentmainframes for N of the orderof 2000-5000,
whichtypically are panelnumbersrequiredfor the
resolution requiredfor thecoupling at panel
methods with boundary-layermethods.Thu latteris
relevantfor application of the methodduringdo-
taildesign.For conceptual and for preliminary
designstudies,whereconsiderably lessdetailIs
required-the numberof panelsis typically of the
orderof a few hundreds. However,it Is alsoan
experience of the practiseof applyingpanelmeth-
ods that thisnumberof panelsis oftenquite
easily"consued', so thatcompromises have to be
soughtregarding resolutionand accuracyThe
latterrequiresinsight intothe flowsolution,
i.e.aerodynamics, but alsoa goodperception of
the numericsinvolvedin panelmethods,
in the presentlecture an overviewis iven
of severalaspectsrelatedto the formulation and
use of panelmethod.and the possibilities for ex-
tendingthe domainoi applicability and Improving
the computational efficiency. The discussion deals
primarily with methds for the giuiiLrj. about
three-dlmensional configurations in subsonicor
supersonic flow.It Is basedon the literature on
the subjectand on past and currentMIA research,
The latter i3 aimed at the development of a
higher-ordar panel method(AEROPAH) and of a panel
method (PDAtN) to be used in preliminary design
studies. The first pertains to "the IX panel
method-,the panelmethodworkhorse used in the-
ocetical suLsonicaerodynamic analysis duringthe
last two decades and the NIXAERO panelmethod for
sub- and supersonic flow.
2.0 HATEMATICAL
MODEL
2.1 Zkron
In the aerodynamics of aircraft configure-
tionsthe Reynolds-averaged XggzX gku aqua-
tionsmodelessentially all flowdetails.However.
turbulence and transition need to be modeledin a
manner appropriate to the flow considered The
computerresources requiredfor numerically
solvingthe equations on a mesh thatsufficiently
resolvesthe boundarylayers,freeshearlayers
(wakes), vortexcores,etc.,are stilland for
some time to comewill continueto be quiteex-
cessive,
For mea high-Reynolds-nmber flow of inter-
est in aircraft aerodynamics viscous effects are
confined to thin boundary layers, thin wakes and
centersof vortex cores, i.e. the global flow fa.
tures depend only weakly on Reynolds yumber. This
implies thata modelbasedon Euler'seouations,
whichallowthe occurrence
as the convection
flow.providesan appealing
of shockwavesas well
and stretchingof rotational
alternative.
On a lo-
F
cal scale.somekind of modelfor viscous-flow do.
minotedfeatureswillbe required. Thisspecifi-
eallyit pointswh -e the flow leavesthe surface
(separates)and vorticity is generated
and subse-
quentlyconvected into the flowfield(*Kutt&con-
of supercomputers.routinepractical application
of thesecodes(to relatively simpleconfigure.
rions)startsto emergenow.
If the shocksarenct too strongand if the
rotational flow is confinedto compactregions.
the flowmay be modoledas Rgtggntl5glgy with em-
beddedfreevortexsheetsand vortexfilaments.
Now the rotational flowregions'are -fitted-ex-
plicitlyintothe solution, ratherthan'-captured"
implicitly as part of the solutionas is the case
for aboveflowmodels.Flowseparatiin at trailing
edgesand at otherlocationahasato'be modelled
throughKuttaconditions. just likefor any other
inviscid flowmodel.Althoughone has-todecidea
priorion the presence of vortexsheetsand cores
ad generally the topologyof the vortexsystem
mustbe well-defined. *fitting' stillrequires
thatbot the positionand strengthof the vortex
sheetsand coreshave to be determined as part of
the potential-flov solution.
The treatment of vortexsheets and vortexfile.
sants,freelyfloatingin a fixedspatialgrid.
posesconsiderable problemsfor finite.differ-
ence/volume methodssolvingthe nonlinear full-
potential equationfor compressible flow.The con-
puterrequirements of full-potentialcodesare
relatively modest,but application to generalair-
craftconfigurations is hamperedby the grid-gne-
ration problem.
A specialclassof methodsfor compressible po-.n-
tialflow is formedby the so-called transonic
perturbation (TSP)methods.Thesemethodsare
boesd on en Approximation of the full-potential
equation with some of the nonlinear terms retained
and. with to the sae order of approximation, the
boundary condition applied on a planar reference
surfaceratherthanon the truesurface.This
eliminates the necessity of curvi-linear body-
conforming gridsand a mich simpler Cartesian grid
can be used,e.g. Soppa(Ref.19).
in case ehockvaves are Absentaltogether end
the perturbation on the free-stream due to Ch
presenceof the configuration is small. the poten-
tial-flow modelIs furthersimplified by lhnearl-
stion to the ifnear-Dotnrial flowmodel,govern-
ed by the ?randtl.Claaert equation. Note that for
Incompressible flow the saall-perturbatlon atsump-
tion is not required, the irrotationality condi-
tiondirectlyreducesEuler'sequations to
Laplace's equation.In the linoar.potential-flow
modelthe flowand the positionof the vortex
sheets and filaments can be solvedfor by employ-
Ing a bomgauJnvinerA nypaof formulation. In
thisapproachsingularity distributions on the
surfaceof the configuration and on the vortex
sheets are employedto simulatethe flow.The for-
mulationrequiresthe discretization of just the
boundingsurfaces, i.e.& spatialgrid Is not re-
quiredand In thatsensepossesses a "dimension-
loweringe property. The linear.potential flow me-
del is the model underlying the classical panel
method, it is emphasized at this point that though
the governing equation in linear, the problem is
still nonlinear because the position of the vortex

sheets appeaisnonlinearlyIn the, boundary ,condi-
tionon'the, solidsurficoa< wll,a. in.thebound-
ary conditions on the vortex shiet itself. It can
be argued that for mast configuration. In cruise
condition the wakes rsinfairly~simple, i... do
not roll up within one-wing span 'down-stream of
th;Ing trailing edge. This .1.ads to .ths'conven-
t al artached flw model' in which the voergexa)
sheet is chosen as some appropriate, user-speod-
fied xjgiW'surface, rendering the boundary condi-
tions-and
linear. therewithW he reulting problem fully
oAs far a forces and moentsis concerned--0
onlyNavier-Stokeenthoda are capable to p.edict
the total drag. the other ethode will predict the
induced (vortex) and the wave component; ofthe.
dg.20-S
2.2 Do:siL of snnlicahlOitv
1rnol of sethods
The preceding discussion will have made
clear that a number of substantial assumptions had
to be made to finally arrive at the framework in
which the panel method may be applied soundly. The
assumptions are summarized here as:
- high.Reynolds-number, eseentially inviscid flow
-no flow separation other than at the trailing
edges
•compact regions with vorticity. i.e. thin wakes
Sincompressible flow; or suall-perturbation com-
pressible flow without shocks.
The restriction to small-perturbationcompressible
flow implies that the linearized potential flow
panel method applies to configurations with eln.
der bodies and thin wings at low angles of attack
and sideslip. The perisseble non.slenderness,
wing thickness. maximum angle of attack and side
slip depend on the free-stram Mach number K.. Nto
restriction for %4 - 0. severe restrictlown at
high free-stream Mach numbers,
In general it can be stated that the pinel
method provides detailed but stmplifted aerody-
n aos for tolcx configurations. This is Illus-
trated firthar in Fig. 2.1. which shows, for a
subsonic transport configuration, the K.,- plane.
Curves indicato the first occurrence of flow fea.
tures such as shock waves and the onset of bound-
ary-lays: ",)aration. The shaded area indicates
the domain of applicability of the convontional
panel method, possibly coupled with a boundary.
layer method. The method Is restricted to sub.
critical attached flow. The shaded region Indi-
cate where the method will give reasonable re.
suits, while even for the indicated design cruise
condition trends in the aerodynamic characteris-
tics will bo predicted correctly to some degree.
It will be clear that extension of the panel meth.
od approach into regions with transonic flow,
without sacrificing its ability to treat arbitrary
configurations, would greatly enhance its value
for the aircraft designer,
Another area where there is still a gain to
be realized is to Improve upon the treatment of
the wakes. For configurations with extendad flops
or for combat aircraft that operate at higher In-
cidences the rigid-waks approach adopted in most
*first-generation" panel methods is rather moade.
quate and ways have to be found to account for the
effects of non-planer wakes Interacting with the
flow about the configuration.
5-3
C
60p CNE
. ANGLE
TRANSONIC
50. FLOW M
40. L" SUPERSONIC
FLOW
30-
ENTROPY
0 - EFFECTSM
LARGE
DISTURBANCE
10
LINEAR
THEORY
0 1 - .
1 2 3 4 5 6
MACH NUMBER
Fig. 2.2 Attached conical flow on a circular cone
at zero incidence
The nonlinear flow effects can be sub-di-
vided into effects due to large disturbances and
ones due to non-isentropic flow (e.g. bow shock,
strong normal or oblique shocks). As far as the
nonlinear effects in attached supersonic flow is
concerned a guideline can be given by considering
the supersonic flow over a circular cone at zero
pressure coefficient, which for this case Is con-
stant on the cone, computed by linear theory.
full-potential theory and from a conical solution
of Euler's equationa as can be found in shock
tables. It Indicates the boundaries of appllcabil-
ity of the flow models. it shows that linear theso.
ry Is valid in at least some part of the attached
flow regime.
This has been expressed by Stager (Ref. 20)
in an Interesting way. iars this Is reoexprssd
as follows. An aerodynamic characteristic F of a
configuratieo can be expressed in an asymptotic
fashion as:
F - Fo(geometry. X., a....),
Fl(nonlinear cospressibill.ty.
viscous effects....) .
where F. is the leading, 0(1). term and F the
first-order. O(.). corction term. The 01) ter
is provided by the pane.n-ethod solution, which
can be obtained relatively easily for complex go.
omtries since it requires the discretization of
the surface of the object only. The 0(6) term Is
provided by he finite-difference, finite-volume
or finite.element method solution, which can not
he obtained so easily for arbitrary configurations
because of the necessity to discietie nt only
the surface of the object hut also the entire
space surrounding the objart. Of course one should
realize that F1 . the first.order effect, might do-
inate F . This is for Instance the case for the
spats flow about a sphere, the transonic flow
with strong shocks, hypersonic flow with real-gas
effects,etc.
 5-4

2 3 o white-the
preossure~coefflclentfollowsfrom
the-
linearizabion
ofE2lna
The fullpotentialequationis wi h -
with u the totalvelocityvectorand 4 the'totil -lin- . )l +o('2) :(2.3c)
velocitypo ential,w i ttena - p - . . .. 3c)

whnere

1 "
whee
- + 4(1 - 2/) (2.1b) p 0 (2.3d)
is the density,- the ratioof the specificheats When in practisethe perturbations
(- 1.4 for air),whileU. and p. are the magnitude to the free
streamare not small, Eqs. (2.3cand d) may'attain
of the free-strem velocityand density,respecti- nonphysicalvalues,I.e.lowerthanthe vacuumor
vely.The pressurecoefficient Cp followsfromthe exceeding the stagnation
values.In most'omethods,
isentropic formula: usingEqs. (2.3cand d) the computed valueis li.-
S.- itedto vacuumand stagnation values:
Cp q,. (c P vacu-"
I) (2.3o)
p (2.1c) and
1
Inc 2 Ip )stag- - (i 2 2,/(-) 11 (2.3f)
with C - 1 (2.d)
S Ur
.heAhreq, - U'2 and p and p are the localstatic naturalway to extendthe capability of
linearpotential flow methods is the applyEqs.
pressurearihe free-stroa staticpressure,rea- (2.3a.d)everywhere
pectively. C denotesthe pressure in the flow fieldwherethe
coefficientIn perturbationvelocityis smal and the full-poten.
incompressible flow. tial flowformulation. Eqs. (2.1a-c).
in the to.
In the caseof incompressible aining smallisolated regions,coupledto each
flowp a p.,. - 0 otherthroughthe appropriate boundaryconditions
and Eq. (2.1a)reducesto Laplace's
equation,i.e. on the commonboun.'ary.
with 2.4 od *" odtiq
u - (2.2s) (i) 2a-tflLM1&rtiLb of the configuration (Fig.
2.3)the condition is imposedt.atthe nor.
wherev is the perturbation
velocitypotential. MAl component
one finds: of the velocityeithervanish.
es (solidbody)and is a streamsurfaceor
is prsctibed. The latterIs amongstothers
62 5 e.- 0 (2.2b) requiredto:
a, OY 4 asiulate the flow throughan inletfan
whilethe pressurecoefficient face;
followsfrom - simulatepropeller slipotreameffects-
0ernoulli'sequation,or equivalentlyfromEq. • simulatejet entrainment:
(2.1c)for the leit of M. - 0: incorporate
I a designoption;
n 2 accountfor the effectof the boundary.
C _C _I • 0 ,12/U (2.2c) layerthroughthe transpiration
P E P "r t concept.etc..i.e.
In the case of c=xtLIhjjj = Eq. 12.1a)is
linarined under the assumption
thatVV Is 0(e).
In casethe freestra is directedalongthe
x-axisEq. (2.1s)reducesto the Prandtl-Clauert SwW KE'
equation:

3 5
a. OY2 40 ns-
Note that this equation is ellipticfor subsonic
fras-strea. Hach numbers (X. < I) and hyperbolic Z
for supersonic free-stresa Koch numbers (m., > 1),
Withinthe scopeof the linearization it may be
assumedthatfor mell antlesof incidence and
sideslip-he compressibility axis reains the y
sss. i.e. the ..axlsratherthan the direction of
the free streamD ./I0t. For Incompressible flow
the Prandtl.Clauerr equation reduces to Laplsc,"s
equation. Furthernote thatexpanding Eqs. (2.1a. S
c) in the Rsyleigh-Jomen expansion for small Hach
number,i.e. 1,,- 0(d) alsoresultsin LUplace's Fig.2.3 Airplaneconfiguration
equation.
To the same order4f approxi~ation as usedfor Eq. (0 Oe). -
(2.3a), Eq. (2.1b) educeswithEq. (2.2a)to (2.4a)
0 2
l- l1•H2(k.,)/U + 0(,2)) (2.3b) where ; isnormal
the given the normalto the surfaceand v
velocity. n

(ii)<Onthe waee'vortex-sheet S 1two conditions
- apply, the'streaa surfac*Eondltion4Eq,
(2:4a),vith'v-- 0 and the-conditionlthat
ths'static'pressure'is continuous'acrossthe
vortex sheet, i.e.
5-s" 1i
sheets.jncase of *relaxed.wakes!boundary~condi
tionEqs: 2.4a and b are~lineari.andnildlynon'-
linear in terms of 9, respectively. but~both-con-
ditions are highly nonlinear in terms of the, also
to be~solvod for, position of the vortexwakes.

p p SC CC()
p S)
w 0 (2.b) 2.5 torsermlreoresenarson of the solution
The solutionof the potentialflowproblem
may be represented. through'Creen's$third identi-
,which as follows'fromEq (2.1c) carnbe ty, in terms of singularity distributions (source
expressed'as q and doublet p, see Fig. 2.4 for the definition
of p) over the surface S of the config,.rationand
p (S%) C (S%) -0 (2.4c) the vortex sheets S in the form (see Ref. 21 for
p incompressible
ible flow): and lef. 22 for subsonic compress.

(1O+ + '. - 4) - 0 (2.4d) S) n

which leads to

u.W - #') - 0 (2.4e)

ith ea the average velocity ccross the voke

vortex'sheet S ..

(iII) At the trailing edges of S the Kutssos*di-

jW is applied that the fRow leaves the
surface *s oothly *.

(iv) A ininity upttrem the perturbation

vanishes. The free-stream velocity vector
mnayconsist of (constant) components dua Fig. 2.4 Definition of doublet distribution

to Incidence and sideslip. but also ones due

to (small) steady rates of pitch, yaw end ) ) + )
(o " q( (opo
roll (p,q,r). Sometimes a user.spocifid on-
set floe (end total.pressure increment) is
addedto model for instance propeller slip- were
strea effects. Also other incremntal ye. .q(2o)

lcity components can he used to model the q(s)---

M
floe about configurations which parts move Sb IRI
with respect to each other (e.g. etors sepa- 1
ration). V(;o) - (2.5c)

So we have:

k(;) - U i(xcOscos . ;ysig * stsircosp} are the velocity potential induced by the source
and the doublet distribution, respectively.

- In Eq. (2.5)i - lB](;4 ). is the normaldi.

s*(x) rected into the floe fiel3 and the compresstbhlity

D() ... (2.4f) mtrlx JB is defined as

where aoi the angle of a&tack,j the angle 0 01 (2.5d)

of aid* slip, p - p q. + re is the 10 0 .J
rotation of the configuratyon etout the
axis of the reference coordinate system, where B - .2 1 and
at, (;) Is the onset flow due to the slip-
the
thes1iptroaas. 1)X Is
o a propeller. Onset Velocity
theappled
to be within [-1. 1 I0 0 1.a
5
due to the relative motion of a part of the /0 (2.0)
configuration with respect to the global co. 1/J
ordinate system.
The velocity p..ential as defined in Eq. (2.5) a-
(v) No upstream influence in supersonic flow. tisfies the Prandtl.Clauart equation Eq. (2.)a)
exactly. They also satisfy the far-field boundary
Above boundary-value problem is a problem in whick condition. lb. integrals in Eq (2.5) have a sin.
the governing equation is linear but the boundary gular Integrand, which results, for regular q and
conditions Eqs. 2.4. and b are nonlinear. s. in a situation where the potential is regular
everywhere, except that it has a Jump across S.
The resulting boundary value problem will be i.e.
linear only in cass of the approximation in which )
the wake Sv is assumed to be a fixed surface in -
t(s5 e( l() (2.f)
Space (the L. assumption) valid for high. V 6 0
,S) ; 1 0
anpect-ratio. lightly-loaded wings, the wake vor.
tex sheet not interacting strongly with other coo. here the superscript P sanotes the so-called
ponents of the configuration or with other vortex Principal-Value of the integral. I

-A-
 5-6

_.The.velocityfield induced by the singulaci. where .- H I( 3n ,.h~ocalle4So.nrsl

tydistributions,folluwsfromEq.,(2.5) through The vector.mis,p*rallelito hnoainnae
4differentition, mE of Incoepreosiblej.low &nd in csse,ncssnormai to
* -or~along the ,x-ais-(- tomprssiibilitytaxIs-).

wh ere jupi hevictyptnia ssleydet

ffi;+3S() (2.6b) acrost Isxcoinceus azump

e oubetdistribution

Mlet distribution has a jumpjintangentialand.in

0 v0normal
0 direction, since x 6.;;Z ;.,);
with In the case of incompressibleflowthe velocity
in tetngential component only. This feature has
'U()- W-ff([BlI) X 3( (2.6d) as consequence that-modeling vortex sheets (which
Sb+.
1Phave a jump In ti's tangentialvelocityonly)In
snS~wcompre bsible flow requires a composite singularity
of srntp dasoredisirio~tion of strength
- A ~).~X((Bjd7(;)) (2.6.) q-- a O

k in /n 1
n,-Ln
2 v *
B. 5

U(SI)-iJ(S) 0 DULTDSRBTO
SOURCE DISTRIBUTION

Fig. 2.5 Jump conditiona across sourcea sn. doublet distributions

In the literature sometimoes reference Is

made to the so-called (Iinerixd)
Hers we used the equivalence between the velocity
Induced by a doublet distribution p with that in-
~.Tems-lxi
z h ~sfu eie
odfnd& sI
a- fl ve

ducod by a surface4 vocticity distribution ;of

stegh o plus that Induced by a concen. 0 pijo)(.)
trated vortex of strength r - p alongthe boundary -2
ofS. Both the vorticity vector ndthe grain - (0 V)- a0) & *(5) (.b
ofthe doublet diatrihution Vp are tangential to
the sur face carrying the doublet distribution.
The (Ilnearized) perturbation "ans-flux vector Is
Note that In using the equivalence property it is then dofined as the differente between the total
assumed that p Is continuous everywhere on Sb end 4ass-flux vector and Its Iestamvalue.
Secpt possibly at its boundary as Temain v ,I* which like v - lp has order of meg.
sAvetage of using the dooblet distriw& ion nituda e t hedrvtono*ql2.b ene
rtathn th ufc otciydsrbto Eq. (2.3b) to order c. Employing the jump relation
Is that Kelvin's vortex lews (eag.that vortex given in Eq. (2.6f) it turns out that
lines only begin or end on tha solid surface and
are closed othersiss) are satisfied autoaticlly
Acrossa the surface tha velocity is diutomtially. ) V6xe is I~
±011-m (2.7c)
see Fig. 2.5. I.
showing that the doublet distribution has associ.
-o-~ -aced with it a jump In the tangential component
u(x iS-) u s i q; o f m) only, while the source distribution causes a jump
(2.6f) In the direction of the co-normal. i.e. In general
I-s both tha normaland the tangential direction.
2.7 corrennondencietwO2'-- l i olo
Ey4 4
cnS drn th nvrge.nd the'diff eence,

can be ul
'ons that oudn~,;
Ned wponotsoeelati cmputaiona t sid '("I IteF inerleqain
th orthr"'~eidtediftnsm~ua~y
iced o reuce
t~e Ifir t o

distribution q, ary conkditio~nsdcupeedcl'b ole~

fiel r6~:)1nuce by :-sourc
and th~qve' city )idcd
n:. by aovCticity
6 seatly
dis-tribution. Ins-p~ct~on of the compoents ' f Eqs.
In both h ul~ye ccs n the &est
(2.6bY ajid (2:gd)-learns that one can'wite: in he
l l
neof
in t- placs 'su48C
syetry OSth~at i:eatl
(x ;qe(Bl ku 1-~.)
(2.8) treatment.
Mote general cases of, geometric and not neceasaci-
wheret. - l'2" lddenotes the unit vector In ly aerodynamic symmetry can be formulated, like
respectively.
x. y an'z direction, upper/lower in combination withstarboard/port-
side symmetry, N-lobeaxi-symmetry,etc.
2.8 Symer
in caseswith nr~ies~hodsd
nmangg In both and the flow Computing
Sgoae'try DOMAIN OF
timecan be,sayediy teaiixing thastthe singulari-
vilb identical DEPENDENCE OF PDOAN F
ty FORWARD
to the' one onl ths'mtrboard'aide. tf .then the po-
induced at x bytSMAHCN
INFLUENCE OF P
tentAi'fand tha elct
S, S5
and (x )',re'spectively. one' f~nds that the po2.-
a. E velocity Induced at xo by the complete
&&i
onfiguration are

an (e)0V (IS I6;.) (2.90)AT /

2
(2.90) 8 -z))mO
Nx0 -x).(-M.)((y 8-y) +(Z
- Ii [0 0 , Definitiens In supersonic flow
10 0 1J Fig. 2.6

with15* I (S)I. 2.9 jmaxion~saLUi

In supersonic flow the solution of the
This Implies that only the starboard aide of the Prandtl.CGlauert equation can also ha written in
on
terms of a source and a doubletdistribution
c onfigurAtion nae co bs disccetized and subject- che aurface of the configuration. see Ref. 22.
ato the boundary conditions. of the
However, here the hyperbolic characcer
Afinal point is that in case the geometry Is ey- quation Is to be accounted for by resricting the
becauseof surfaceof Integration in Eqs. (2.5a). (2.5b).
matric. but the flow isnot symmsetric
tha boundaryconditions (e.g. aide-slipping con- (2.6b). (2.6d) and (2.6.) to the it*&withinthe
figuration) the problem can be reduced by almosta forwardMach conefrom the pointx6, i.e. the
f..cor of 2 by formulating the problem In termsof velocitypotential Induced by a source distribu-
the averageand the difference of thn singularity tion becomes
distributions on port and starboard side.
In this caseoe can write for the velocity In-
P x)-j q('X)~Id (.l
ducad by for instance tha source distribution on V, so S I
the complete configurattonw

(O~)~z:% I)'* IS X;q

0 ) where Stdenotee that pact of 5 faillrith

* -. .. che forward Mach Cone from sx (thedomain of do-

U (s :q ) - ((S 'lI0;q )
( I V? (2. 10) p nd * " #a . I n Eq. (2 . 11") A
of ; ) (s ee ig. 2 .9)
occurring In Eq. (2.5b). This mas
Is comensurate
produced by& with
with
4P/ the circumstance that all tha
qq and qd q. / (2.10b) suporsonic source has to flow aft throughs the aft
-0+qP)/2 4
Hach cone (i.e. domain of Influence) rather than
where qasnd qPdenote the source distribution on throughs both the forward and tha aft Kach cone. In
the starboard and the, portaide,respectively. In performing the Integration in Eq. (2.114)care
case of flow symetry ild- 0 and Eq. (2.10alire- shauld be taken to extract the proper -finit
duces to Eq. (2.9b). Tor the mirror-imaged point, Part* In the senseof liadamard. The latterIs con-
located At ISlx 0 one then tots: nmcted with the Circumstance chat

-
6 56
I)( 0 ~q)+ "SI(IS'
'oq)) lit - I(X.)
a-- .1 2 4B2 2 ,( a 2 1/2(21b
- iux..q d) - (S) ((S Is:q d)') - 1(c.X) o 0 -y)
((y (:0)I 2lb
(2.10c)
 wl~~idi~~itJ Lgveman
teie" SUPERSONIC FLOW,
s 'Ineg
rdn LEA5ING EDGE'
breie saingular only In ''ase th oin'
X0 was o . the
(; '

tialzInducedby the doublet distributio, see. Eq.

(2.c)

o() - I kfBd) (;) (2.11c) COMMUNICATION

Fig. 2.7b Supersonic

leadingedge
sourceand doubletdistribution are foundin a
sieilar way from Eq. (2.6b), (2.6d) and (2.6e), For a subsonic leoding edge the flowcorners
i.e. around'theedgeresulting into,a singularity in
the velocity field at the 'edge The latter leads

uq() to thleading-'dge suctlwfi ci whichcounter.

- lfYq()., 3 ds6( ) (2.lid) acts the dragforce.Thli'also impllisthat'there
q st Is comunication betweenthe upperand the I'ver
wing surface, which means Amongst others thor at a
subsonictrailingedgea Kuttacondition is re.
(°)" -I I (2.11.) quiredto ruleout expansion of the flowaound
;,dS(;) the edge and force the flow to separate at the
edge.

Sv(X I- -i0l'
x ({ajd7())
v as, (2.llf) At a supsonic
cosmunication leading
possible edge
between there
upper is no
and lover
side.the pressureis finite,though diacontinu.
sue,at the edgewhileconsequently the leading.
edgesuctionforceis lost.At a suporsonic trail.
ioti that it &boe,,
expressionsb. whichhas an Ing edge alsoa discontinuityin the pressuremay
i~agifry! valuefor H > 1. only occursas existbecauseupstreaminfluence Is not possible.
B - 1 -.2 whichis negative. Thisimplies thatat a supersonic tsxilingedgea
finitejump in the pressureIs possibleand also
It can be derivedthatthe Jumpsin the velocity thata Kuttaconditionis not to be appliedat
potential and the velocityacrossthe sourceand sucha trailingedge.
the doubletdistribution are identicalto the ones
givenin Eqs.(2.5f)and (2.6f).
2.10 githerttransformarton
In section2.5 the solutionof the Prandtl.
In supersonic flowone distinguishes so. Clauertequation,Eq. (2.3&). was givendirectly
calledsubsonic and supersonic leadingand trail, in termsof elementary solutionsof the Prandtl.
,
Ing edges.For a subsonicedge the coeponan of Clauertequation. The solutioncan also be formu.
the fre.-stream Mach numser normal to the edge Is laceddifferently by firsttransforming the
smaller than1.0.for a supersonic edge thiscon. Prandtl.Clauertequationto the Laplaceequations.
porentexceedsthe sonic valueof 1.0, i.e.for a The transformation- [SIX.i.e.
subsonicleading/trailing edge the edge is awept
beyondthe Machco"e,for a supersonic edge the -. C- by. r - 81 (2.12&)
edge Is sweptforwardof the Mach cons.As illus-
tratedIn Fig.2 7 the behaviour 2
of the flow near transforms
Eq. (2.3.)with0 - #/B Into-
a subsonicedge is completely different from the
one near a supersonic edge. ,
sl
r
I O1 (22.
(2.12&)

so that4
SUPERSONIC FLOW

UPPER-LOWER SIDE 19. I a (

dy
COMMUNICATION
MACH CONE ao A6
. C +z This implies that one has to solve laplace's aqua.
ton for the so-called "analogous configuration"
in the ) space.The analogous configure.
tion' is thinner,has a smallerspanand a higher
sweep, thanthe trueconfiguration in the (x.y.z)
LEADING EDGE - space.
Denotingthe configuration
in physicalspaceby
Fig. 2.7a Subsonicleadingedge F(x.y.0-, it followsthe',
the normalvectorcan
be expressedas:
 5-9

aa lgu ay,oir .{ as' ln. In the derivation it has bcon as- i

I.tes-
sued that the totalintegrated source-strength

~ 2f~ ~2' E 1/2 From;Eq. (2.5) i folow tha't tit.r dimihsioua

-(Bn. ny. n.)Tf (2.13b) )'dl

r.2 s r21/,2
2 the contour of the
where
f -U1 +S 1/2 +nWe i e and~
whrek-ne plus wAke ",he i'zplane. The
'configuration

Ue /2doublet dIstribution ou 'a odinsional'ake'is

2 2
+'Y Z JSingle-valued descliption -ofthe potential.'
it followsthatapplyingthe noral-volocit'y
condition in thetransfomed planed
n-BJnx due' to the'source
The velocitydistribution and
resultsinu . can be obtained'in
doublet'distribution a sisilar
way fromEq*. (2.6b),(2.6d)and (2.6e), resulting

which iff r fr the trueboundarycondition t() - q() C ) (2. )

physical opae. .1, if the m.parprbion as- q C, li:dl
osnption is made in whichf - I + 0(9')and the
first term on tht lot of Eq. (2.14) is 0(¢2). or
for H. - 0. does one recover to0 the ar- with Y directedalongthe y-axis.i.e. perpendi-
rectboundarycondition, cularto te x-z plane,one finds:
An advantage froma theoretical pointof view is
that for aboveformulation, known'as Cthart rule - i
(31
4 d ) - 1-1-d(~
C+w I2d (21b
1, the uniqueness of the solution can he There
generally
are
proved,whichis not the caseotherwise.
furtheralternative Prondtl-Glauert-C~thert trans.
formsatons possible, basedon differences in the
scalingsbetweenv and #. due to the vortexalongthe
For the contribution
An alternativo formulation, kno n as CGthert rule edgeof the doubletdistribution it can be derived
11.but stillemploying V - p/B . is to solveEq. that
(2.12b)in the transformed spaceemployingincom-
pressible sourceand doubletdistributions, to
transform the velocity components to physical " " p( ) .
;4 for sb
,
spaceemployingEq. (2.12c)and to applythe
boundaryconditionin physicalspace. (2,1(c)

It appearsthatworkingwiththe direct whichis the velocityinducedby a (compressible)

likedescribedin sections2.5.2.7
formulation, vortexlocatedon the edge of the distribution.
and 2.9. in which compressible source and doublet
distributions are employedon tha surfaceof the In two-dimensional flow the disturbances due to
configuration in Vhysicalspace,and the true the sourceand doubletdistributions die out less
boundaryconditionis imposed, has a slight pref. rapidlywith distance fromthe distribution than
trance. This certainly applies to the case of in three.dimsnsional flow, io..
supersonic flowwherethe finite-part integration versus 1 12 versus
Is to be parformed. 'nlRdl uII, R2 dll 2 d e /IEI -
etc.
2 11 Uo-dimentsonal flow
In the presentpaperthe emphasisison This corresponds with the differences in character
three-dimensionl flow applications. In casethe of two- and three-dimensional flow,the two-dihen.
panel method is to be applied to a two-dimensional atonal flow being forced to remain within parallel
configuration mostly a three-dimnsional configu- planes and not being allowed to escape sideways.
rationIs specified with a largespan-chord ratio
(typically of order100).Alternatively a tvo-di- Finallyit is notedthatstartingfrom the three-
ension l formulation can be developed directly dimensional formulation other, (quait-) wo-dimen-
starting fromthe two.divensional Laplace or atonal formulations can be drived. Theeo include
Prandtl-Glauert equation, or. as a very Instruc- the case of conicalfnow where the geomtY Scales
tive exercise, from the three-dimnsionel integral linearlywithx, I.*.
formulation by takingthe singularity distribution
constantin spanvioedirection and integrating - 6 -(y/Kx.z ))
over the interval y(-,,..). The latterapproach is
takenhere. withK somecon-nt, while

In thisway one findsfrom Eq. (2.5b): and is- id(y/x.z/kx).

q - q(y/'x.z/Kx)

Pq(;.) - y fq(2)lnji,
24 dC(R)
(2.15a)

where o - x +"E c'os X'6 +, Z;s.

02d 5(0 00
u 5-10

3. _IN ^~, ~os N b

3.z ?,J .
I ........
hn".. ..............
manner toI S EMA KUTTA CONDITION
E: "
On the olid surfaceSo f the configuraion' CONDIt(O So: DOUBLET

impose this condition Is to substitute the into.

gral representationslEqa* (2.6) directly into Eq.
(2.4a)'. 'Hovever, 'bforethis iin~b;,done onezo
to fix a remaining degree of freedom In the formu-
lation,I.e.thereare two singularity ditribu-
tionsbutjust one bodry, ondtion on,b-l.e
the' floe liido the,volumieenclosed by" Iearbi-
troiy:Theafictitio flow within'., en .ro.
with th; aegree of freedom,is'fixea by pefying S D T
some relatIon betein th t wo slngulm.rity distrl-
buttons or by choosing one of them.,In the *first. DISTRIBUTION
generation' penalmethodsthe following possibili- (MODE FUNCTION)
tieshavebeen implemented:
S SOURCE
I~S,: S
DISTRIBUTION
(UNKNOWN)
IES Unknown None or for LCO Fig. 3.1 Exampleof formulation
W I of first
Unknown 'mode function"
generationpanelmethod
itO: Lift-Cerry.Over from WINOS to BODIES
Lift-cerry.over
occurswhen the
wing inter.
sectsthe fuselage, the wing intersectsthe tip
Here"ODIES' denotepdrtsof the configuration tank, the horizontal
thathavevolumebt no clearly tailintersects the fuselage,
definedtrailing the verticaltail lntexsects the fuselage,
edgeand do not have a wakesurfaceassociated a pylon
intersects a storeor a tip tank.etc. In not all
with them.The flow over such& pert in isolation of thesecasesis the choiceof the oppropriate
wouldnot geerate any liftforce."WINCS" denote way to handlelift.carry.over
parts of the configurationthathave volumeor no as triviela problem
as for a ssp.e wing-frselage intersectionof a
volume,but in any casehave a trailing edge and geometrically starboard/port-eidesymmetricair-
an associated wake surface,whiletheseparts do craftin symeetric flight.
generee lift,both in isolation and when partof
a completeconfiguration.
tiched Indoes a *ODY"
cesenot iszero
at.
to a -WING-the lift fallto Fig. 3.2 providesan examplein whic,the wing
at the junctionof the bodyand the wing: the body intersects the fuselageand the tip tank. If the
carriessoamelift also,whichis oftenreferredto wingdoubletdistribution
as lift-carry-over wouldend at the inter.
(LCO). sectionstherewouldhavebeen a discrete vortex
Nest firstgeneration alongthe wing.fusage junctionand alongthe
panelmethodsstartedas junctionof the wing and the ip tank.By intro.
methodsthat could not 'epresont the generation of ducingA LCOsoent, carryinga in doubletdis.
lit forces These methodshad only a sourcedie- tributon whichis constantin spanwise
tribution on the surfaceof the configuration 5 direction
b and which in chordwiee direction has the se die-
and did not featurewake surfacesS the aLter
tribution as the wing doubler distribution has
methodswhereextendedto caseswitil liftby in. alongthe section.the vortexalongthe wing.fuse.
corporating doubletdistributions (andwakes) in lage Junction and the intersection of the es
somerelatively simplefashion,mostlyin the form with the fuselageis displaced
of what can be described to the fuselage
as a "Hodefunction- ap. centerline.Here is willbe cancelled by the vor.
proach tex fromthe port-side LO segment, at lest for
symmetric flowconditions. The vortexalongthe
The
tud)'Nodsfunction"
doublet (givenshape,unknowneapli.
distribution
is aituatedon the wing tip-,tank/wing
lineof the tip junctionis displaced w) the center
tank whereit truthfully sisulates
surfaceitselfor on som auxiliary surfece(often the tip flowaroundthe tank,and downstream
the cambersurfaceor partof the cambersurface) of
the tip tank,the ring-tip vortex.This indicates
Insidethe wing. ee Fig. 3.1.At the trailing that the 1£O segments are ueed to position the
edge the doublet distribution on the ouxiliary diecretevortices,
surface is continued onto S"One of the probies associated with doubletdistri.
butionsthatare non-zeroat theirboundingedges,
encountered over and over again in the Application at physically correctlocations.
of thesefirstgeneration panel methodsis that
the doubletdistribution (vortexsystem) of the
wing has to be continuad intoor onto appended
partswithouttrailingedgesuch as fuselages, tip
tanks, etc. This is necessary to avoidin a fev
eituations, or to positionin a physically correct
manner in most situations, the concentrated vortex
aasocattd withthe secondterm in Eq. (2.6.),or
in otherWordsto properlyaccountfor the lift.
carry.over.
 _ _- _ _ __._FUSELAGE,
TiPTANk.

LIFTING
SURFACE '

MOVE VORTEX P
rO CENTERLINE

LCO: Lift-Cafry-Over VORTEX

POS: Plane.of-Symmetry TO POS
Fig. 3.2 Exampleof the use of lift.curry-over
(t.00)egmsents

The formulation of the problem isaucL. using The exasple giver in Fig. 3.1 Is Just one of
the direct Implementation of the Neumanncondi- several ways in which , ift can be added to a basic
tion. to the following Fredhol. Integral aqw, ton Psumasnform-lation Other examples are a linearly
of the secondkind for the sourcedistribution q varyingdoubletdistribution on Sb. againdeter-
minedby a Kutt&condition at the trailing edge;
+ defininga doubletdistribution on the camber sur.
face and applying the conditions
is a trem surfucefor the internal
thatflow.surface
this

+q 0) oda f. The Fredholm integral equationgivenIn Eq.

$b (3.1)providesa soundbasisfor a vell.condition.
- Vn.A. . (o) (3.1a) ed discretization. Once th- solutionof Eq. (3.1a)
b. is obtainedthe tangential velocityi: romputed
for all I•b from the evaluation of the integrM represent&.
tion, Eqs. (2.6b).(2.6d)and (2.6s) tot subsonic
In Eq. (3.1a)the kernelR followsfrom Eq. flowand Eqs.(2.lld).(2.11.) and (2.11f)for
(2.6b)for subsonicflowa~l frol Sq. (2.lid)for supersonicflow,
supersonicflow,e.g.14 - i/4*'RI for subsonic

Thiterm due to the modsfunctiondoubletdistri.

butioncan be expressedas

Um=oda.(o " "l.(I6IS( (;o.; )dS(;)

(3.1b)

i Andi
where follows fromtqs.(2.6d ande) for -. 1.
oubsoni,flow Xnd free Eq.(2.11* and f) for su-
flow,
personic R -f - it.
i.e. 2 InEq.(3.1b)
S, denotesthe auxifiary surf ce carrying the .V -
mA-tunction doubletdistribution and the wake mnx(Un).vW-ViI
ontowhichthe doubletdistribution is continued I
to Infinitydownstream(e.g. see Fig.3.1).The
chordviseshap*of the doubletdistribution Is
usuallygiven,the spanwissvariation of the am.
of th• modefunctionIs foundby supple.
pltitude Fig. 3.3 Dirichlot on the perturbation
condition
"entingthe Neumanncondition Eq. (3.1m)on Sb potential
with .Kut&acondition elongthe trailingedge.
 5-12

S3.2 Dirlchlet uofdwtlon ons

b

ROt'O" theasecond .generatlon" panel ath-f

ods offeran . ac-iave alternative to the.direct
above. Utilizinthe Juap' properties across the 2
applicat ion of the'iumann condition desciib~jd
singularitydlstributiona he Neumir'condlt!6
for the flowexternalto the volumeVb enclosed
thesurface S can be converted
b ihtoa Dlrchle- by
condit Ion for the flow InsideVh A enresise sertura
Fig. 3.3.is the formulation in whchmthe
bationvelocitypotential equsl to zero
v is s'j
for all pointsn t S4 . This implies'tht.¢ - 0
everywhere insideVb and therefore alothat
- 0 for x ' Sb It then followsfIro
Ej.
(2.6f)and'the°lleusann condition for x c Sb
that0
U (o.: . ,q/B2
(M.P,/(n.;). 0o.a S
0 mv~/ne (3.2a)
' SW
forc
o s eAnd
2
op + q/b + (I. p))/(n e) .v Fig. 3.4 conditionior in caseof Dirichlet

for (3.2b)
OnceEq. (3.3)is solvedfor the dublet distribu.
o b tion.the tangential velocityon Sb can b obtain
ed as follows.The Dirichler boundaryconditionon
respectively.
Subtraction
of thesetw^ equations S lopliopthatthe mean (I.e.*Pricipal) value
thenyiel'sthe following
relationbetweenthe becomeso in) . . see Eq. (2Sf). Prom this
sourcedistribution
q and the doubletdistribution sassequatio8it folows also that
P on Sb: o(XoCS+)- "s(Xo) (3.4a)
n B2(.vP) (.2c)
q - 82(n.;)(vn.Us.)
and from Eq. (2.6f).selvinguP froi e ',b.o
The equivalentformulation of the boundarycondi. we find oh
tionthat S shouldbe a streA surfacealso leads (oS -
to a Fredhol integral equationof the second q/
0(0o b n/;.).
kind,nov for p.
The integral equation followsdirectly f-.oa (3.4b)
Eq. ith Eq. (3.2c)thisyields
(2.5)as:
3
(;oSb) - ;kx) + vn; ( -)
ffsio) (x .;)
.d ) - (q( o.z)di)
Sbv b (33) This lastexpression does not involve an evalue.
wherefor subsonicflow9 and g followfrom Eq. tinnof any Integral representation, just the gra.
dientof the doubletdistribution has to be deter.
(2 5c) and (2 5b), respoctlvely.qfor supersonic mined on the surfaceof the configuration
flow fromEqs (2 lic)and (2.lA), respectively, together
with the tangentialcomponent of the free.tream
In case of a bodywith a trailingedgethe wake velocity(andotheronsetflows)and the user.
attachedto it at the trailingedgewili carrya specified outflow,
doubletdistribution. The iuttaconditionrequires
thatthe doubletdistribution is at leastcontino. The lattercircumstance
ous in functionvalue,otherwise is a clearadvantage of
we wouldintro, employingthe Dirichletcondition. A furtherad.
due a discrete vortexat the edgeand consequent- vantageIs thatnow a scalarfunction,. is to be
ly an Infinita velccity at the edge, consideredratherthana vector-like quantity, u.
This ispliesthat at the trailingedge thereis a Thismeantthatthe storageproblemis considers.
bly reduced.As willbe shown lateron computing
discontinuityin the doubletdistribution. Since timerequiredto evaluatethe integralrepresents-
usuallytrailing edgesare "nsturalbreaksin the ton is not changed substantially by the approach.
surfaceof the configurationthe discontinuityin
the doubletdistributionwill not cauaeadditional
difficultiesin the discretizationof the formula. set the grt ~q
in aboveformosiaion
zero In the interior
the choke was med. to
velocity potential equal to
of Vb. This resultsIn an in.
Ths Dirichiet forsuletion does not require ficti. ternal flowfieldthatis identical to fre
stress.An alternative formlation is to set the
tiousauxiliaryinternal Lift-Carry-Over surfaces tota velocitypotential 4() - p(5) 0 i .X equal
However. note that at the intersection of the waks to zero in the interiorof Vb eaW Pig. .q.
of a wingwith a body the doubletdistribution on
the bodyhas A Jup (equalto to wakedoublet
strength) (Pig.3.4) It thenmeansthatthe in-
tersection of the waks with the fuaelageshouldbe
treated explicitly as a breakin the description
of the cross-section of the fuselage,
 5-13

gi+ S w UU*o.s
o

is.(tOjj2 U1=O-
-
ob-

U P..0 UixU.n* 0 rV

U..
)~.-j~ U*~fl~j± Fig, 3.6 Dirichlet condition onp a nd 0
Fig. 3,5 Dirichlet condition on* A coubination of the two Dirichiet conditions Is
also possible (e.g. see Fig. 3.6). In this cae.
Simt thon the totalvelocityIs zeroin the Into. ti flowIn V2 Is stagnantflow.The boundarycon-
rior. Eq. (2.6f) yields for thenormal component ditionsappliedare
of the velocity on the Inner side of Sb:0O n~.d- oS 2

.(.),
iii 1~/A
- J52
~ 2
+
(;.p~l(;.) -on
0.(3.5a) .love
the Intersection Si Of the two volumes we then

i.e. for xot S and for the normal 5 coeponent of ~ n Ile*-0o

the velocity on tho outer side of b' Carrying out the analysisas ahove leads to the
situation In which the source distribution on Sbl
?6)l~
iO~+ ~q/B 2 + (.pnd(. n
- 5
i are given by Eq. (3,.2c ) and (3.5c), ro.
pactv~ly.Furthermore, applyingonS, the jump
(3.5b) relations leadsto the specification of p.,rather
1 . for 's, S , which Eqs.
repluc. (3.2 a and h). than q, as
j's ) - k.03.*
It followsthatnow
From thesetwo equation&. i - 3.8a
2
g (MO)
B2 (3lc hile.q(. ,S,) followefrom an Inteiraleqaton
q (nm~v0 on th wholethe problem can he 9epresse s the
following set of minedtypeof Integral equations
Note that forzerooutflow end incompressible to be solvedsimultaneously:
fl ow Eq. (3.5c) yieldsq - 0. I.e. for thatcase
the potential flow solution can ha found without fo y- ,
employing a source distrihution. o Oo l
The Integral equation to he used for the formula-
tionof the Dirichlet condition In termsof the f() 9
1";)-10 ( .)dS(').ffq(')t( .)dS(x)-
total potential Is Sb~b q

1,(0jp;R(x.x)dS(x) - Jq()t
t Jf0(x)tk( 0.)dS(;)
(x .x)dS(;)-
Sbw bloh3 Si1

-ffq(x)t ( .x)dS(;) . 0 .x (3.6) (3.8b)

bqo for ~S;,:
again a FredholI equation of the second kind. dif.
facing r"them intsgral equation Eq. (3.3) in the ip(;)- ffp(x)t.( .o)dS() ffq()tq(' .)dS(;)-
3
right-hand side only. bb2 0 SI
Onc e souinfEq (3.6) Isknwni
thatl followsx
S 4 i'. so

o b otJ.,a (3.8c)

u( eS* -v n - p(3.7b) fr S
oh n fo o
for pointson the exterioraideof Sb. while In
the Interior of Vb the flowIs at rest. p) (' ffq(')Z
,)ds(,Z)- (;.)dS(*)-
Sb1.b2 0 SI

-ffq(;)t (; *;)dS(x). fJ,(X)1t (.. )dS('X)

$bloh2 qo Si J

113.6d)
5-14

Stilla furtheralternative is to apply'both the surfaceand containsa iear combination of the

externalNeunannand,theinternal Dirichiei bound- firstderivatives of Ax . The normalvelocity
sry condition. Thisdirectapproachleads' to a condition on the trueupperand lowerwing sur-
coupled.set of,integralequations for the unknown faces is expandedin termsof e is well.using Eq,
source i d unknown doublet distribution. Moreover, (3 9c). In theexpansionit~s'assumed chat,to
velocity on
nov'both" the- velocity 'and thie,'ptentli have to be leadin4,order of &pproiiatlon, the
comipued resulting in a substantial
incriasein the truesurfacemay be replacedby3 the'velocity
computaionaloffort. Thiacncerns rot as much on Eke reference surface, see Eq. ( ,9c).where
the computing.time neededfor the evaluationof u(x ) is'theperturbation velocity assumedto be
the integrals but specificallthe computingtime of ordere. Addinrthe two expresslons resulting
involvedin'havlng to solvea systemof equations fromthe approximated noral,velocity boundary
with twicethe dimensioncompared to the system condition appliedon upperand lowerside,yields
wela the additional atorage required. The
resulting~from~thaforaulationsdiscussed above.
as. ,(r> <r, ' . ( ,+ .
possibleadvantge of the directapproachis that u
in discretied'fonit sometimes is more' accurate (3.10a)
than the indirectapproach described abovein wherethe secondtem on the right-hand side can
whichtheaourcedistribution is computeddirectly be rewrittenin termsof the slopeof the thick.
utilizing thatin the Insideof the body the po- nessdistribution of the wing.T1.elatterone is
tential'is zeroevery-where. This Is apparently zero in caseAxu-a *, I.e. for avlingof infini.
due to the circumstance thatupon discretization tesimalthickness. The flow problemat hand is
and settingthe potential equalto zeroat a set solvedby a sourceand a doubletdistribution both
of discrete pointson the interiorsideof Sb re- situatedon the reference surface,supplemented by
sult%in an interior potential field%hichis not the continuationof thedoublet distribution on
exactlyzeroevery-where but zero to the orderof the wake.Substitution of thr Jump relation,Eq.
approximation employed.In case of coarseor ir. (2.6f),thenyieldsthe following relation
for q:
regular panelling it is imginable thatfor a 2 1
given number of panelsthe direct formulation in. (.;), vu + )+ p..If,.l );, B2(;.
volvingtwoboundaryconditions per panelmight q "n n A
resultsin a morn accuratesimulation of the ex. (3.10b)
teror flow fieldthenthe Indirectformulation, wherethe last termon the right-hand side is zero
for incompressible flowas well as in cospressiblv
3.3 Ljftin surfacealvroximation flow in case the co.normalm is parallelto the
In the derivation of the Prandtl.Clauert normaln.
equation it was implicitly assumed thatbodiesare
pointedand slenderwhilewingsare relatively fiLtfne the two expressions yields-
thin.Withinthe framevork of lineartheorythe
strea...urface condition on the upperand lor + u;(so 5 - u" v1u + j-'(+T)xO'nr
wing surfaces can be simplified to a boundary con- v n
ditionon a reference surface,e.g.the rasber (3.10c)
surface or any otherreference surfacesufficient.
ly closeto the trueupperand lowerwingsurface The secondterm on the right-hand sidecorresponds
5
(Fig.3 ,. to the slopeof th comberdistributionadded-to
the, not-necessarilyplanar,wing reference sur.
fae. 1he add.on camberwill be zero in case
.U " fU --,;u, i.e.in the casethe reference surface
X+ AX VU is chosento be the cambersurfaceof the wing.
n It followsfro Eq. (3.10c). upon substitutionof
s, Eqs. (2.6dand e). thatthe lifting-surface
proximation loadsto the following ap-
integral
aqua.
tion for ,:

WING REFERENCE SURFACE Sr ;r _a~fJ dS -J 4 (IBjdlhl

1 1 (;rxOP)R
1 1
" %
r# o.
sr,vw
Fig. 3.7 Liftingsurface approximation (VnVn)
n S., -

In th lifting-surfaceapproxlation pointson the . r5)ffq9 dS (3,10d)

wing surfacesare definedas S q
. -r , ;u.1 (3.9a) where 9 and 9 follow from Eqs. (2.6d and s) for
subsonit flew vnd fromEq. (2.11o and f) for su-
where r. u and I denotethe reference (i1ifting') personicflow.Eq (3.10d)is definitely not a
surface, upperwing surioe and lowerwingsur- Fredholmintegralequationof the secondkind,it
face
' respectively. Underthe assumptionsthat probablyhas to be classified as en integralequa-
,;u and its firstdarivatisee er* smallof order tienbelonging to the classof Frsdholmintegral
ens may write equations of the firstkind.In aboveintegral
equationthe derivative of p appearsritherthen
.
, 1 r . u.dr 1 *0(2) (3,Sb) the function
term value itself,
on the right-hand while#ls the second
sidehaspersa clear-cut
S u) -u(r) ) + 0O (2)
) (3.c)
(3.9c) classification
oral experience of
is the
thatintegral equation.
Fradhole integralThe gen-
equa-
tionsof the firstkind are no: as easy amonable
where ;r denotes the vectornormalto the refer. to numrioal solutiontechniques as thoseof the
oncesurface,wAss the + and the - referto the secondkind.However, at presentno alternative
u s5 and lowec side,respectively, formulationof the lifting-surfaceapproximation
T - of orders, is tangential to the reference Is available.
 5-15

-The',iftingsuirface approximation is.a thin-wing Sw STRAIGHT

pp'roxiation with limltatioinein tleapplication S VORTEX LINES
toa1rbitsry wings.It mustalso bemenntioned that
for'wings with asaharpsubsonic leading edge there
In.formally no problem, though for est incidences
there willbe a singularity in the solutionat the
loadingedge, i.e.
'x -. x I..

Fora wingwith i'sharp-edged supersonic leading

edge there'i formally no problem.but here the
sloptof thethicknessdistribution at the leading CONS'
edgemaust-be sesliough to havea flowpattern
withan attachedshockwave. For wingswitha W(M
blunt leading od&*'the wing-thickness source die.
trLbution becomesinfiniteat the leading edge. Fig. 3.8 Classical approximation
rigid-wake
i.e. see Eq. (3.10b),invalidating the lifting-
surface approximation and leading to problems in The classical rigid-wake approximation is so at-
the nuserical Implementation. Somekind of a local tractivebecauseit renders.heproblemlinearand
treatment of'blunt edgesmightrelievethe pro- no boundaryconditions are necessaryon the wake
blem. surface.Veryoftenit yieldssufficiently accu-
The majoradvantage of the lifting-surface approx- rat, results,suchas for the caseof lightly-
imationis thatnow instead of the upperand the loadedwings, for the caseswithoutstrongwing.
lowerwing surfacejustone surface,withone un- wake/tailinteraction. etc.Also,in supersonic
knownsingularity distribution, Is usedto repro- flowveryoftenthe approximation suffices because
sent the flow abo4tthe wing. This reducesthe of the absenceof upstreaminfluences.
numberof panelsand therewith the computational
effort. The rigid.wakaapproximation with itralghtvortex
linesfixedin spacerendersthe problemlinear.
Note thatthoughthe average normal-velocltycon-
3.4 Agundarv conditions o 1. dition.Eq. 3.llb,is not satisfied on S,, the
On the wakesurfacetwo Soundaryconditions pressureis to firstordercontinuous acrossthe
apply:the stream-surface conditionEq. (2.4a)and wake implyingthat the wake is forcefreeto that
the zero-pressura-juap Eq. (2.4b).
condition orderof magnituda.
Applyingthe streamsurface condition at both
sidoeof the wakeSw gives,usingEq. (2.6f),see A frequently used slightvariation on the
alsoEq. (3.104): classical planerwake Is to let the user specify
the vortexlines.i.e.curvesalongwhichthe dou.
Mblet distribution is takenas constant(Fig.3.9),
~
q(m.os) (3.lle) againequalto the valueof Wat the trailing
edge.The vortexlineson the so formed*near
for the sourcedistribution (neededto cancelthe waks"are continued as straightlinesonto the
jusp In normal direction due to the compressible 'farwake. In thiscase the vortexlinesare
doubletdistribution), stillfixedIn spaceand the problemremainsline-
The secondconditionis the faverage) stream-sur- at. On the otherhand one shouldrealizethat the
face condition: near wake eight not be force free, net even to
firstorder.
( o u ).n - 0 (3.l1b) The non.planer wake assumption, of use for low.
epee,high-angle-of-attack applications,results
It follows froa the linearized pressure formula also in a linearproblemwhichdoes not require
Eq. (2.3c).ageinusingEq. (2.6f).thatwith Eq.
(3.11b): boundary conditions on the wake surface.

AcF - + 0(,2) - 0
2(l.p)/I (3.1c)

This latterconditionleadsto the classical Sw:USER - SPECIFIED VORTEX

rigtjako approximation
whichthe wake (see
is directed Fig6 3.8)
along in the com-
(also LINES NEAR WAKE'
pretsibility axis). On this suracc lines with
- constant(withthe constant equal to the value Sw:STRAGHT VORTEX
of is t the trailingedge). whichcorrespond with SbLINES FA WAX
the vortexlines,ae directed in stre&swise di. LINEIFAR WAKE"
rection. Since nov ,p - 0 this wake does net
carrya sourcedistribution, Just a doubletdis-
tribution.

Fg CONST. r a

Fig, 3.9 Variation on rigid-wake approximation

5-16

* VORTEX'LINE

SOLVE

0 FOR
i eS WAKE: FORCE FREE'

Fig. 3.11 Full wake relaxation

CORRECT S5n
the local velocity, thusdefiningan improvedas.
USING U. + .VI - 0 FOR 6-E S, timato for the location of the wake surface. etc.
However.In caseswhet the wakeInteracts very
NEW So (7) strongly with the flow abouta nearbycomponent of
the configuration (eg.the flowaboutslender
wingswith leading-edge vortexsheets)suchsimple
t hierarchical iteration schemefrequently diverges
S N
E iOVR and the wakeboundaryconditionEqs. (3.lib end
ONVERGED d) have to be solvedsimultaneously
311). pie two resultingintegral
(seeFig.
equationsforp
y and S (x) are highlynonlinear in x. In termsof p
Eq. (3.lb) leadsto an integral equationnot un.
likea Fredholmintegralequationof the first
Fig.3.10 Wake relaxation
procedure kind.similarto the lifting-surface integral
equation(3,104).whileEq. (3.11d)is nonlinear
Althoughthe user-specified near-*ake optiondoes (quadratic) in the doubletdistribution.
Improvethe modelingcapabilities of the panel
method,therearm caseswherethe Interaction be. An alternative approachIs to specifythe shapeof
tween the wake of one component and the flow about the *near wake* vortex sheet as in Fig. 3.9, but
anothernearby component of the configuration is to allowthe vortexlinesto move freelywithin
so strongthatthe fullnonlinear bomdary condt- this surfacesuchthaton S the zero-pressure-
ions have to be imposed.Examplesk j dolt wings jumpcondition, Eq. (3.lld)is satisfied. The re-
with leading.edgo vortexflow.the flowaroundthe suiting problem is only weakly nonlinear in p and
sideedge of a deflected flapand the flow around a sieplequasi-Rowton iterationprocedure can be
the wing tip.The stream-surface condition leads used to solvefor the doubletdistribution on the
to the two relations givenin Eqs. (3.11aand b) nearwake For thisformulation the doubletdis-
F&. the zero-pressure-Jump condition substitution tribution on the near wakemeos to be discretized
of Eq. (2.6f) and Eqs. (3.11 and b) In Eq. (2.4s) into panels. see Fig. 3.12.
results,without approximation into:

iii, ) -0 (3.lld) Sw: USER-SPECIFIED SHAPE

which,combined with Eq, (3.l1b).implies that in NEAR WAKE
Incompressible flow, as well as In linearized com- I
prsssiblo flow, the vortex lines (lines p - con- Sw :STRAIGHT VORTEX
scant)are parallelto the localaveragevelocity
across the vortex sheet.WAKE
SN
Note chetfroethis exactequationEq. (3.11c) can
be obtaineddirectlyratherthenvia the expres.
sion for the linearized pressurecoefficient. Cc
To solvefor the positionof the wakeand the sin
gularitydistributions on the body as wIel as on
the wake sialtaneously is a difficulttas',espo-
ciallyfor generalconfigurations. The main diffi-
cultyis thatoftenthe topologyof the wakevor-
tex systemis not known.whilealso specifying a 1i - UNKNOWN
successful initialguessto be inputin the proce-
dure thet solves the system of nonlinear equations - (S, to
ia a non-trivial problem.So frequently one relies
on a hierarchical "waksrelaxation* procedure (ose
Fig.3.10)in whichone firstobtainsthe singula. Fig.3.12 Partial
wake relaxation
ritydistribution for a rigidwake (as in Fig.
3.9)and subsequently alignsthe vortexlines -olth |
 5-17

As a rpsultoi -the,:*partial.ake relaxationI lncase the wakevortex~sheet-is relaxed theliutta

U.-t4,, the- en-v itvn the vortex sheet, condition will ba satisfied-in the procees,of~the
is perpenidicular~t oc~ p.ie-,the velocity vector wakerelaxetion.-In this senseweke rolaxationis.
Haies in a~plansenorsalto,th~surface, bich, also '.he perfect-tuttacondition. requiring'n6-other
containsthesurface vorzicity~vecrr;y -i' input~thsn thel,,ocation'
oftbe.separation line.In
seeFig. 3l3_Ac iiowr'er ihine al~l~t.cn cs h aevre heti'o e~du
diin.ntiilfa, n are not chosenas a fixed surface in space,-a different,
not.parallel t.o eachoether..Aithin Implies that procedure msotbefollowed, seeFig.-3.14. There
there',is atill-&,force, tangential,,to the. surface, ate severaipossibilities in use in panelseneth-
vorkin -onthe wake. This force' isproportiosal to sds-

~(3 fj'(i) In case,the;doubletdistribution on thewake

Is relaxed("partial wake relaxation') thepres-
surewill alreadybe continuous at the trailing
VORTEX LINE edgepoint on the wake vortex sheet.
- Ilconstani (11) In caseno conditionIs Imposedexplicitly
orte shet omepanel methodsfoa-
on te wke
j.r-U.
.VgeO0 tore a nnlinear'Kutta condition in~which the con-
* dition is enforcedthatat the trailing edge the
pressureon the upper wing surface equals the
pressureon the lowerwingsurface.Note that In
n 2D flowthis condition reducesto a linear condi-
tion.
_L_+Up
U~ 3(Mi) Isposethe conditionthatjust downstream
the trailingedgethe velocityvectorIs directed
of
alongthe chosenwake surface Sa. i.e.

u.n - 0 at x-te.(3.12)

The difficulty hire is that the direction of the

wake vortex sheet at S,, Is directlyirvolvedIn
FORC5theWITIN Kuttacondition. 4or wingswith nerotrailing.
FORCWIHIN
.edg ar'gle end for lifting surfaces the direction
is uniquely determined, namely tangential to the
cusped pact of the wing, or tange6Ttisl to Sr. For
Fig 3.13 Partial wake relaxation .Force on wake wings with a finite trailing-*dgo angle the woke
vortex sheet Is either tangential to the lower
wing surface 2X to the upper wing surface2Z. at
35 enIsolated point on the trasiling edge, directed
35 Krt& condition alongthe bisector(the so-called Mangler6 Smith
The Kut&acondition Is the conditionthat criteron, see Ref. 23).Wlhether the wakevortex
Is a smoothfashion. This Impliesthat tha wake surfacedepandson the planforaof the wing (the
vortex sheet ssoothly connects to the trailing non-linearity creepingIntothe problemagain).
edgeand thatthe velocity Is finiteat the edge. However,in mst applications Just one direction
In trms of the singularity distributitons this in- (loweror upper)Is chosen.
modiately Implies thatthe doubletdistribution is
continuous at the edge.sincesoy discontinuity in
p results in a discretevortex,of strengthequal
to the jumpIn the doubletdistribution, alongthe
trailing edge whichwouldresultin an Infinite
*velocity at the edge. I
v. SPECIFIED O(U..)

TRAILING EDGEINE

SUB-INCLINED CAP: V. SPECIFIED

Fig. 3.15 Inlet modeling In supersonic flow

3.3 FULL WAKE RELAXATION 3. Sunsr.incltned surface

FIXE WAESRFC h In compressible subson ictor supersonic flow

2 WAE
St FIXD
SRFAC th peturbtios ar asu to be small.This
Sb WIT:C 5 I-).CrX
3 ) OR usully Implies that the trua surface Is only
slightly Inclined with respact to the fre..streaa
C, X-) -Co Pr, OR direction and generally will be sub-Inclinod with
respect to the Mac% anglein supersnic flow.
P1i 2 mj 3 LIX3 j 1 1 e owever . for instance at Inlet faces where an
il410
Inflow Is prescribed the surface will be super-
Fig,3.14inclined, but the perturbation say still be small.
ig3.4Kurt&conditions Thes* super-inclined portions of the surface re-
 quire, pecibundary~conditons; notgiven here, pends'on,,the~preclia'focalationchoen,
or alternatively
the specification
of~an'artifict. i.e',Neunnor'Dirchle,svhich of the, I

*1 sub-inclined cap'orsraap~c~ivering'rheinlr..On. -and.Dj'I lt unknownanfdf~whichtfofthese,,pa.

the cap'or'rap 'he~specified~outflownshold cor.. raotersioreknown' a*nd'can be deriveddi.
reipond to theirequired massflov'into, the, Inle.,, rectlyif66athejboindary conditiona, --
&(see Fig.3.15). z I I II Also're~uired',iiae'ocalirepriientation
However,'inlcase ofa~blunt-nooed fuselage~tho, for thegeosetry of,-thepainela; thisito,con.
flow'ner the'supr-Inclined~porion ofthe'n~se' siient order, of &proxiitonwvith "respect'
represents a'regionwheri the'lineiarized-potential, toftherepriskn'ations for'tho singularity"-
the nose for thiscase WillalleViat the problem. ln'cae the'position'of the vortextshets i
but'in-thenose regionthe flowsolutionwillbe simultaneously to be solvedfor,- also'for x
Inaccurate,' describing the geometryof the piala on,5
a localrepresentation Is required.The lt-
ter'involves 380 further unknownparameters

3. Approxisate, to the requiredorderof actu-

rcthe Integrals overthe panelsufc
CC corresponding to the contributionof the
SINT uin'gularity
distributions on the panelIn
the potential or the velocityat the N (coi-
CovnlsnnciM~ 2 NP' location) pointswhere theboundarycondi-
SM u am'w 3NPtions
Co-co" are to be Imposed.
Sctce EQatorm,
roeysisevc1 Nplrp
a5 Th* cosputationalheavy (+.Nohip) task, constituted
050056Hp5 .1 by sop 2 And 3, yields the so-called aerodynsic
M.. AMoefficients
0,influence (AIC's), i.e. the velocity
M0 .,~p~. 0.
Co1",oi ial induced at the point s~o- k.,by -he sin.
potent
&~ec
7NP gularity distribution
Is expressed
as:

pos~oessn~Aeccywucs~soand the velocity Induced at xas

hKWOSOW1.1kii'
Fig. 4.1 1reakdoWnt
of taskswithina panel method wh*r,* 1 .b nda.~svte I'.i q
(4.1)Q. I-1).1aD * 1-1(1)111 art the pa
raseters in the panel-viol' representatilona of'the
source and doublet distribution, respectively. '
The AM's are a function of ;and of the gemet
4.0 APPROXIATIO'ADilDISCRETIZATIONq rc quantit;ies describing the panel surface. This
,.plies that the AMC'sare independent of the
4.1 Cenralspygc *etrodynsaic unknowns' (theQ 's and or the DI's).
In the approach taken In panel methods the fol. but may be A functionof the egeneetric unknowns-
lowingtasks can be distinguished (soe Fig.4.1): of the wake vortexsheets.

. Subdivide
,io,and Itshewake
surface S.~of(#-IaIl)
Sinto the configure.
quadril&. BODY WING WING
inA hierarchical mannot
.ccoepliehod (Fig. AE OY SG ET PANELE
4.2)InwhichtheiconfiurAtto. Is subdi. SEGMENTS
eachpart Intozsgrmnti
videdinto.s2cA.U
(sometimes calledgnstwork*s) and aec s FN.
RN l
sent Into A numberof uILig (rings) of,t"
samenumberof panuels. Subsequently the g,
metrical quantities (centroid. normal vec-
tor, curvature, twist. ae.) of ccci, panel '"INTERNAL
are computed. STRIP ' /IFT-CARRY-
2. Replacethe Integrals overthe surface by OVER STRIP
the Ia= of the Integrals over the NiPpanels.
Chooseon eachpanel,sufficiently accurate
and mutually localrepresenta- "
tionse for theconsistent,
singularity distributions p
and q. The local representations involve pa- Fig. 4.2 Ecxapleof configuration paneling
rataeters datersining the magnitude of the
singularity distributions. Here Q, i-l()NQ
denote the NQparamters In the source die- 4. Imposethe boundasryconditions at the collo-
tribution,. , i-l(I)iil denote the ND pares- cation points In most aerodynaic ptal
eters In the doublet distribution. It de- methods the collocation technique iosapplied

in which the boundary condition Ia applied
at just one point per panel. Some other
methods, not-discussed any further here' can
be classified as Calerkin method..e. 'they
involve the ourface integral over the panel
of the product of the boundary condition
with the local representatioa..
In most aerodynamic panel methods the number
of collocation points is equal to the number
of unknown parameters and of the order of
the number +
also of panels.
that some off~theIt -callid
shouldbe'remiiki,
ilgher-ordir
aehd~xlc l moe(btet od-
tlOns'on the continuity of tsingulotity
distributions across segment edges, which
can considerably increase the number of al.
gebraic equations to be solved,end inflate,
the disension of the matrix-equation to be
solved.
S. solve the resulting non-sparse system of
linear (non-linesr in case of partial or
full-wake relaxation) equations for the un-
known parameters in the local represent&-
tions for the singularity distributions (and
geometry). for subsonic flow the matrix is
fully populated, for K>)1 parts of the m-
trix will be empty because of the forbidden
upstream Influence in supersonic flow.
Solution of the system of jinar equations
requires of the order of H operations in
c a diret solver is used and of the or-
der of itxN operations in case an iterative
solver is used, with it the number of itera-
tions required for convergence.
However, in
P both cases the coefficient m-l-
tirlying H . with p - 2 or 3, is much
smaller than the one multiplying MdU above.
6. Find to the required accuracy the velocity
distribution on the surface Sb of the con-
figuration.
7. Compute
moments,tht pressure,
drag.Integrated forcesand
induced (lifting surface)
edge-suction forces, surface streamlines.
isobars. velocity and pressure at off-body
points, stability derivatives. trimmed-
flight conditions, boundary.layer quanti-
ties. updated wake position, etc.. etc.
The .,aerof the method will interface with
step 1. where the geometric input to the program
is digested and uith step 7. where the results of
the flow simulation are generated. These two steps
.iii detormine the ooMtric capability, post-pro-
ceasing power and also (of utmost importance) the
user-frieondliness of the program. Some panel math.
5-19
ode do not have any built-in geometric pre-pro.
ceasing capability and therefore fully rely on the
availability of a CAD package to generate the 'def-
Inition of the geometry, the sub-division Into
parts. segments, etc. and to carry out the dis-
cretization (*paeling") of the surface of the
cofiguration. Other methods a more stand-alone
type of methods with geometric capabilities, in-
cliding paneling options, definition of the goose-
try through basic built-in shapes, etc., all with
th to
purposeof-minimizing the amunt of input data
and provide maximum+•flexibility.
The dsip- and details of the remaining steps (2-
16) will datrin the accur&cy~of and computer re-
sources required for each appl'cation. As far as
the'scnuruswyand-uong is concerned, the ai in the
development of any panel method to be used in pro-
liminary design should be to obtain, for lowest
costs, the surface-velocity distribution to cer-
tain accuracy. i.e.
-h - + O(h for h (4.2)
u (xeShf
Here n denotes the -order* of the panel method.
Host of the °first-generatio panel methods are
first-order methods, most of the "second.genera.
ting methods are second-order methods.
In the following we consider some aspects related
to the formulation of a panel method of consistent
orderof approximation,
The discussion willbe re-
stricted to first and second-order methods.
4.2 ZSall-JcIXaUre exeansion for velocity
Consider the sxpression for the velocity in-
duced by a sourcs distribution, Eq. (2.6b). In or-
der to ait':ny aitters somovhat the discussion
concerns the limiting case of incompressible flow.
i.e.
Ox) I
° ) - ffq(;)-L-3 dSc)
qoI - r (4.3)
where - o "(.t). I dnots the surface Of
the i-tb panel and (.d is some surface coordi-
note system (Fig, 4.3). The intogrand in Eq. (4.3)
is singular for xo coinciding with point.x(st) on
S . In mest coase the integral itself is finite,
rEough always discontiosous across Si. Therefore
numerical quadrature Is not eppropriate. Hess
(Ref. 25) proposed an expansion in which the char.
acteristic singular behaviour of the integrand is
conserved. The expansion results in a consistent
 5-20

Fig. 4,3 Panel coordinate system

aprximation tha' possesses the

4fE.*4.3)
coret behavioura crosses the surface S In
the expansion the nominator Is split Into I l~or '2 xxt~tx~)Ixt
part and a part containing the curvature and twist
of the pael, iLe. The singularity distributions q and p on $I are
ex.-sndodIn a similarfashi on, 1I.e.
- +0 +p
dtxi
a* + (4.4a)

-c + 0(4
3
(4.4b) P-
~~q
- V* + asq
*4p
+ Atqo .
tO(.d
0 (.d
2

with As & .a* and At - t.t*. with - t) AO p-s As. Pt

donotingthe so-called expansion point. ~ st. 0j t' (~
(4.4*)
1n Eq. (4.4) the termInsidethe curlybrackets
corresponds to the lquatio' of the plane t ngenti. Substitution
of Eqs. (4.4&.d)intoEq. (4.3)and
a!to'. pno Iat X(s*.t*)and is definedby the expansion
In termsof 6 and D yields
vectorsx* and nO tangential to the surfacecoot.
diFt. dilectionit - coonstnt and y-constant.
respectively. U,;)
in the nee
- ft-*ed ofthe p-re.len* ore in
I(*,* -t0(K5i
The vector donats rho positionof the pointa
which the influence is computed relative to the " '.dt'L
tang nt plane. The panel curvatur/twist term t I3 d L)
; 0.tt Is of order i2
where S'ise linearmeasure for the panel site in L*Od + j4 d dt -O(L
0eithedaiectin. + Ji~lrt s d: t I and I,
The tem" Io
5 . ( * 4 Ast;-
at;* rder
) i Is
the far field of the panel.In She followingwe + 3(r2'6)
76
denote the order of magnIrude of D by . Si, + a 6O
In term of the surface coordinate system the
surfsoc element dS - (l,)ldedt Is expanded as: o nef(af + Ad )-L ysd 0(K5')
-ds

151
I
t'2the (S2 i
dS(X)

where
*xxJ

and
*,+ a

In
te
"~r
rf¢ld
of
rd~rI
he
*ml
are epress ions containing the
))

whee K Is a measure of the panel curvature and

iurvthe and List terms evaluated at the enpas. tWis All remaining irtegrals Involve en Into-
sion point. grand with a quadratic expression In the nominator
raised to the power 1/2. 3/2 and 3/2. For each of
SI .,t ; thee ntegrals closed-form expressions can be
4 a t derived. ss
 5-21
Itf;lowi, from the 'order of magnitude estimate At the-edge of this vortex sheet-the doublet die-
Indtcated~for eich term'iG Eq, (4.5).-that for a, tribution'Is indeed'oro (see Fig. 4.4).:-Since-it
firxf-ordgr panalmethod-.in~the near-field AIC. is rathe~r-imposiibleto-fiscretito a-vortexsheet
q~nthe aflatpanel~approximationsufficeos.
cfor ottion pasiel-wise conetant~reproentation, of infinte length t%-,tightly rolled-up, pert-of-
the vortex sheet-ii replaced by adiscrete vortex-
For a first-orider'mthod-the-only-,trm~ofqimport. filamnt, connected with the remainder of S, by u
&nceCinthe'near-field' is thefirst tormingq, feeding sheet- (see Fig. 4.4). The vortex,wif of
(4.1S); Aterm of-magnitdeo0(l), the correct strength and If positioned at the cor-
Acodr~oEq. (4;5)'ascnd-orde panal~method, rect location. 'willprovide- the proper flow field
requresa
linar
pielvis
eprsenat~n~fo , aay romthevortex filament but of course not
and panel craueadtithvtobacone narhecenter of the vortexcore where the ye-
for-'snd all.1terma In Eq.-(4;5) included
bae~o locity wlbesingular In the numierical model.
In the-computtion'of theAICts.
However, note',that if the panel curvature-and
twist areasuch that K6
FEIG HE
- 2,,vhore4 Is-'the ,.~..
basic- lengthsxcale'- in~eaiscretization. e
some average panel sine, the term in Eq, (4.;) r
due to the panel curvature and twist (the mast +-,~)A
complex ones) are small of higher order and my be ~ ,,,' VORTEX
emitted. Reducion of loalby sub-paneling. in FLMN~
creasingK but also with decreasing $. Is another S 5,, S.
plxterma In Eq. (4.5). Applying the smll-curva-
ture expanaion to Eqs. (2.6d and *). the velocity ROLLED - UP MODEL FOR
Induced by the doublet distribution, shows that a VORTEX SHEET
first-orde method requires a panoiwise linear re
ROLLED - UP
prsentation for u on a flat-panel fpproximation, VREXSHE
while a secon-od toothod requires a poalwise .
quadratic representation for puwhile again panel
curvature and twist have to be Included.

The closad-rorm enpressione for each of the sur-

face integrals In Eq. (4.5) contain the sae type
0 ------ 7
of (4coeputationally expensive) transcendentalS
functions (two logarithms, one square root and one 0
A
Inverse cangent) multiplied by simple polynomial.
type term and summed In a way depending on the Fig. 4.4 Model for rolled-op vortex sheet
specific expression. This Indicates that compute-
tionally. if carefully designed and programmed, a
higher-order formulation dossnet need to be very ONE HORSE-SHOE VORTEXPE PA L
mh moreepensive ihan a lower-order formula-
tion.However,it will be clear that a third-.- or
evenhigher-order sothod.whichamongstothers
will Involvederivatives of the curvature. Is
beyond practical limits.LE

The smll-curvature expansion warrants that

thIminuced velocity has the proper behaviour 'AC

ttc
the point xcrosses the surface t x - x(*-.t) a4
and the Panel expansion point is usuallychoos as
COLL.
T.E.
the collocation pointon the panel.Irrespective+
of;".
ofthelocation -
Althoughfor arbitrary configurations it cannotbeBON
proven formally, the sall-curvature expansionBO N
given In Eq. (4.5) Is expected to have a coeposite VORTEX
error,2 the error do to summing over all panels,
of 0(i2).I
In considering the smll-curvature exportso
::of,.
thevelocity Induced by the doublet distribtoI.
tisotno b u m tat te orurlet ito
0(S) o
It asotinoubetasuetast the odoubleto 0l6 )bfo
higher-order formulations) across the panels*
edges, actually already Implicitly used in the " . SEGMENTED
derivation of Eq. (2.6e). If this Is net the case
apurious contributions In the velocity induced by SYMMETRY
/FREE.
a doublet distribution will appear. Similarly the X RE
doublet distribution should be xero at the bound-
TRAILING
,ryof I,*.to avoida discretevortexat that lo- LINE VORTEX
cation, however. in the description givenIn this ....... PANEL EDGE
paper we retainedEq. (2.6o)becauseof the fol-
h-wing reason. Vortex wakes tend to roll up into
co~centrated vortices (eg. near a wing tip).
VORTEX
which are In tho vortex shaetmodel represented by + COLLOCATION POINT
a highly rolled.up vortex sheet of infinite
length. Fig. 4.5 Vortex lattice machod
5-22

Under5thecond2tlon scussedabove the smallr Note.that-thisrequires thatthevelocityie.to~be,

curvatureexpansion indicates thatthe following computedat two pointaper.panel, atthe~midpoint
consistent.epproximatons',arpossible,for,the, of the 3/4-panel-chordllneangatthe-midpointof
evaluation of thedn tegrslrepresentation ofthe the,1/4.panel-chord~line. Furthermore note'that.F
velocityinduced by sourceanddoublet distribu- . as givenlihEq (4,6),contains~both,thenoraland.
Ptions: fthe nAlforce
tagetili
ttio dimeiio cai ecomponents
1t cin'be tsho a specifirlly
Forvnlanalytic

that the computediesultingforceand momentare

T lOtrder
t to2nd' order equal-to theirexactyalues,(Ref. 24)'; a remark-
Panel
geometry
got
'* -
't 'se a
's's't
able~resultindeed-,
Furtherinote that in three-dimensional flow such a
Source q q*q,qq niceanalyticresultislnotavailable, -thoughit
distribution appearsthataboveprocedureyieldsrathersatis-
Doublt - (p5).p*,, , factory resultsfor overall, forcesand moments.
For~awept wingsaxial-force results-can be In.
distiu tin ) c) ss' st'ptt
provedby *unsweeping* thobound* vortex, segments
priorto applyingEq,(4.6).
A furtherreasonto retainEq. (2.6e)is to eccom.
moda e the so-calledvortex-latticemethod(see-pruXd
Fig. 4.5),whichis &'lifting-surface method.In
the vortex-lattice methodthe doubletdistribution
is panelwise constant.i.e,
)
in 1U(o)
- G(x v(; ) the firstterm,given
in Eq. (2.6d).is zero.i.e.the secondterm,
givenin Eq. (2.6e),is the onlyterm to be con-
sidered.This mans thatwe haveto integrate
alongthe edgesof the panelonly,or ratherhave e
to considerthe velocityinducedby a vortexof
constantstrengthalongthe perimeter of the r
pael. at -AS-6,
Sincethe velocitydistribution is singularat the U
vortices It is impossible to derivea consistent
approximation alongthe linesusedabove.In the
vortex-lattice methodthe pointat which the vs.
locityis to be computedhas to be chosenvery Fig.4.6 Forceon a vortexsegent
carefully. It turnsout thatIf the pointis
chosenas the midpointof the panel.I.e.as far
awayfrom the singularity as possible, the induced 4.3 Far-fieldessns on for veioitrv
velocityit to 0O()accurate. In orderto avoid Althoughthe small-curvature expansion is
havIng a vortexlocated at the leadingedge the uniformlyvalid.it is computationally expensive
vorticesara shifted away from the paneledges,or and thereforeonlyappliedin the regionwhereIt
a, most comonly referred to. the *bound' vortex is reallyneeded,i.e.In the "nearfield*of the
is located at the 1/4-penel-chordlineof the panel.In the 'far-field' (Ix. -0l>6) of the ansl
panel,whilethe pointwherethe velocityis com.- the nominatorof Eq. (4.3)can be expressed as
putedis the midpointof the 3/4.panel.chord line.
This actually means that the elements with con- o" 3
chord In chordwise r-r -r, " r 0(1 (4.7)
stentp are shifted1/4-panel 0
direction. At the trailingedge the doubletdis. *
tribution Is contined ontothe wakeas a stripof where -X -x te 0(1) and - ; 4a* + AtX is
constant0. equivalent to discretetrailing vor in Eq (4.3 then ields:
0(5).Subeti~ution
ticesalongthe sideedgesof the strip.

Similr to the shiftin the vortexlocationat the i0(2

lading edge is the usualpracticeto off-setthe u(x Z x:;x-jjq.,- ,, Jdsdt
(trailing)
vortexalongthe wing tip by 1/4-panel. Rol S
span . .

It mustbe notedthatIn satisfying the stream e (...) f(oe or At)dsdt - 0

surfacecondition at the aid pointof the 3/4. St
panel-chord line.thilprobablythe only pointon 4
the panelIs where u.n - 0. Furthermore. the ve. + 0(5 )1 (4.8) 4
locity at thatpointwillbe continuous sincethe
Jump In the velocity associated with a doublet The second term in Eq. (4,) Is zero if the expan-
distribution is relatedto Op whichIs zero.This sionpoint(as.to)coincides with the panelmid-
Impliesthat In orderto havea Jump in the tang- point.The truncation errorIn Eq. (4.8) Is suffi-
entialvelocity, and therewith in the pressureand cietly smallto guarantee a eompositeerrorof
a contribution to the normal force. 4j has to be 0(i ). Eq. (4.3) indicates that for the far-field
calculated from ose local non-constant represen- expansion both a first-order and a second-order
tationfor p. An aternative procedureto compute methodrequirea panelwiee constantrepresentation
the contribution of the panelin the force on the for q on the flat-panel approximation, i.e. curva-
liftingsurfaceIs to applyblastua'theoremto ture and twistdetails of the panelor higherdo-
computethe forceon the *bound' 4 vortexalongthe rivatives of the singularity distribution are of
l/4.chord lineusing,see Fig. ,6z no significance for the far.fieldInfluence. For
the doublet41stribution it can be shownthatone
(4.6) requiresa paneIwise linearrepresentation on the
for the moment,
and a similar expression flat-panel Approximation.
 5-23

hrgion wheetenafil
Ofe ie ;s,
exans, namc gt for.,,he cnistent, ..luatt~on of

~~
teredite
fildt~i~
'ai: In th;~n
saed tht, the jitigiid
to second- indthid-odr cuay
in Eq. (4et3'A
onisten acurte Into rtlonwith a standard, , r, ii,,r
numerical iter tionpoeu;tai slightlyTondoer t3rode
=so coapiek'than Eq. (4.7) but is not as~complx. Pouel* "*
s Eq. (4.).el'ty t ~ *X.X,'

4.4, Smail-curvature esnansionforogotential distributionat

-The~exproion~for*the-yeIcity potentil. Doublet P*p a5 (*,*p,*.
can1 ditribto t t 55sa-t
p
Ott
injduced-by.aaourceoand~a doublet'distribution -
be expanded~in &,simiiar fashionaejilustrated,
for the velocity,'l2.ver. Linordir~to eVA-
abov:
laethevelocityto 0(S the velocitypotential
has to be evaluated to 0(S ). so thatupon differentiation of v one gets the ye-
As an exasple consider,the small-curvature expan- locity up to,first and second order accuracy. re-
aon for the velocity potential induced by a spectively.
sourcedistribution. FromEq.,(2.5b) it foiiovs
(incompressible flow): Someof the second-generation panel ethods empioy
the Dirichiet condition~in a o-tcailed low-,order
formlation-in which the doublet distribution Is
-paneiwime constant and the source distribution, If
'qo Z ~used, I alI panolwise constant. Within the
fr;;wrko~fthesmal-crvaureexpansion this
.3q*Jf~1~ - Q 101,implie
thatfor the veiocitypotential only the5
Si,: 0 ledin term treating from the contribution of p
isretained, ota formally the methodwouidbe
O(S) In the velocity potentiai and 0(i) in the ve-
q: ff AS-dsdt + q* f OW locdt
i"ty Itelf. However, It appearsthatupon
Si isi I t-st0 evalus~ins the tangential velocityat tha surface
(. nx( xn) - %A).vmployinga higher-order repr-
-5 sontation for p to evaluate Pp, Inmost cases cc-
Qjf dt ,,suits. ito pressure distribution which Is as acs-
qljS~II ) rte as the ane obtained from a first-generation
&.~~t0(
panel methodemployingthe Neumntn boundarycondi-

$11 2131 4.5 Ifuosr~fnst o usan~fo

+ S
-(I
D(~ D sonic flow follow lines analogous to the ones
It follows from Eq. (4.9) and froma similar ex-
pression for the potantial Induced by a doublet
distribution (taking continuity of doublet
strengthacrosspaneledgesInto account) chat for
a first-or second-order methodemploying the
Dirichiot condition the ame type sf panel-wise
representatins are required as for the corre-
sponding machod with the Neuann condition. The
condition under which the Isit two toe In Eq.
(4.9)say be neglected is KS < S Comparison
of Eqs. (4.5) and (4.9) indthafo chat'the same
type of Integrals appear In both expressions, so
have
that also the same transcendental functions
to be computed. This implies that coaputationelly
the formulation In terms of a Dirichiet condition
will net be cheaper than the formulation In terms
of Neumtannconditions, but of course the Dirichlet
formulation requires less storage, since a scalar
influence coefficient matrixis to be cum..jted
cuefficiont matrix,
rather thana vectorInfluence
q.(4.1a and b).
se
Far-field expansions can also be derivedfor thin
potential Induced by source and doublet distribu-
tions, however, the details are not given here, It
should be noted though that in the far-field ex-
pension of the potential doe t* a sourcedistribu-
tion use has to be made of the circumstance that
the total source strength used In tha simulation
of the flow about a configuration Is zero or a
quantity of smallar order of magnitude.
The snall-curvature and far-field expansions
(4.9) for imapressible subsonic or compressible super-
given for Incompressible flow In the preceding
sections.
For subsonic flow the analytical evaluation of the
resulting Integrals provides no real difficulty
compared with the evaluation of theirincompress-
ile caunterparts. Fot supersonic flow matters are
much morecomplex because now the paneiwiso Into-
gracion is over chat part of the panel which Ies#
within the Inteeectlon of the panel with titsfor-
ward Math tone from x~ (see Fig. 2.6), while also
care must ha takentat the finite-pact of the In-
togral is extracted, see section 2.9. Here we con-
aider the suall-curvaturt near-field approximation
first.
It turns out. sea Refs. 8 and 9, that the follow-
ing procedure is the one that leadsto the desired
closed-forim expressions with the least effort:
Start from the closed-forms expressiona for
(i)
the case of o5opiccooapoestt i e. tlow
where3 - IK) adb-- .ieth
expressions amar to the onsa 3rivsd In
sections 4. and 4.4 for the valocity and
the potential. respectively;
(ii) Rsplta the factor I/4*by 1/2x.which ac-
counta for the circumstanca chatIn super-
sonic flow all the Influence of ,hesingu-
laritydistribution is exercised In down-
stea direction only. i.e. In the aft Kach
con*;: 21/2 and 62 2
(III) Esplace B by ill-Ill1 by .11-KI
overyahere IT/he -closed-form otpressions.
where i-(-) . The expressions are now
 c~iple*-'al'~d'xprosioo
athrfrhanthe where1the'Q1,searerthparaTrser in,
the rpre-,
seta (j in4noeWay
(iy Etricie 'r'lXpr'o'~I~ti' . - &rrInge _!nhi ' a ,r Io'arm
()slonw. The'ioi apai "!I.,ti o 4lad'; h co-
g~i~~
of the Influence exerted by the singulrity ficie ntosa aa- iiq(4l)dpn ojn'at
dis1tribut1;ono In uproi'fw.It sould typo -af.,0.'alo1keres. ttivncheoen'for,;
b~ oe h ~iiatl~tng th'e'real part In ai i~.ah'n q~p;~.,p *
the foarb.sic transcenit a~functions,(oe p ~ad'p*,zar '~ t5o d nerA5f f prc.-'
arctanget'anda ;tw loe, !rsQj~ad Di.
om from'
rit)qaeroot;;
os) 'onvrt to
onec the ntht"al
suchthat thepror influence in the
of influ.ence' of th singularity 'distribution,
Iegoercqatte
x follow fro -te ivn descrfp
~
C 3oan
**0 o
A atte~o..
on the panel is obtained, try of'the-cowifiguretion,(end,the-,user'specified
wake vortex shsets)' Only in~case'the'wake vortex
Fromt'W Above itwill be clearthat'the closed- sheet is fully'relaxed-Is li'nce sry to choose
fore expressions for the influence coefficients In alsotsa numerical 3chemeforeipressing xO. ae. in
supersonic, flow are muchmore complicated than the termsof a set of geometric porameters.' say 9i.
onesfor subsonic flow. In the coding of thes*ex- I-l(l)liG.
presoloos a rather compltx'loiLel' structure is'
required of coniditional' braniches. see Ref. 9. to With'the choice of the numerical scheme It Is now
accountfor the appropriate behaviour in different possibleto writethe resultof the'ssall-curva-
regions In the supersonic flow field. ture expansion and the far-field expansion'in
terms of Eqs. (4.1a and b). The Integral.'equation
As far Is the far-fLid expansion Is concerned It from the Neunanncondition, Eq. (3.1),then yields
is remarked that 'the domain where the far-field using Eq. (4.1b), the follovlog system of linear
enpressions may,beApp'iied is situatid within the equations:
aft Mach cone with the Apex at somepoint down-
stream of the trailingedgeof the panel. NQ- - ND
on the other hand It can be remarked that In most -cki'n(xk)Qi 1k .*(kD~I-
of the space around a pael the influence is nero, i-L-1 4.1
and the need for a far-field expansion for M.>l is (.1
lessurgentiyrequiredthan for subsonicfree- wherek-I(l)NQ. while;k- k-l(l)iPdenotesthe
streamMachnumbers, locationof the NP collocation points,inprin-
Ciple one per paiel. In Almost all panal methods
For the case of supersonic flowmuchcomputer time the numberof unhnownsoirce parameters N02equals
-anbe Avdbdee inn whteorntac. the numberof panels NP. Eq. (4.11) ie to be sup.
Plote pact, segment. strip or ring of penal* Is 1 14sented by as many (i.e. ND) iKuttacorditiona
located within the domain of dopenden.9 of the (soosection3,S)as there are unknowndoublet
poit where the potential or velocity is coeputed. distribution parameters D used to describe the
If the parr.etc. Is not within the forward Mach mod-function type of doulet distribution. The NI
conefrom the point considered the AIC's can be Kutta conditions ro volt In NO liner equations In
set equalto zero directly, rather than that the rase Eq. (3.12) Is imposed, or In ND mildlynon-
program computes zeros on a panel-by-panel basic, linear equations In case the pressure across the
4.6 trall.g-edge pointjie equated, i.e.
In most'aerodynamic panelmethodsthe Inte. Cpxx. -P
gralequations are solved using the collocation In a similarfashionIt follows from the Dirichlet
method. iLe.the integralequationis satisfied at condition. Eq. (0.3). usingEq, (4.1a),that:
just one point per panel. Comparedto for Instance
a Galerbin method,which involves an additional N 0
integrationover the surface,collocation Is less iiD Xai~qt 1'-%aQI (4.12)
AIpensive. b~it collocation maybe more sensitive iI b i -
to the secific discretination chosen.

In moot panel methods the panel midpoint or ten-
troid is chosen as the collocatiijo Roto. This
sdA to the aimplest enproions In thefar-field
expansion, see Eq. (4.$). Wi1ththis choice pro-
blems ere also avoided with (nearly) canceiling
wsakly singular contributions associated with die-
I
for k-l(l)ND. where %,aro b. are evaluated at
the collocation pointmi. t k;.Il)NP.-ND. The right-
hand side in Eq. (4.12) an pecific the source
parameters QI)- i-(I)NQ are found from Eq. (3.2c)
which spocifim the source distribution q In cae
of the outflow V0 &a the free *tram onsetflow
-ie. q - b2(6.;(V

continuities across panel edges in the gocetry n -

and in the singularity distributions and their
derivatives.
4.6.1N,,exc1l sheme
In the foregoing the contribution In the vs.
iotry or the pottnctl due to the singularity
d istribution on a pael w~s enpressed In ceams of 0 pression like Eq. (4.10) to relate mid-point quan-
quantities at the panelenpansion point. e.g. q .
q-. q* The next choica'to be madeconcerns the
i to express these quantities In
Itgiiisbc
terms of the parameter valus to be solved for.
Therefore the quantities at the panel expansion
pointhaue to be expressed In terms of the iperam'
ettrx e, nd Di appearing In Eqs. (4.1a and b).
For exsmple,one couldexpressq: on panel(i.J)
The second term cn the left-hand side of Eq.
(4.12) stes from the contributien In the source
distribution due to the doublet dietribution. see
Eq. (3 .2c). The*su, c ppcrametort Qt,11(11 r
through q - - - (in: d) expressed
0 In terms of the
unknowndoublet parameters i. Li..()ND, using eX-
tities to doublet parameters.
Application of the Dirichlot condition on the to-
tal potentiel. which leads to the Integrel equs-
tiongiven In Eq. (3.6) with the source distribu-
tion given In terms of the outflow And the gra-
dient of the doublet distribution, se Eq. (3.5c),
leadeto!

ND N
- 819i-1.j a1 QIJ
qS(st.tj)
5 ImQLIoj (410 ~E~D, s' kIqj - .skq..k (4.1)
 5-25

for k l()ND.Qin'AnEq.: (4;13) ojlovsfro.the

knownsourceidistrlbution q - BN,(n.)v,vhllenov
points. For Eq. (4.16)i t-has been assumedthatwe
are dealing with linear boundary conditionsonly.
71
thseecondlterm,onthe rlghtaccounte~or the- i.e;withrigidwakevorteasheets consisting of-
free-stream onsetflow.Qt whichfollovs again, fixedvortex lines " -
fromthe sourcedistribution q - -B (;.V), is
subsequently expressed in terms of the unknown Eq. (4A6) can be expressed inthe following equi-
doubletparameters D 1 , i-l()MN: valeniform: .
.
On liftingsurfacesthe integral equationfor the (A](S) - (I? (4.17)
Eq. (3.10d), resultswith
doublet!,distribution.
Eq. (4.1b),Into wherefl denotosaNUII matrixand I) denotes a
columnvectorwith NU elements. InEq.'(4.17) the
NQ matrixA, the so-called *aerodynamic influence
coefficient matril, depends or. known geometric
17 1 '~fk)i 1- quantities only.
In case of *partialwakerelaxation- the doubiet
- knxk distribution on tha vks is relaxedand we have to
deal iththe linearequationsresultingfrom the
nn(
u.v_)+ % .(u + II)x-r(k
-. k -surface condition o the ,solid surfaces of
n+ the configuration in €obination with Eq. (4.15b)

• k)(4.14)
U.. r which Is quadratic
paramters, Le., thein system of-the
terms of unknownIs doublet
equ~ations now:

fork-l(1)NDand with denotingthe cotocationI(

:k i -r i (4.8

pointson the 11ftingsurfaces. In Eq. (4.14)Qj To solvethis systemof equationsomeiterative

followsfrom the knownpart of the expressionin
Eq. (3.lOb).
whileQf is the sameas described
above.
For the boundaryconditions on the wake,Eqs.
(3.11b and d), it followsuIng Eq. (4.1la),that:
proctdureis to be used,usuallya Newton-like
method.In Neton's methodthe solutionat itera.
tion numberit+l is obtainedfromthe solutionat
iterationnumberIt by solvingthe followingeye-
rm of linearequations:

ND NQ%-;(k)IN] itItt+ i- r( lit (4,Ib)

ki ;O i (4.15a) The matrixon the left-handside of Eq. (4.1b) is
and the socalled gradientor Jacobianmatrix.It will
-l k ' ( k
ND ; )Qt + %. ;k- _ be clear that for the linear equations contained
ki."( ) i + ) + . -0 withinEq. (4.18a) the corresponding eltments in
(4 ) the gradientmatrixare independent of S and are
identical to the ones in the aerodynamic influence
for k-l(l)ND and with x , k-I(I)ND denoting the coefficient mtrix of Eq. (4.17). The quadratic
collocation points on tre wakevortexshaets.In equations in Eq. (4.15a) resultin elementsthat
Eq. (4.1Sb)VP is to be evaluated at thc colloca- do dependon S and need to be re.calculated at
ton point xk on the vortex sheet, which as before each stop of the iteration procedure.
can be expressedin ters of the unknowndoublet
distribution parameters D i-l(l)ND. Note that However. af, the expense of the rate of convery,*nce
Eq. (4.15b) Is quadratic In terms of the DI', of the iteration procedure, one could freezethe
hile both Eqs. (4.15aand b) are highlynon. Jacobianat its initial value,or restrictit to
linear in termsof 0i . i-l(l)NO, the paramatar the lineartars in Eq. (4.15b).
occurringin the numerical schemesto expressx*
x*, etc.At the panelmidpoints in termsof the In caseof fullwake relaxation tei doubletdis-
nkrwn geometric pramters. tribution and the positionof the wake are both
reaxed and we have to deal vith a systemof alge-
In Abovediscussion the systemof equations has braicequations that is linear or quadratic in S
been derivedassumingthat the configuration con- and highly nonlinear in C, the unknownparameters
sistsof merelysurfaceswherethe Naumanm,the of the local description of the geometry of the
Dirichlet, the lifting-surface or the wake condi- wake vortex sheets. So now Se have
tioneare applied.The systemof equations for a
configuration built-upout of a mix of surfaces (F(SC)l - (r) (4.19a)
with Nauan, surfaceswithDirichlet. surfaces
with the lifting-surface and surfaceswithwake whichleadsto the following
iteration
procedure:
boundaryconditions is easilycomposedfromthe
relations gIven in Eqs.(4.11)through(4,15).
Here we write the resulting system of squations . [] siit
S 1
t ) [I]ItWI.lit-
i- a.s - ri. for i-I(I)NU (4.16) - r.FSit.fit)) (4.19b)

In Eq. (4.19b)the firstmatrixon the left-hand

where N is the number of unknown singularity pa- aide contains elements of the aerodynamic influ.
roasters $S. J-l(l)NU and the aIIs denote the ence coefficient astrix, the eecond one can be
aerodynami influence coefficients. The right.hand termedas the 'geometric influence coefficient
side r i . i-I(I)NU of Eq. (4.16) contains the free- mtrix*. The latter represents the response of the
stream onset flow, the outflow distribution and boundary conditions to changes in the geometry of
the contributions due to the known singularity the wake vortex sheets. Its computation neceassi.
distributions, all evaluated at the KU collocation rates takingthe derivatives, with respectto the
 5-26

Sposition vector. of~the~expreosiono derived in , . For Interpolatory Tsplines it odiensionisthe

sections 4.; hrough'4;4,:thenormal
, vector, etc., situationis simll.r thouh 'in-genoral more com-
a rather'laborious task,bothfromuthelvlew.point_ plicatedi.ncase,
° the'data'prescribedinvolves
de.
of the panel method developer asfd~froathevyiew. rivatLveo; --"- ' ..
point of computational expense. Moreover, because
of the nonlinearity withrespect~to G,,theevalua. z
tionof the right-hand side of Eq. (4.19b)re
quiresthe re-coeputation of the aerodynamic in.
fluencecoefficients at each iteration,vhilealso
the strong nonlinearity in termsof C usuallyre. tq
quiresrgua updtin
,.,.tsreguIar~updtln& of theJacobian during~the, a,
iteration process.* •|• •

In s ta!on 4.2 through4.4 wediscussed S

consistentpproximations that leadto an accurate
discretization of the integral equatlons. In order -i s
to get also an accurate solution.of the discretiz-
od integral equations the panel method formulation e.g., q'=q, ; q" -. ,4. /2AS etc.
chosenshouldbe clveant, ie.,the difference etg.
betwen the solution of the continuous problem and
that of the diacrttizd problem should decreese a) SEGMENT - WISE SURFACE COORDINATES
proportional to sP,for S- 0, vnure6 is a measure
for the averagepanelsizeand p > 0. It is well.
knownfromnumerical analysisthata consistent
discretization of a vsll.posed problemthatis
ale Is also convergent. Stability of a panel
methodIs a propertyof the systemof algebraic
equations that-results fromthe discretization of
the integral equations. Therefore stability has
everything to do withthe chosenformulation and
withthe numerical scheme like Eq. (4.10)used in
the discretization. and specifically with the con
di fion nucberof the matrixInvolved in solvingthe
the systemof algebraic
equations, (linearor nonlinear)
q' q
in
specific
the present
chice context
of the thismeans
panelcolloation
thatfor the th
point q4 ~ ~.,., ,.,. ,
numerical schemesfor the localrepresentations of
the unknown functions q. p end x and their derive. b) LOCAL REPRESENTATIONS
tives must be chosen such that the resulting math.
od is stable. Provingstability of candidate num,.
ricalschemasfor dicrotizing the integral aqua. Fig. 4.7 Possiblenumerical
schemes
tions.givenin Eqs. (3.1).(3.3). (3.6),(3.$b
and c). (3.l0d) and (3.llband 3.ld) for the Neu.
mans, Dirichlet on V. Dirichlst on #, Dirichlet on
Sand 4. lifting.surface or wake boundary condi. S PLE
tions.is a difficulttask.Most investigators SUBLE
base their choice on arguments from what is known
aboutthe stability of interpolatory splines,sup. s
plmentad with numerical experimentation.
The splin.stabi ity arguments are useful
becauseof the observation thatcoseonlythe ap.
plication of the boundarycondition at a colloca. I
tion point is dominated by the function value.
firstor secondderivative of the unknownquantity
evaluated at tha collocation point. 0
Splitnstability referato the typeof data to be
described at a certainpositionto warranta
sooth nrn.osciliatory polynomial-typo of interpo. 0
lant. In the table below this is indicated for S
one.dimensional splins of odd and even degree. I° \
TESUPSUE

oth First Second SUB TE

ISplit.e
degree derivative
to be specified
at - - - MACH CONE
dd
Eve
0 NOd Mdpoint Mo COLLOCATION POINT
od N odso EXTRA COLLOCATION POINT
Even idpo~nt Mode Midpoint

A different choice of the location at which the fig. 4.8 Location of collocation points on a strip
data is prescribed does not always lead to a com. of a lifting surface in supersonic flow
plate loss of stability, for instance the condi.
tions at the end of the interval can have a dmp.
ing effect.

,Fo~tio~cnfiurtinswiththe lieumann.
ba fsno Iig.and withilthe source distrlbu-
tion'as unknOwn,which resulted-in the~integrel.
equation of Eq. (3-1).q* isthe dominant contri-
bution.,Therefore' astableechee6is aaeven-degree
poiitsa'sunnonparmeei.For-,a&firt-order
sethod'this issimaply 'aconttant-,sourcm-,distrbun
"Fthe
rich'
Forme.thoseslyig hge- rr r anta-
..
tion for. ,of,the'noaericalschemecan
'~rcso
takemany form. Thse,scheme may~lhavobeendarived
rtoofinitetdifference.;typeofeoxpressions on a,
sgment-wloe-defined rectangular computational do-
mainvolvinsgsurfoce coordinates. or from A,
least-squares~fit,,ofthe,parmetera atimmediats
neighbouringmidpo ints in terms of a local Carte-
siancoordinatesyotes, etc. (seeFl!.4.7).
Clencly the efficiency of's higher-order~panel-
method still depend strongly on the compactness of
the n.mwrical scheme used,
For thick configuratins with the Djjshjij
bounayc ond3if
io~f and with the doubletdistribu.
tionas unknown,whichresultedIn the Integral
equationof Eq. (3.3).p* Is the dominantcotri-
bution.A stableschemeIs herealso the even,
deireeschemebasedon mid-point functionvalues.
For IfiInfjfigsurfcs for whichwe derived
Integral equationEq. (3.10d).the choiceof the
numerical scheme is less trivial. It turns out
that in subsonic flow the leading term of t04
equationImposedat ;(st.i) Is proportional tc
She secondderivatives of p at (st;,tt).so that
for a #ocond-ordor formulatio n ev 0dere
scheme based on *id-point function values will
provide stability, which results In a second-order
accurate method. Stability for a method of lower
degrov of accuracy, which employs a linsar repro--
sentlton for the doublet distribution, turns out
to require a shi~ft of tha collocation pointto the
paneledges.uith Its own problemsrelatedto the
singlar behaviour of the Induced velocityat
pael edges.
Apparently here the diff*Lonce in the type of the
underlying integral equation comesato surface. The---
integral equation for lifting-surfaces being not a
Frodhola integral equation of the second kxnidY
making finding a et~ble discretization mere diffi-
cult.
The table below aumerizes, for subsonic flow. thnA
degra. of the local reprasentation for the singu-
larity distributions loading to stable discretiza-
tions of first- and eecond-order panel methods.
Dosiftint ACCURACY
HtoeCntri
bution let-order 2nd-order
' i.49Sbdveo
DIVJMi.E us Qunsart Quadratic-
DIRIHIAT
P* Qadrtic uadrtic
LIFTING Me p* .Me Quadratic Quadratic
S~lF~t aseeat ctwhere
e ti.&long
A Boundary condition appliedat panel midpoint
In supersonlc flow rho situation ie difficult
again and the choice of chs collocation point do-
ponds on whather the panel leading edge is sub-
sonic or supersonic. If then panal leading edge Is
subsonic the collocation point Is at the midpoint.
if tho panel leading edge Is supersonic the collo-
ration point Is Jnst downstream of the leading
edge (sea Fig. 4.$). Fuirthermore, In case tho
lifting surface has a supersonic trailing edge
5-27
there im'no iKutta condition to~beappliad'at ,the_
trailing edge'(there is nocorsuication'betwen
upper andklower side),and an~additionalcolloca-
tion point-is chosen'jutuptressofthetrailing,
edge.
- ,FPlr~ding'a stible~numerical schemefor the
two coupled yak*bounds"' conditions'used',incase
wake vortex sheet'-is fully relaxed is even
are,,difftcult.-TSbeirst condition. Eq. 31b).
Is,very similar to the lifting-surface condition,
Above and is doainated by, the 'sitond derivatives
of p. The second condition. Eq. (3.114), is qua-
draticin-p and Involvosthe firctderivative.
Both'conditionslare highly nonlinear Iiterme of
the unknown geometric parameters. Usually some
kind-of mixed central and directionally hissed nu-
marical scheme,. found by intuition and nunei.ca.
enperimentation is arrivedat.
4.7 Some furthr aorsoftecmntto
In the case of subsoi. c flow a disturbance
decrease*In magnitude with Increasing distance
fromits source,specifically a d'scontinuity (in
function
vallue or derivatives) Introduced In the
numericalmodelusuallydoesnot causeserict's
problems.
*PANEL-CORNER POINTS
o PANEL-EDGE MIDPOINTS
A,
A,
z A,
B
A, 1. 1(1)4: PL.ANAR TRIANGULARS
B ETA LNRCUDIAEA
fannpea
in supersonic flow disturbances, due to sa
actual
discontinutit but also due to the ones intro-
duced by the diecretization. propagate undamped
ilAch lines to larga distances downsstem of
tho disturbance originated. This quite sori-
osly hapers tbhe application of low-order methods
to complex multi. component Aircraft configura-
tio'ns. and a higher-order method Is almost oblisa-
tory for such contigurations. In such a higher-
order method the ale.elsrity distributions and a-
pecially th, panelled geometry should ha As con-
tinuous as Isiblo in order to prevent the occur-
renco of nec-co-aifficimnt degree of accuracy can-
culling spurious uayes from panal edges. In this
respect the subdivision of a nonPlanar Panel Into
planar sub.psalis not only avoids the necessity of
sao of the higher-ardor terms die to panel curve-
 5-28

tureand twist, aee Eqs., (4;5),and, (4.9),zbut also In the-applicationof agiven panel mthbd the
provdes for6lower-order methodageometricconti- level'of;tbi Accuracy.obtained -dependon many
nulty} ndleisssevere~spurlows' wav e s A n ' of c e n . ', factori.Here'we meintior:
usedexaspleof- thesubdiviLio kofVa,-qudrilatera I
panel into planar sub-panels is given in Fig. 4.9. (i) 'Panel distribution. Depending on-the type of
The panel and each of its 5 sub-panels is planar the nme'ricl lchems'chosenfin the local~repre-
and the sub-panels arecontiguouawithoeach other sentationa the panelin aybe irregular-to-a
and with~thesub-panel of~neighbouring pa.ls, samaller-otto-a larger-extent. ostpanel methoda
I I - I _ I Z use interpolatingiclieisthat iccort.for
Anothereven-more-serious problesconstitutis the the
non-uniformity ofthe pameling. In-tlt case the
waves,,spurious.ones or ones fromtruly-represent paneling-shouldthave a basilpanel size,say ,
ed breaks in-the geometry, chitpropagate into the 1. areas where thereeanr large'changes in-ue
-
interior of the configurationand may give riseto geometryand wherethe-singularity-distributions
a sequence of-spurious internal reflections-that are expected to vary smoothly;
eventually'destroy the.accuracy of the solution. In areas where the curvature and/or twist of the
This isillustrated in Fig 4'.10'(Ref, -9) which surfaceof the configuration are,-larg*the panel-
shows'the effect'of refining(in axialdirection) Ing must be refined, see alsosection4.2.Also in
the panelingon-theaft-coneof a cone-cylinder. aceaswherethe singularity distributions are ex-
cone configuration at H. - 2 and zero incidence. pectedto vary rapidly'a finerpanelingis requir-
In the interior of the aft conethe reflecting ed. Truly automatic, solution-adaptive, paneling
Mach wavescausethe sourcedistribution to oscil- procedures have not yet been described
lateseverely, so thatactuallythe 'best-answer in the lit-
ersature.

'Cp
0.4 . M-2.0 a .0 0
0.3 -5 150 PANELS
0z ref MACH CONE 0.2 11 .... 200 PANELS
-------220 PANELS

x ef
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ' 0 4 0.60.8
x
0
-0.1 -I
-0.2 -
-0.3.
2
-0.4 J!
I,
,i

Fig. 4 10 Result of panel sethod with Neumann boundary conditions for

supersonic flow(Ref 9)

is obtainedfor the coarsestpaneling. In Ref.26 (1i) Typeof formulation. It is knownthat some

some of these problems could be alleviated by de-
vising a specialcomposite source-doublet (trip-
let) singularity distribution with the property
that it hes a (partially) cancellinginterior ve.
locityfield,However, for aultiple-component con.
figurationa spurious reflections are still pre-
sent, It appasre that a higher-orde: formulation
employing the Dirichlet boundary condition, vhich
results in a constant or stagnant flew in the in.
tsrier of the configuration, is superior in avoid-
ing much of the undsired spurious reflections
d'scussed above,
The computing timefor a specific configuration is
generally less in supersonic flowthen in subsonic
flow.This is achievedby considering exclusively
the regionof dependence of the point at which th*
influence is computed. 1: the complete part,seg.
sent (or strip)is outnide the upstream Mach cone
from the point its influence Is zero and the mdi-
vidusl panel influences do not need to be con-
sldered. On the otherhand if the panelor a part
si the panelis withinthe domain of dependence
mote logic is to be executed to computsits in.
fluence,
types of formulation are not suited for specific
applications. A well-knownone is the application
of a method with the Neuann boundary condition ta
the internal flow in tubeswith a curvedaxis awl
or varyingcross-section, or a wind tunnel. Hero
the leakelg throughthe tunnelwalls can becom,
rather excerslve. A further example provides the
flow througjt a long flow-through Picelle for vhich
some of the first.genera:on panel methods have
shown to produce unecr-ptable results. A fital ex-
ample is the flow about thii wings where wthods
employing a od-function doubletdI.'trithtlon on
an internal auxiliary surface and a sovree dietri.
bution on the wing surfacesay run intoproblems.
These problas are caused by the prescribed
ahape
of the mode functionbeingdifforent from the one
that the solution tries to es ablish, This means
that the sourcedistribution Ias to takeover part
of the taskof the doubletdistribution,
for ex.
ample leading to a large value of the source
strength on the upper wing surfase and an accom-
panying large negativevalueof tht soure*
strength (i.e. sink)on the lowersutface.
The
gradients associated with thisphenosannw will de-
trimentally affect the accuracy of the slution.
 5-29

(iii),Fre-stram conditions. The truncation error overthe Iterative one.This.since. oncethe L-U
of.,the method depends on the.gradients of the so- decomposition has been accomplished, each new so-
lution. Formally,thismeansthat.increasing the lution-requires justone matrlx-vectorsmultipli-
incidence wouldrequire ,afinerpaneling. However, cation-whilean Iterative methodhas to startall
from spractical ;as wall as frams computational over again for eachnow right~hand side.
point of view this is not a desired situation and
usuallya panelingis set up onlyonceand used As far as the implementation on (super)conputers
for all flow conditions, is concerned it is remarked that both direct and
Iterative solversare vectorizable, but~thatfor
Apartfromthe pointof view of numerical accuracy largesystemsof equations the largernumberof
it should be kept in m.nd that the panel method is I/0 operations required for the Iterative solver
basedlona.rolativoly simple odl-of the real my become a bottle-neck.
viscous and compressible flow. Thrrore at flow
conditionswhore viscous effects become of impor- In the present report the iterative methodsused
tance; flow conditions for which strong shocks oc- to solvethe system of linearand nonlinearequa-
cur; flowconditions near the condition where a tions occurring for configurations with partly or
wing leading edge becomes sonic,especially in fullyrelaxedwakesisnot describedin morede-
case of bluntleadingedges;ate.. the correlation tailthangivenin the preceding section.
betweenprediction and experimental data may turn
out to be unsatisfactory. As far as the (linear)casewithoutany formof
wake relaxation is concerned it shouldbe remarked
4.8 Solution of the system of euaion that in order to obtain a solution for a series of
'&hesolution of the system of linear equa. free-strem conditions at fixea b. mar use
tions,Eq. (4.17).can be obtainedin various can be made of the superposition principle. It can
Ways. Here we mention direct methods (Gaussian be shown that for given outflow, given onset flow
elimination. L.U decomposition, etc.)and itera. due to propellerslipstreasm, etc..the solution
tive methods (Jacobi. Causs-Sidsl. etc.) oper. at any value of the angle of attack a, angleof
&tingon lements of the matrLx A or on partitions sideslipP. steadyrate of roll p. steadyrate of
(blocks) of the atrix A. In the lattercase the pitchq and steadyrateof yaw r. can be obtained
blocksore to be chosencarefully, for exaple as by combining six basissolutions, denotedhere by
blockscontaininr all elementsassociated with the the columnvectorsSP, i-11)6' namsely as:
influence of a .tripof the wing,or a ringof the
body,on itself. S - S(I + b1 ) + (S2 S1 )h2 + (S3 .S)h 3 +
In generalthe directmethodsare more robustand
a solutionis almost always obtained, also in case + (54 -s1)(Ap.hll) + (S5 '-1 )(iq-h
1 1)*
of irregular paneling.Irregular ordering of
neighbouring sesgmntsor neovorks. etc. However, + (S -S)(Ar.hlFl) (4.20)
the CPlJtimerequired(- NU ) sy becomerather where 6
excessive on scalarminfrasa compters or on )
workstations. Iterative2
methodsare lesscomputer Ap - (p.pl)/(p
2 -pl).j, pl/(p2"pl
tise intensive ( itxlU), but in some casesthe
iterative solutionprocedura my convergeslowly aq - (q.qi)/(q
2 -ql): , " ql/(q
2 'ql )
or mightevendiverge.
ar - (r-rl)/(r,.r,) ; I - r,/(r2"r,)
The rate of converge.4a depends on the choice of
the iterative procedure and more specifically on h1 - (cosp(inAt
2AinS)/sint22 -0)f . g
the way in whichthe user of the methodhas ar-
rangedthe sub.division of the configuration into h2 .icoso/coso
if1
parts.sefs.its. s:rips.etc.Failureto converge
viMlrequirea switching to an alternativeproem- h3 - g1 " cstsdinl/sin(02 "0
1 )lf
dureor a re-paneling of partor of the complete
configuration, this for instance in order to get with
larger blocks in the iteration matrix. The rate of
convergence of an Iterative method depends on the fl" in(ea 1 )/stn( 2 "o
1 ): f 2 " sir,(0 2 "*)/sin(o2 *oi)
diagonaldominance of the matrix A, which on its &
turndependson the typeof the Integralequation g1 " sin(D.D
1 )/sin(0
2 1 ); 92- sin(A
0 2 "D)/sin(P2 "P
1)
that is beingsolved.it appearsthatthe systems +
of equations resulting fromdiscretization of f " f+ f2 " I: g - g1
Fredholaintegralequation of the secondkind.
Eqs. (4.11).(4.12)and (4.13).givethe least in Eq. (4.20)the basissolutions Si. 1-1(1)6 ore
problems. The systemof equations resulting from solutions at pre-selected combination#
of free-
discretication of the lifting.surface integral streaa conditions, namely:
equation. Eq. (4.14).can causescalmore probleas
d.ringexecution of an iterative procedureIn the S1 -S(Ol'Plpqlrl)
literature on the subjectof solvingIteratively
nearly il)-coe.tioned systass of equations means 2 " 2-
are discussed to improve the rate of convergence, S3 - S(al.D2,Plq,rI)
but most of thesetechniques do nt applyto the
matrixequations typicalfor panelmthods, S4 " S(sl'p 1 'P2 ,ql'r1 )
S5 -
For supersonic free-strem Mach smbsersit is also 6 S(a,.,plql~r
noteworthy to remarkthat.if the panelingis ar.
rangedfrm nose to tail, generally convergenceof
iterative methods is faster than for subsonic ach In the case of port/starbuard-eide symmetry 0 ,
numbers. p . 0 and 5q n 0 and just three bsis solutions are
required( i $2 an 5). In thatcase Eq. (4.20)
Finally, it ust be noted that in case, at fixed reduces to
tath nuaber. many right-land side vectors are to
be considered the directmethodaay be preferabla S -Slf 2 + S2 fI 4 (S5Sl
1 )(aq-if) (4.21)

moms=
 5-30

rain, analytically, the-derivatiVes with respect stnce'first-gnerarion panel mthods produce non-
2
9 EE..(4.0)
(. l~cn
r aoe e
ued o o- tute dirag
iSn~
dtil !n eods whil e o n
to 0, O;-p, q and r of the solution, and
of thetforces and moments, ie; stabilitytherewith
derive,
zero drag coifficient,. In'thre-dimensional flow
with lift the,patielmethod should provide a suffi-
tiveslikeaCL/8s,
C1/ap, la/dq,
etc. ciently
accurateestimiteof-th'induced~drag~and ,
Using above procedure ve see hat 6nce for a given for iupirsonl~flov also of the wave drag.
'
Mach number, the sLx(three) solutios~havsebeen
obtained; all other solutions and their derive. For the integration of the pressure over lifting
tives'follow in O(NU) operations. surfaces the integral over the leading edge and
side edges where the pressure'distribution is sin.
Further basis solutions can be'obtained for e.g.: gular requires-specialcare. For an accurate pre-
the mass-flow rate into an inlet characterized by diction of the contribution of lifting,surfacesin
one or more mode-function type parameters; the de. the forces (and especially the Induced drag)snd
flection of control surfaces modeled employing a the momehts the inclusion of these edge-suction
lifting-surfacetype of approximation about a mean forces is crucial.
position-of the control surface, i.e. with the
paneled control surface at some fixed reference FAR-FIELD
deflection and the boundary conditions on this
ease surface accounting for the incrementalde. UPSTREAM S0
flection:
etc. U S FAR-FIELD

4 9 Focsad oet
Once the singularity distributions are
solved for, the velocity at the panel collocation
points can be coaputed and therewith also the
pressure on the panels. Forces and moments %ron
then deterlned by integration of the pressure
distribution on the surface of the configuration.
e.g.: Z

- -$fp(x).(;)dS(x) (4.22a)
bh Y S _

'.()
(;-" ,) (;)d-S
(;) (4.22b)

Sb

which have to be made dimensionless by q.$sf and

X
qSrof
notes t a.fmoment
,
respectively.
reference In Eq. (4.22b) C.
center. de. TREFFTZ
PLN
The2 integrals in Eq. (4.22) can be approximated to
O(0 ) by using the simple mid.point rule. e.g.. Fig. 4.11 lar-field momentum analysis
NP .
Most panel methods have an optice to compute the
- " ( at 0(12) (4.23.) drag froa a so-celled 'far-tild' analysis in
I-1 which the drag on the configuratlon Is obtained
from the application of the 1lieof the coneerva.
where there are NP panels o the solid geometry of tion of linear momentum in a large volume sur.
the configuration. The Integration in Eq. (4.23) rounding the configuration ;,ssteady flow. see
should be over a closed surface. Not accounting Fig. 4.11. Ihis approach automatically accounts
for parts of a closed surface corresponds to as. for the edge-suction fores on lifting surfaces.
suwing that p - 0 on the left-out part of the eur. Coweervtion of momentum applied to the fixed
face In most panel methods the pressure ceeffl. volume enclosed by I . S , S (Jhe Treffis plane)
t
delnt C is integrated rather than the pressure Sb and both sides of the wske S gives

NP p
INgh ,6 ;)'ldS(;) - 0 (4.24)

he$t. S S u-+ S St + St

and a similar expression for the moment. Since in with -the nomal pointing into the volume. From
ease of a closed volume the surface integral of it follows chat the force on the
ni oef igura.
n(s) (and the one of A -(;)) vanishes, Eq, tion can be expressed as, wing that the Integra.
(4 23b) is Identical to Eq (4.23a). if ro part tion in Eq. (4.24a) is over a closed surface and
of a closed surface is left out in the integration that mass Is conserved:
it is equivalent with assuming that p - p on that
part of the surface For a body with
a bae thi-
appears to be a good first estimate of the pres.
-pp) ." ).) (x) (4.2b)
sure in the separated flo region. S
whore denotes the force on the body, i.e is the
the experience of applying panel methd.s to co, eurfoce itetogralof Pp. over S
figuratione with a finite number .f panels is t .
that, ulng above integration procedure. most of In taoe S S end S are at an infinite distance
the forces and momente can be Computed to a suffi- from the nuratlon,
oof one ham (in sieonic
dlent degree of accuracy. However, this is gener. flow);
ally not true for the (induced or wave) drag
force. It Is maost obvious In the two-dimensional
case where in a potential flow about a closed con.

WN!"
 5-31

Su P P " " ysis. a result which does not depend on the free- j
stream Mach number directly, only indirectly
1 3
S : p - P.- throughthe doublet distribution.

while'to sufficient degree of accuracy It follows from Eq. (2.5f) that the jump in the
perturbation velocity potential equals -p(t), so

S': p-. .nthat:

P - .+,Ut),.at.; ,n)dt (4.24f)
- * n-- 2p-p n x
St' ;

The latter implies that the wake surface $w is In order to evaluate Eq. (4.24f) one needs the ye-
chosen to be approximately normal to the Trefftz locity distribution 1t induced by the doublet dis-
plane St . This leads to: tribution on C in the Trefft plane. This can be
obtained by a YD panel method applied to a system
-.f$((P-p.).x (4,24c)
+ "U.%tjdyd. of vortex sheets with given doublet distribution.

$t It is general experience that obtaining the in-

duced drag from Eq. (4.24f) (the x term) yields
where 1 is the velocity induced in the Trefftz more accurate results than using Eq. (4.22a) re-
plane. 9ext employing the expression for t.* qua. suiting from the direct integration of the pres.
dratic pressure coefficient. Eq. (2.3d), results sure distribution.
into A
Still an alternative way to compute the forces and
double.
monts acting on the configuration is to
pJtl( litl2)e, UUtdydc (4.24d) integrste the singularity distribution.
Ct Referring to Fig. 3.13 the contribution to the
force of a vortex line is found from glasius' the.
Upon writing 03in ters of the pertucbation po- ores. leading to
tential V. which to consistent order of magnitude
satisfies Laplace's e uation in the Trafftz plan .
and rsing Greenes theorem in this plane, one gets "P)x;" + - ff0(t + uP)qd
eb $b
(4.25)
. ( . * Uxnd which in principle also includes all edge.suction
P-F1V(x+) ex'ii)(+ t%)s
0 0
Umen)t forces, but is expensive computationally.
(4.24,) 7n supsrsonic flow the situation on S i differ.
ant. due to the circumstance that disturbances are
where C is the trace of the wake vortex sheet(s) propagated undamped from the configuration. Calcu-
S in t~e Trefftx plane St the normal and t lation of the force on the configuration from the
I's arc length along Cw . iq. ?4.24e) is recognized conservation of linear momentum is much mors ela-
as the classical reeult of the Trsfftx plan. n.l- borate for this case and not considered here.

NO
5-32

Panel source Doublet B. C. Resarkis

DUCIAS.NEUMAiNFlat Cont. Mode function Nean M<I
(13, 1962/1972 (external)

BOEIN-TEA230 Flat Cont. Mode function Neumann M<1

(23,1967 (internal) lothert
rule

NLR Flat Const. Mode function Neumann M <I

363, 1969 (internal) NLR comp
rule

MBb Flat Const. Mode function Neuaann H<1

(63, 1970 (internal)

HUNT-SEMPLE Flat Const. Mode function Neumann M,<l

171,1976 (internal,
opt.)

USSAERO Flat TS:Conat. • Neumann M <l,>l

381,1973 LS:Linesr Non-polynomfal Linearized

NLRAERO Flat TB:Cont. - Neuaann M <1,>l

39).1980 LS:Lin*ar quadratic Linarized

PAN AIR Flat Linear Quadratic Neumann/ M<I,>l

(101.1975 Sub-panels Dlrichlet
DOUGLASH 0. Quadratic Linear Mode function Neumann <l
311),1980 (external.
quad.)
ROBERTS Cubic Cubic Mode function lNeumann ,-0
(123.1975 (Internal.
bIrnb)

MCAERO Flat Linear Quadratic Ditbchlet M.-O

313, 1980 Sob-panels
SAA Quadratic Linear Quadratic Dirlchlet M,-07
[141,1984

HI$SS Flat Linear Quadratic Dlichlet M<I,>1

115).1984 Sub.pannls
VSAERO Flat Const Conat Dirichlt IM-O()
(163,1981 %rabe
relax
QUADPAN Flat Conast Conat DlrIchlat 1M<1
1173, 198)

SC Boundary Condition
TB, Thick odies
LS LiftIng Surface

TableI Partiallistof methodspresently

in use
3.0 EXISTINCPANELdET .OS
51 BoecrIotIon and oe enoral-enra
At present there ara manypanel aethoda in
u.3 capableof computing the linearized potential
flow about3D configuration. (see for a partial
listTable1) Threecategories can b distin.
guished.
firsrenertlon methods,Refs.1-2.5.9,
all with the directNauann boundarycondi-
tionappliedand uslngthe flat-panel op.
proximation. Liftis genrated throug)h
a doubletdistribution, claiminghiher.ordar
mode-function doubletdistribution
on an
auxiliary surfaceIn the interior or on the
surfaceof thickwing. or by liftingsur.
ftces,All thesemethodsare first-order
esthode.
ecnd-neatio ethods.Refs.10-I. all
accounting in axe way for panelcrvature,
and saploylng higber-order representations
for the singularity distributions, Some
methods stilluse the mode-function formula.
tlion,solvingfor q throughthe Nsumann
boundarycondition, othersemploythe Dlri-
chletboundaryconditionand solvefor p. A
number of such methods are under develop.
sent.e.. Ref 18 and at NIA AEROPAN/PDAERO.
advanced methods.Refs.16 and 17.
moorder
Theseapparently quit*successful methods
employthe DIrichlet boundarycondition on
the flat.panl approximation with a constant
source(if any) as well as a constant
accuracy.

+ 5

-Fig.I*
suits, oftofrt
I. shos,! comparison (Ref. 27) of reo
neraton-nethods (Refs. 5 and
7),viththehigheir.order (3rd orderi) method of
Roberits-(Rof. 42). -.The cese'considered -is the In.
compr~isibli'flow aboutthRl' i~ at 5,deg
inciaenci forja pinel seheae of 12 strips
panels each~. The left-hand side of the figure
~of..6O
shows the comparison of the x. and the y-cospononr
5-33
function doubletdistribution becomes even more
apporent..This jedemonstrated for the chorduse
L
surface C distribution, shownfor the 2%-thick
wing In,% plot at the right-hand side of Fig,
5.1.
The advanced lower-order methods Refs. 16 and 17
employ the Dirichlet bounda~y condition. Eq.

VX~RA RAEWNG
1. 4 . 0. a 5M-0.0 a=-5
-OA VC-O02&
1-0.2
-0.2.
0.2 * 1.
00.4

0.4I I It-- 064

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0O '
VY
0.2
0.1-a- ROBERTS (DATUM) [121
-7- -- -X/C
-. 0 H-S (S4EETS) (60 X 12) [71
-0.
0. 0.0. 0.
0: ~ 0o NLR (60X 12) [5)

-0.2 O

-0.3!

Fig.5.1 Comparison
of first-genorstion
panelmethods.Ref. 27
of the chordula. velocitydistribution for a wing
thickness of 5%. The s-component of the velocity
do*snot differsuch for the threemethodscon-
,sidered. However.the y-cosponent of the velocity
computed by the method of Ref. 5. whichemploysas
mode function an internal piecowio constant dou.
blot dis'ribution (equivalent to a vortexlattice,
see Eq. (2.6.)). of
user-specified shape, shows large deviations from
the *datuom solution of Roberts and from the sotu.
tionof the methodof Ref. 7 which employs a more
continuousa'optimized' Internal soda function. For
even thinner wins the necessity of the mare ad-
vanced Internal mode function or some other formu-
lationwithtess severeconstraints on the mode-
(3.3).with the apparentInconsistent discretiza.
tion of a panelwiso constantsourceand constant
(instead of linear)doubletdistribution on the
flat-panel approximation. In order to find the
surfacevelocity, Eq. (3.4b)is to be evaluated.
Using at least first-order accurate nuerical dit-
ferentiation to obtainIi., as Is required for s
fully coneistent first order method. it iosaug-
gested that In spite of this one still finds the
surfate velocity with 0(h) accuracy. For the 2D
case Oskaa (Ref. 28) investigated the accuracy of
a methodwith the Internal ilirichtetcondition on
the total potential # - 0 (which leads to q -0 If
the flow Is incompressibte and v. - tt. seeaE
(3 5c)).

LCIDI ILOPE-3

-6i

KTO2PROFILE L9I()

Fig 5.2 Accuracy of solution for 2D flow using Dirichtet boundary

condition and second-order formulation (Ref. 28)
5-34
In Eq.-(3;6),£ quadratic localrepresentation for
the'doublet distribution and a curved-pmel ap'
proxigatioi wa used. 'while in Eq. "(3.7b)'a 4th-
order, scurate numerical differentiation'wss ee-
ployedto evaluate Vp. The methodwas appliedto a
12% thickKarman-Trefftz airfoilsection, The in-
vestitiori showgd that tha'resulting method-3s
third-order ratherthan-second-order'sacurato
(Fig.5.2)as one nighthaveexpectedfrom the
resultsof Refs.16 and 17. This is a puzzling
situation and,ene:"y wonderwhat causesthis,
anomaly, is.the.awlysis basedon the small-curva-
ture expsnsioperhaps too conservative, or Is
there some hidden annihilation of error terms in
the process of obtaining p fromEq. (3.6)and the
surfacevelocityfromEq. (3.7b)?A factorthat
might have contributed is that the panel scheme
usedwas highlynon-niform and adoptedin the
nose regionwherethe curvature and the gradient
in the solutionbecomelarge.
5.2 Neumann versusWrichlet boundarycodtion
In thissectionwe considersomeof the
strengths of method thatemploy
and weaknesses
the Neuaann boundaryconditionand methodsthat
employthe Dirichlet boundarycondition. The dis-
cussionisbasedon the literature and on experi-
ence gained at MLR.
The methods usingthe Neun boundarycon-
dition solv fr¢ the sourcedistribution on the
surfaceof the configuration. Lift Is generated
througha (modefunction) doubletdistribution on
an artificial surfacein the interior of the con-
figuration or on the actualsurfaceof the config.
uration,Alternatively, liftingcomponentsof the
configuration are treatedas liftingsurfaces
carryinga doubletdistribution to b solvedfor
ends sourcedistribution of knownstrength which
accountsfor effectsdue to the wingthickness
Some positive (+) and negative (.) assets are:
+ The formultion appearsto be forgiving for
Irregular paneling,at leastfor subsonic
flow(Ml),
Lift-carry-over throughuser-spocifled or
Automatically generatedauxiliary surfaces
is subjectto somearbitrariness.
Thinwingsmy causeproblemsin casemode.
functions t4 used (Fig.5.1),the lifting,
surface approximationmay be inadequate for
thickvir.s as well as for wingswith a
bluntleadingedge.
Internalflowscannot be modeled becauseof
,leakage.
Spurious Ku4-weve reflections in the in.
teriorof the configuration, in case of
supersonic flow.
. METHOD
THICK WING
Fig. 5.3 1l-pe of panel method (Courtesy Fokker Aircraft g.V,)
mm
The meth6ds using the' pixichle bound ry
conditloii solve -forcthe-dotblet 'distriburion on'
the surfac' of2 thecofiguration. Aile fie source
disirib'ution (necessary-intteformulaiion in
terms of tho prturlitionpotiftial j)'follows
from as algebrsiC-relation. -Forthis category of
methods 'the follow'ing appllis: '
+ Li'ft-carry-overis implicitlyaccounted for.
However,for a wing/body configuratios.-the
intersection of the wakeof liftingcompo-
nenis(wings) with non-liftingcomponents
(bodies)has, to be identifiedas the edge of
a segmentacrosswhichthe doubletdistribu-
tion Is discontinuous (Fig.3.4).
+ More accuratefor the samecomputing cost,
or for the sameaccuracylesscomputing
cost?
+ Betterbehavedin supersonic flow.
+ Lessstoragerequired.
More sensitiveto irregular panelingand
gaps in the geometry.
n
In view of abovepoints It is quiteevidentthat
the methodswith the Dirichlet boundarycoidition
are consideredto be a definiteimprovement over
the (older)methodswith the Neumannboundarycon-
dition in whichthe streamsurfacecondition is
imposedin a more directfashion.However.much
expertisein applyingthe lattermethodsto prac-
ticalsituations, in whichthe underlying assuap.
tions are oftenviolatedlocally,has beenbuilt
up. Thisexperience does not automaticallycarry
over to the newermethods.
5 3 liper-order versushigber-ordermethods
Regarding the matterof choosing(for the
davelopmentend/orapplication) a lower-order
ratherthana higher-order method,severalargu.
aents,pro or contra,can be put forward.For a
low-orJZder
method it can be remarked that a lover-
ordermethod:
Is lesscomplexto design,programand main-
rain.Less Information is requiredto define
the geometryand lessAIC expressions have
to be workedout.
+ has more flexibilitybecauseno higher-order
continuity is pre-assumod or required.
neitherin the geometrinor In the singular.
ity distributions.
can introduce non-physical featuresin the
flow fieldsuch as discretevorticeswhich
may giverise to spurious, numerical
afrects.
ti nor suitedfor supersonic flowunless
*triplets' (Ref. 26) or somekind of aver-
aging(see 1sf. 29) Is introduced.
LIFTING - SURFACE METHOD
I
 5-35

THICK -0- TEA,230

14LRPANEL 00
0
P (L S.) -&-PDAERO Pt0"6
-0.4 -0.4. TEA2
THICK PDAERO
-0.2- -0.2. ;.NLR PANEL
0c .t05 L..8
0.0- .. .. 1.0"
. 0.0 c=0.02
0 :0
026113. HICK .2
0oX.25 - c

0.0.4- (
0.6" iRAE WOING
0.4/
-,c, 0.6N CPU-TIME
NLR PANEL 12 x60 170 sec.
PDAERO 12 x30 105 sec.

ql. 0.549 1

betweenthickwing and liftingsurfacemodel

Fig. 5.4 Comparison

Similarly. the hber-grdgr methods are

possibly"ore accuratefor the panelsize
rendinrto zero.i.e.in an asymptotic
sem. This does not Imply that for a spe-
cific(coase) paneling the solution of the
higher-order methodis moreaccuratethan
the one obtained with the lover-order method
using the samepaneling.
+ more econeic whena fine panelingis re-
quiredfor, for example,a subsequent compu-
tationof the boundarylayeron (partof)
the surfaceof the configuration or for
ces such as close-coupled liftingcompo-
nents.
4 required for supersonic flow (K.>I). and for
wake relaxation.
lessflexiblebecausemore orderingis re.
quirad in the specification of the geoetry.
computationally moreexpensivein casecon.
tinuityof geometryand singularity dietri.
butionsacrosseeant boundaries is to be
enforcedexplicitly,
leso attractive to developbecausea tho.
roughanalysisis requiredto minimizethe
computational effort,
time-consuming to code and maintain.
-os difficult to vectorize.
It should be noted here that in manypracti.
cal situations the panel schemechosen,becauseof
restrictions In computing budgetor computercore
memory,Is Just fine enough to resolve the rele-
vant flowfeatures, so that in thesecasesthere
is no advantagein "ing the higher-order method,
Hoever, withcomputing cost decreseing and core
sizesincreasing the userwill tend to increase
the numberof panelsand the higher-order method
will eventually become ore economic. It should
alsobe realizedthatat locations wherethe so.
lutionis (nearly)singularly behaved,se fro-
quentlyocurs at the edgesof liftingsurfaces,
but alsoat sharptrailing edges,ate..higher.
orderaccuracyis formally only attainedif the
singularpartsin the solutionare extractedand
treatedexplicitly(e.g.Roe.30).This may be
pursuedin 2D but is far too complicated to be
extendedto the general3D framework.
5,4 Whattwe of anel method to use
The type of panelmethodto be uied depends
strongly on the purpose of the application (Fig.
5.3).If the methodIs to be used duringconceptu-
al or preliminary designphase*of an aircraft
project,in whichmany possiblecandidate configu-
rationsare studied,thereis no needto consider
all the flow featuresin greatdetail.This mans
thata methodthat providesthe six-component
forcesand moments,stability derivativea and
spanwise loaddistributions to withina certain
not too demanding levelof accuracy will suffice.
Also very oftenin thesedesignphasesthe de-
signerwill lookfor trendsratherthanquntita-
tivelyaccuratedata.For thistype of application
a relatively coarsepanelingis allowed whichwill
cut down on computer run time. Also,as demon.
stratedin Fig.5.4. it will be allowedto employ
the lifting.surface approximation
whichreducesthe computercost(thenumberof
panelsrequiredfor the liftingcomponents is
halved)even further.It is also possiblethat for
the purposeof somedetailstudyisolatedpartsof
the conflguratf ! --a considered, e.g.the wing-
flapsystem,utilizing a finepanelingfor that
part. but neglecting the interfernce due to other
partsof the configuration, This typeof consider-
3tionemay leadto the for application duringear-
ly designphasesdesiredsituation wherethe
*turn.around.timo is such that the method can be
usedon a workstation or Interactively on a main-
framecomputer. In additionit is requiredthat
the geometrycan ba handled(defined, manipulated.
etc.)easilywhilealsopro-and post-processing
can be carriedout fast.In suchan envirorment
the designercan Investigate rapidlythe effecton
the aerodynai charactaristics due to for example
changingthe positionand tye of the propulsion
system, changesin wing-taillay.out, flapset-
tings,rollanSgls(formissiles). etc. As far as
the lifting-surfee approximation ts concerned
Pig.5.4 providesan nsighWt in the accuracyof
the predicted pressuredistribution. It ahows that
for both wing thicknesses the thick-wing and the
lifting-surface model givecospsrable results,
exceptnear the bluntleadingedgewherethe lift-

--- i
 5-36

-,
-
ang-surface

discrepancy
approximation is invalidated.For t/c
0.02 the resultof the NLR panelmethoddeviates
the resultof the lifting-surface method.This-
Is due to the failureof mode function
to representthe doubletdistji~ution corractly in
AIRfO-L4%CIRCULAIRARCBICOVEX
L '25,Di'.x.5

C',
C
94
-'O
BODY
PANELS F'
the trailing-edgerejion,see also.Fig. 5.1.
Fig..5.5 givesan example~of thi npplicationof a
panelmethod(PDAERO)to an Isolated~component of -
completeconfiguration. It show the inletre-
gion of a nacelle,nd the comparison of computed .-- . , -
and measured pressures Alongtwo sectionswithin (ALLOIMENSIONS
the inlet region. This Is a type of configuration ININCHES) MOMENT
REFERENCE
POINT: x re .1442
wherethe flowresembles an internalflowand
application of a first-goneration panelmethod-em-
ploying the Neuseannboundasry condition resulted in cL
unsatisfactory results.However,applyingthe in- - flfuc C(t
ternal Dirichlet boundary condition on the pirtur- 5OTsel n
batIon potential resultedin the rathersatisfact-
ory correlation of theoryand experlent, shownin
Fig. 5.5. The paneling of the nacelle is shown in t.
Fig. 6.1.
Moredetailedinvestigations, at a later
phasein an aircraftproject,requiring accurate
localcharacteristicssuchas pressuredistribu-
tion. sparisesand axialloaddistributions,
s
hingemoments,root-bending moment. etc. Viii ask t= -
for a finerand alsofor the actualwing surfaces A'0 "
to be modeled,or maybeevenfor wake relaxation. *, . -f, M

°X °iw.A-
Clearlythisrequiresan accurate,
comutationally efficient
C p'C
method.
reliableand

p!
pzE

A ....COMPUTATION I N E
0i,.5 D £h05d lg nos engine
-xi~k
I WASS4

4 -- ., L 4 "

COMPUTATION IV. R. BYPASSm 1.06 '

- COMPUTATION
- I V. R. BYPASS -0.09 .
*
A EXPERIMENT
Fig. 5.5 Detail study of the fiowinto an engine .
Intake

In caoss here the configuration operatesat .a

both subsonicand supersonic speeds(supersonic *
transport aircraft,combataircraft, missiles)it
willbe advantageous to use a methodthat applies Co5.4I
to both subsonic and supersonic free-strem Mh
numbers. The main benefit hare will be the saving Af
in manhoursto preparejustone inputratherthan o
the input for a subsonic flow methodand a sepaps. 5 ; 5 *
racs onI for a supersonic flow method.
Suchan example Application of the iIRAEROmethod 7T S esc TrxsC.5.
Is givenin Fig.5.6. It Showsthe lift and drag
coefficients am functionof'angleof attackfor Fig. 5.6 Aerodynamic characteristics
two subsonic
wing-body
and for two supersonic Mach numbers, configuration predicted by NIRAEO method
as have beenobtainedin a single run of the code. for sub-and supersonic flow.
 5-37 F
Abovediscussion leadsto the~conclusion thata
general purpose panelmethod. probably second-
The firstfew item of abovelist,require
that the user has access toa geoetry package for
- i "
order, with severalaerodynamnc~modeling options geometry miapulation..On the other hand. during
as Neumnnand'Dirichlet boundary conditions,' preliminarydesign studies pirts ofthe onfigura.
thick wings and-lifting ,urfacee, default and tion may,have a simple shape, e.g.,cylindrLcil.fu.
use.'-specified nearwakeswith~and without partial sage, constant-aitfoil-section wing, zero-thick-
relaxationinflow.and'out1ow'se ents;-optons ness fins, etc. ,Some of the panel methods avaLl-
to model (the effect of).propellermslipstreamsand able have an extensive geometry definition cape-
jet plumeoptions toaccount for~effects due to bility,facilitating operation of the methodin a
boundary ,layrs, 'option to interface,with a,bound. "stand-alone" fashion.
ry-layer m.hod. subsonic--an4Wsupersonic-flow.
capability. etc., as well asautomtic-(re)-panel-
Ing options~is the 'aerodynamic tool! that is
needed.A.prerequisite for-such a 'building-block*
system(*toolbox*),is-that, inspite of the many
optLons, the computationel method remains extend-
able, maintainable, economic and aboveall "uer. ENGINE-
friendly'. INLET
Regarding the latter It must he kept in mind _______
that In the application of panelmethodsthe costs
involvedin the manhoursrequiredfor preparing
th input and anslyzing the results of the compu.
tation generallyfar exceedthe bare computing
costs. DIVERTEt
(BY~, PASS),ETRA

6.0 PANELMMOD vIRiI T INTAKE

As sketchedin Fig.6.1 the panelmethodIs Fokker

Fig.6.2 Geometrymodeling(Courtesy
'bedded between pro- and post-processing. The Aircraft 5.V.)
main taskof the e-processmin is the generation
of the inputf')rthe method, which includes:

PRE - PROCESSING

FPANEL

RESULT

POST - PROCESSING
Fig.6.1 Panel ethod enviromoent

definition of the geomtry, subdivision into

parts and seopnts. determination of inter.
sections between wings and bodies. etc.
paneling of the individual segments, or in
case the method featuresautomatic paneling
features, specification of the panelachem
paraMeters
specification of auxiliary, non.configura.
Lionsurfacessuch as near-vko surfaces, Fig.6.3 Surfacevelocity vectors(Courtesy
inlet face. lift-carry-over segments, in- Fokker Aircraft SV.)
ternal surfaces carrying the %ode-function
doubletdistribution. etc.
inspection of the paneled configuration Inspection will involve the visualization of the
(eg. Fig. 6.2) paneled geoetry as a wire frame (Fig. 5.3). with
specification of the normal velocity compo- or without 'hidden lines', as a "solid eodal'. as
nentvn distribution that eimulates viscous a -pincushion-to checkon the direction of the
effects,inletand outletflow,etc. norals, etc. At presentworkstations with rather
spocifIcation of slipstream data as velocity sophisticated graphicalvisualization ;ackages are
and total-pressure increment, other user- widely available. Inspection of the paneling of
specified onset flows. etc. corIox configurations using different types of
specification of free-streaom direction, Mach visualization techniques is nowa much easier tabk
number,steadyratesof rotation(roll. thanduringthe earlydays of the application of
pitch, yew), incresntal onset free-stream panel methods. woere printer output ,gas the only
velocity due to motion of som part of the inspection tool available,
configuration. etc.

i - an|| i
 5-38
The last couple of items on'above' list may require
the interfacing with other methods 1like a' bound-,
ary-layer calculation method, a method for wake
relaxation, 'a'method'for is6lated propeller aero-
dynamics, etc As far a:the'icreaental onset
frei-•ream velocity is concerned W can be used
to compute, ,ina quasi-steady approach, the sepa-
ration of storeo from a parent aircraft.
• Zoove of the floprati., Fordep'end
The min task of the post~yrocemgfnr'is the
digestion of the output of the panel method. it
generation and visualization of pressureplots.
isoba8.urfaee (Fig.6.3)and free strea-
linWespolirsof'forces and moentsfor dif.
ferent'Machknubers, etc-.
- comparsii th data from other calculations or
ifro experlints
(weak-nteractlon) boundary-layer computation
wake relaxation,
archiving of aerodynamic date in a data-base
sYtem.
In the practicaluse of panelmethodsthe
rapidand user-friendly visualization,of geometry
and of flowresults on advancedgraphical(color)
workstations is essential.
Panelmethodsrun on workstations,
smellto large
minfrae computers and on supercomputers. The
basiccharacteristics
of any panelmethodare the
following:
- Numberof linesof the cods,Thiscan run from
a few thousandfor a vortex-lattice mathodto
more thanone hundredthousandfor a general-
purposehigher-ordsr sathod.In generalthe code
can be brokendowneasilyalongthe main lines
indicated in Fig.6.1 and also to deeperlevels,
facilitating
efficientsegmented- or 'capsule-
loading of the objectcode.
- Nemory requirements
2 The memory requirement of
panelmethodseis aL + O(N),whet N Is the num.
ber of unknowns(or panels)and the value of A
dependson the method (Neuant or Dirichlet or
lifting-aurface boundarycondition) but varies
typically between3 and 7. This implies that
depending on N. out-of-core mss-storage is re-
quired.Soe"pnal methodsoptimizethe usageof
main memory in order te cut down on I/0 to and
from disk and therewith on turn-around time.
This involvesamongstother&the block-wise
treetatnt of the AIC matrices.
• CPU-ties requirements. The CPU-tle require.
sents of a panelmethodcan be expressed
as
aic2N (a 1 or i 2)
(1)
wherethe coefficientsdependvery muchon the
processorspeedof the computerand for super-
computerson the degreeof vectorization,
multi.
taskingand/orof pasrallelination
In the tablebelowsoamvaluesof the coefficients this
appearing in Eq. (6.1)are given,
" sic -,u -it
I
Cyber 180-96) (2-8)xi0.
NCbr SO. 62 (2-$)xl*
x lO'
4
l.I0
2
.
9
"
6 3O
340,9
"
6
NE£CSX-2 (3"7)_ 2.0xlO c<10_
The valuso refer to the CPUrequireaents of NU's
DAERO/AEROPAM codeand as far *s the Cyber is
concerned also of the sub/supersonic NLP&M code,
bothappliedto a numberof testcases.The range
of values given refers to different types of runs
eachas withor withoutsymstry, DirichIet, Nou. environment, SX-2: 16 Mvord main nemry), part of
mnmnorlifting surface, condition; with or:without
near wake,,etc. .Theovalue'are quoted for two co -
puter~systems, one scalatmatinfraef(rated 'at
-2460 flops)-and -
one(on pr ...eoo)4sWperco.
..
ter. From theseovaluos-:nindicatIon of required.
CPtime fox~sr scaleroomputer.can be deduced
from the differenceain thelprocnssorspeed in,
frlao the oeffece::sdte~pie vr'much~
tensof'the
coefficicuts a suprcomputer,,the,
very~aoch on~the
degree'of vectorization,'multi-tasking,!paralelli.
zation,. etc. so ,that'.trasnslitlon to'other computer
systemsis so difficult.
Note thatabovetableindicates'that,
for oM so-
lutionon a scalar-computer; the iterative solu-
tionprocedure requiresless computertim than
the direct solution procedurefor N's exceeding a
value of 2.0 times the number of iterationsre.
quired. which is almost always the case. For the
vectorcomputerthisvalueIs evenlower.However,
in both casesthe Iterative nothodwillrequire
sore 1/0 operations.
As an example consider a SO0-panl case which will
requireless than5 minutesCPU timeon the 2-
megaflop ainfrae and less thanone houron a
workstation with 1/10 of that processorspeed.
Finallyit is notedthatthe higher-order methods
PAMAIRrequires, on a specifictypeof computer
system.substantially
more computertim thanin-
dicstedin the tableabove,thanothersecond-gen-
erAtionmethodsor thanfirst-generation
methods
(seeRef. 31).Also the high.order panelmethod
ISSSrequiresrelatively
muchcomputertime(e.g.
Ref. 32).The reasonsbehindthisare not easily
assessed,but the elaborate
way in whichthe nu-
mericalschemesare set up (likein Fig.4.7b)
mightbe an Important
factor.
7.0 OPPORTUNITIES
FOR I4PROViENET
Thereare severalareas where(existing)
panelmethodsmaybe improved (see alsoRsf. 33).
Referringto Fig. 6.1,wherethe variouspartsof
a panelmethod are indicated,the following
items
are considered.
=,f5:
This partof the programhandlesthe goomet-
rc Input,in 'stand-alone-
panelcodesit also
actsas pro-procesoor
to defineand subsequently
panelthe objectconsidered,In this part of the
foienan
method&I automatic procedure
for generatinga
(curvature.or even eoluton.)gdgovyAJnln,
wouldrescitin an increasedaccuracyof the no-
mericalflow olulmation.
AU; In this partof the programthe influence
in-
tegralsaresvaluated. The operational countof
part Ia O(N ). In panelmethods,thatuse an
iterative solverfor the systemof equations,
this
part of the programaccountsfor moat of the total
C01 time. Hereattention has to be paid to the
vectortz~tn of the code,such thatit runseffi-
clentlyon super.computers. As an exampleof the
speed-up that Is obtained on super-computers
tablein chapter6 givesthe coefficients
the
in the
CPU-time formula. Eq. (6.1), for running the (sca-
lar) NIX AEROpAM/PDAERO panelmethodon a scalar
"Infra computer and on a vector computer.
It shrvs that even for the unmodified code a sub-
stantialspeed-upof a factorof 15-20is realit-
ed. Not* thatbecause of differences
in coremeo.
ry used (Cyber 962: 1 Kwordin a virtual memory

the reduction of the CPU time is due to the
smalleramount-of I/O activity'required. It is ex'.
patted thit the' CPUztie 'required'for'AIC can be
reduced furtherbyre'srranging.theomutaton
suchWthat,'sgreaterpartoftheco for-cooputing
' rainedfrom a propeller programbasedon. for
the'lC'$ svctlziso(e'al-o Rif,'32):. - "
Areotherareaof interertI~'isxlgziof the 0(82)
operaional' o tlf, e.g.' toO(NogN) , this
uithoutzs-acrificing thieaccuricy of the:solution:
Althoughljome studli have been-initlaitd in this
area,e.g.Ref. 34, progresihas beenslow.
2Q: In thisepart of the program the-system of,
equationsis solved,eitherusingan iterative
procedure or a direct(L1)decosposition proce-
dure.The directsolufton~require O(N ) opera.
cione,but~oanbar I to alargextent.
see the tablein chapter'6 whichshows' aspeed up
by a factorof 750'
Thesiterative solutionprocedure,-mostly block-
Jacobior Causs-Seidel, requires O(it*N) opera-
tions,with it'thenumberof Iterations, but this
at the costof an increase in the numberof I/O
operations to'becarriedout with the matrix
duringthe iteration. The mainproblemwith the
iterative procedure Is'thatfor complex configura.
tions,'depending'on the paneling, the numberof
Iterations may beixcessive or-itmay occurthat
the procedure failsto convergence. Alsofor lift.
ing surfacesin-subsonic flow (whichdid not re-
su.t in a Fredholaintegralequation of second
kind)the convergence Is ratherslow (e.g.see
Ref.9). Morerobustiteration procedures, as con.
jugate.grsdient typeof methods,are to be Inves-
tigated.
For runninga panelmethodon a workstation or
lowor-end mainframe the availability
of an itera-
tive solverremainsa must.For a vectorcomputer
the CPU timerequiredfor the voctorined LU-decoa.
positionremainsrelatively modestup t3 higher
numbersof panels,but eventually the N count
will takeover and an iterative solutionprocedure
mightbe preferable. For the itarativesolverone
shouldalsotake intoaccountthe increase in
turn-around time due to the increased1/0 opera.
tions needed.
RESU : In this pertof the programthe velocity
and pressuredistribution are computedand are
used to computeloaddistributions, forcesand
sosentson the completeconfiguration
and on its
individual components,centerof pressure, veloci.
ty and pressureat off-bodypoints(e.g.for
streamline tracing).etc.Also a file is prepared
for use duringpost.procossing.
8.0 FURTHEt
MODELINGASPECTSAND RECENT
AREASOF
INTEREST
Thereare numerousareaswherethe panel
method techniquehas been appliedsuccessfully.
Someareasthathaveattractedsos attention
recentlyare considered below:
8,1 Pronulslon installaton effects.
The renewed interestinpropeller propulsion
of transport aircrafthas broughtalongthe need
to predictthe effectsof the slipstream on the
configuration aerodynmics. Duringpreliminary
designstudiesmostlya simplemodalis used in
Ur
5-39
whichthe flowfielddue to the propellerin iso-
lationis superimposed on the'freestreamas an-
additional onsetflow (seeFig.8.1).The data for
the (time-averaged) additional- onriet flow is ob-
instance. blade-element momentumtheo r
Fig.8.1 Simplemodeling of effectof proFeller
slipstreamon flowaboutthe wing
A panqlmethodcan alsobe used to computethe
steadyflowaboutthe rotatingisolated propeller
in a blade-fixed co-rotating coordinate system,
e.g.Ref 35. For thiscase in whichthe free.
stresshas to be directedalongthe propeller
axis,one bladeof the propeller and a segmentof
the axially-sysmetric hub is discretized into
panels.The influence of the otherbladesis sc.
counted for using sulti-lobed axial symetry. The
min difficulty in the modelis the wage,whichis
a helicoidal vortexsheetliteracting sore strong.
ly with the flowaboutthe propeller bladethan is
the case in a conventional interaction of a wake
with the flowaboutthe wing thatgenerated the
wake.In the isolated-propeller methodit Is as.
sumedthatat some distancedownstream of the pro.
pellerdisc the wake is fullyrolledup and all
vorticiryis contained within a cylindrical vortex
sheet whichformsthe far-wakemodelof the slip-
stream. On the slipstream far wake the angle
betweenthe vortexlinesand the axisof the slip.
stress is constant. From the Isolated-propeller
solutionthe additional onsetflow in the configu-
ration-fixed coordinate systemis obtainedfrom
someaveraging procedure.
It "spears thatabovesimple add-ononset-flow
mode,. in whichit is assumedthat the interaction
is weak and the slipstream is not affectedin the
interaction. i not alwaysadequateand an In-
proredmodelingis required.
One possibleImproved sod.lis to approximate the
propeller as an actuatordisc carryinga doublet
distribution of givenstrength(to be obtained
fromthe tise.averaged loadingof the propeller
blades).Dovn.stresm of the propeller a cylindri.
cal vortexshet. whichrepresents thevorticity
withinthe slipstream, trailsfrom the edgeof the
actuatordisc.Both the actuatordisc and the
trailing vortexsheetare paneled,the strengthof
the doubletdistribution on the wake vortexsheet
is determined from conditions similarto the ones
used In the partialrelaxation of conventional
wakes.In thisway at least som mutualinterac-
nlonof the slipstream and the flowaboutthe con.
figuration is accounted for.
5 40

0 r
EXPERIMENT.
P
PANELMETi-OD
o
•NLR
tion..Tis IillustratedinFig. 8.,wlich shows.-
thejift coefficient, isa fnction- ofangie,of
attack-foc a-sple wing-body configuration in,
r
N. AER ,, incopresible flow-Three results are presented:
the measured values, -the values, following from the
NIR panel mthod which employs the thick-wing,
CL THIKLIFTING
i
THICK "-SURFACE modeling end the.values from SLRAERO which employs,
the lifting-surface approximatton.'The 'lifting- -

0.8 WING -,' - surfacemethodgivesthe best correlation with

' 00- experimental data,
10 However, the latter method yields a less satis-
.factory
0.6 -
,
representation ot the chordise pressure-
ONSETOF BOUNDARY distribution.
LAYERSEPARATIONIN
-0.EXPERIMENT A next stepis to *pply,forthe liftingcomponents
0.4 of a configuration relativalyslmple formulas for
the development of the boundary layer on a-flat
plate employing the computed Inviscid velocity or
0.2 pressure distribution in a stripuisefashlon. This
will give a first estimate of the skin friction
and of theaboundary-layer displacement thickness.
Subsequently the displacement,thicknesscan be
used to model the effect of the boundary layeron
-10 -5 5 10 15 (deg) the inviscid flow and specifically on the lift,
The latter can be accomplished in either one of
-0.2 two ways (see Fig. 8.3). In the flrst one a new
wing surface Is obtained by adding the boundary.
layer displacement thickness to the solid wing
.-0.4 surface. This approach is not very practical
because it would require the definition and sub-
sequent discrstization of a new geomtry, which is
rather elaborate for a general threedimensionel
configuration, while it also requires a costly re-
computation of the AIC's. In the second, more
0 practical, approach an outflow velocity distribu.
tion vn is computed froe the displacement thick-
nose such that the actual surface transpires
enough fluid to cause the resulting Inviscid flow
Fig. 8.2 Correlation of computed and measured field to be displaced by the same amount as in the
Wlitcoefficients. viscous flow. Re-computing the pressure distribu.
tion from the solution with specified v yields an
improved estimate of the pressure distribution,
8.2 Viscous effecsa lift, etc. in viscous flow.
8.2.1. Liftings omoonents The most simpie way to
account for viscous effects, in en englneeri ng During the detail-aerodynamic design phase a more
fashion, Is to neglect the thickness of wings al- accurate procedure will be required. Now the pres.
together, i.e. consider wings merely as lifting sure distribution re-computed by the panel method
surfaces. In this ayproach use Is made of the can be used to re-calculate the boundary layer on
general experience that wing thickness effects the surface of the configuration, etc. Under
(which increase lift) are cancelled by viscous cruise conditions the flow will be attached. a
effects (which decrease lift through an effective weak Interaction may be assumed and the hie:archi-
de-cambring of the wing). This will yield a cal procedure followed, iterating between the p0-
reasonable total lift and spanwise lift distribu- tential flow method and the boundary-layer method,
willusually converge.

.. '-IPLACEMENT Ho .ver.for configurations typical for take-off

and landing conditions, which feature pressure
THICKNESS/ distributions with high gradients, a strong invis-
SOL!SURFAC dviscous flow coupling Is to be taken into ac-
count. Furthermore, for eg wing-flap and slat.
'NEW SURFACE WAKE wing configurations also the viscous ake modeling
needs to be considered in more detail. An impor-

a)SURFACE DISPLACEMENT (not to scale) tent it*a in any coupling of a boundary.layer

method with a panelmethod It that typically
the
NEW PANELING arbitrary-geometry capability is further developed
for panel mathoda then for boundary-layer methoda
- -- W ...... "
oreover.
..... boundary-layer calculations require a
" OUTFLOW~-, Nchstronger coupling between configuration sag-
O O n ets than one is used to in panel methods.

Oi SURFAC 8,2.2 Bodv.lik,

roooner. As far as accounting
WAKE for viscous effects on body-like components is
concerned it will be clear that in cases, such as
b) OUTFLOW FROM SURFACE NO wing.body
configurations. atripwise
thesimple
flat-plate type of approximation is not valid.
NEW PANELING Carrying out boundary-layer method calculations
for an isolated body at small incidence may be
Fig 8,3 Simulation of boundary-layer effects feasible employing a weak-interaction technique.

4
 - 5-41

However, athigherincidence-separatlon might paneled. i.e. the-panel method is applied to an

occur ano Also for the simple body In isolation open-ended body,
be Accounted for. In-& panel-method that employs the Dirichlet
Sb q-:0 bounarycondition the f'ctitious part oi coe body
hbstihe included-in the model, becauoe the
ethod applies to closed'bodies only.
-NOT-
CNEUMANN
LThe classical rigid.wake approximation of
-----
----- [-C straights trailing vortex lins(Fig. 3.8) is
CUT PANELING coupled components as wing-flap-tail~configura-
figurations (combataircraft and missilesat 14.-c,
>1). The rigid-wake approximation with a use.
Sb = PNLD specified near wake .(Fig. 3.9) will'improve the
- -* modling only if the vortes'linos p consi.) on
this part of tha wake are to a sufficient degree
DRCHET BASE
CAP Aligned with the streamlines. Apeasible partial
- - -HLE alleviation of this problem Is to fix the shapeof
the near wake and its (paneling bt to -telex-the
dult dis t ribution locatiLon of the vor tex
CLOSED BODY lines)on the near wake by imposingthe AC - 0
condition, Eq. (3.114).Thislattercondit~on Is
quadraticIn Is.so thatantIterative procedureis
Fig. 8.4 Mlodeling
separation
froma body-like required, whichhoweverdoesnot Involve a re-tom-
component putotionof the AIC's.see Eq. (4.15b). Becauseof
the weak non-liseaity it Is usuallynot necessa ry
to update the Jacobianin Eq. (4.18b) eithordur-
Withinthe framework of panel methodsstrongvia- Ing partialsate relaxation. Thejbng of the
cooseffects,specifically at the rearend of a neat-woke, stillto ho specified by the user,
bodylke component, can be accounted for in an mightbe obtainedfroe a methodthotsolvesthe
engineering fashionas Is shown in Fig. 8.4. non-linear problemIn ^n approximate framework. An
In a panelmethodemploying the Neumannboundary example of thisIs the methodwhichcomputes,
c.-Aition the body Is extended from Its base to within the framework of the 2D tim-depandent *sa-
InfisIty downstrea. At net too high Incidenc* It logy and employing a 2D second-order panel method.
may be assumed that the resulting source distribu- the roll-upof soreor less arbitrarily-strutred
tionon the fictitious part of the body will be vortex wakes (Ref. 36). In Fig.8.5aa typicalto
relatively sm-l1,Thisthen leadsto the modalin suit of thismethodIs presented, whichalso
whichthe fictitious part of the body Is omtted serves to demonstrate the complexity of the wake
altogether and the base of the body Is n of configurations with deflected flaps.

VO20T WA9lOA9tT"i
02 Z VOA2OT 0GWN PA(Y to-
001 PAIT4SPAN
RAP - VORSDA
02 Z
0 1
00 GOER

02
5
00 0

-020
0 PRESSURE
COEFFICIENT

00 z 04I 12
-. 2\ 4 X X TE. COS at E1

-04 L 001 __

00 S0 to 00 05 i0*o- y',

Fig Exmpl
8. ofresults of panel methods for configurati,.s with frem vortex
sheets; sppro.,mate frame, works,
a) time-dependent analogy.
b) aiender-body approximation
 5-42

SIn cases where the interaction of the wake 9.0 EXTENSIOWOFDOMAINOF APPLICABILITY
and the solid geometry is stronger, eg. separa-
tion from flap side edges, wing tips or for
,slender wings with leading-edge.vortex~sheets,tho 'The domain of applicability of.the'pael,
a-thod for linearized Potential flow,slaisi.ted to
two wake have
(3.11d)) boundary conditions
to be solved simultaneously.1hTe
( (3fllb)
oqs. and sub-critical
bility o~f the flow.
panel However
method approachoto
extensi n offlows
ti e with
cap&-
fully nonlinear 3D-wske relaxation-probleo-Isa regions In which nonlinear compressibility effects
to-igh problem. Here also methods formulated in an
cannot be neglected is possible.
approximate framework, as slender-body theory, are
used for preliminary studies oras preprocessor In one'approach the integralrepresentation for
thesolution of the Prandtl:Clauert equation. Eq.
for constructing the initialguess for~the method
for fully 3D flow. Fig. 8.5b presentsothe result (2.5S), includes the contribution due to a source
of such a non-linear second-order parel method distribution e n the flow field surrounding
object, i.e. the solution of Eq. (2 3 a) is nowthe
ex-
(Ref. 37), formulated-In the glender-body.approx
i
- pressed as
motion.
thin Sho n is-the
delta,wing solutia for
of unit'aspect the~flou'about
ratio-. tequenc* a
of incidences, Subsequently-such a solution ) ) + )
is 9(0o "vq(xo 9",(;0 + 9'e('o) (9.14)
used to construct an Initial guess
for the~sethod
for fully 3D flow, see Fig. 8.6 for typical
result.
* Mre results and details of a
the vortex where po and
and q are defined in Eqs. (2.5b andc)
sheet relaxution methods using (second-order)
panel methods are g iven in Ref. 38 . )
( o - ' vf ( [ ( . b

linear coopressibiity effects and o(x) the spa-

2ldeg (field-)source distribution. In the -field-
panel* method the spatial source distribution Is
A - 65 deg found by satisfying the full-potential squation
(X- 20deg Eq.(2.1a) at the points within V( ). It has been
shown in Ref. 40 that for the 2D (Irnsonic goall
orturbatton) case modeling of super-critical flow
with shock waves is possible. In Ref. 41 the 2D
fiele.pane.epproach was extended to tho full-
potential equation, Eq. (2.1a), using established
techniques of contemporary finite-volus. methods
for transonic flow,

Fig. 8 6 Solution of nonlinear panel method

VORSEPfor 3D flow about wings with (I*1
64 + 150 + 50 + 50 - 314 SURFACE PANELS
leading-edge vortex separation
0.2

YI -0.2.
ZX -0.4 GRID 40 BY 8
0.40.2 0 02040608101.2
.. ,. , -" VORTICES TRAIIG OFF -20.- TRANSOIC
FRONTVIEW TO DOWNSTREAM INFINITY
TYORPANNIC11e RASNC
'15 '-p PANEL "151
X1 Z HYDROPAN METHOD 0
PANEL
HULL 300 PANELS 10i Mr-THODI
I
WINGS' .1106 PANELS
(FREES .530 PANELS) .5;

Fig. 8 7 Exoaple of panelling of hydrodynaical

application (Ref. 39)
6.4 lcl4.
Panel mathods art also applied in hydro-
dynamics. For the flow ebout submerged or partly
suberged objects the offsct due to the free sur-
face say be substantial. At NL the NIR panel
method (Rf 5) has best extended to hydrodyneei-
Cal problems by including the frse surface (Roe.
39) On the paneled free surface, which is appro.
Yimated as a rigid surface, the linearized free-
surface boundary conditions are applied. From the
computed solution the wave resistance is deduced,
Fig 8 7 shows th.e paneling for the application to
a realistic complex keel configuration,
54
0 0.250,Ga.-14i
5J=I
1.0 !
Fig. 9,1 Application of field panel method to
&-cooponentairfoil section (Ref. 41)
Fig. 9.1 shows the result of the application of
this method to the flow about a 4-component air.
foil section at 14 deg incidence at XC.- 0.2 and
0.25 It is observed that, aS K. increases from
0 2 to 0.25, a *sall region of super-critical
flow, terminated by a shock, develops on the
highly loaded slat. This example indicates that
for configurations with separate compact regions
of non-ngligible nonlinear compressibility ef-
fects the panel method can be applied with suc.
reis, without sacrificing the capability of linear
 5-43 -

panelnethods'to
-treatrcomplexgeometries. n
However.
note,that the numberof fieldpanelsin. , Se
creases
very rapidlyas the'extantof the tran-
sonicflowregion(s)becomeslarger.

If the field-panel methodis to be applied

successfully to 3D configurations the computation.
alcosts for evaluating the influence integrals
willhave to be reducedconsiderably, by2vectori.
nation or preferably by loweringthe O(N ) opera-
tionalcount.AnotherpointworthnotingIs that
ideallythe regionswithnonlinear flowshould
haveto be detectedautomatically by the program U
In somekind of iterative procedure. _. s
Ref. 42 describes an application of the field- S :U.ffnz0:Cpf st
panelconceptto the compressible flowaboutdelta
wings with leading.edge.vorteo separation, using a Sw:(U .iuP).i=O; (U +uPJ.V =O
nonlinear vortex-lattice methodto simulatethe
linearpotential flow
Fig. 10.1 The inverse
problem
An alternative fo. the approachusinga
fieldsourcedistribution is the zonal(hybrid)
typeof approach. Here the full-potentialequation 10.1 Thickvfrn,
Eq. (2.1a)is solvedin the regions wherenonline- The problemcan be formulatedas follows
ar compressibilityeffectsare ncn-negligible and (seeFig. 10.1).A solution of the Prandtl.Clauort
the Pratdtl-Glauertequationelsewhere. The two equation(2 3a) is to be foundsubjectto the con-
zonesare couplediteratively throughthe boundary ditionsthat the surfaceIs a streamsurface,Eq.
conditionson the interface betweenthe zones (2 4e):
At Boeing(e.E Ref.43) the PAINAIR code is * p).i - 0 (10.1.)
beingextendedto transonic flowby superimposing .
onto the arbitrary
surftca-paneledconfiguration a
spatial r.ctangular
grid.Thu volumeintegrals on for x on sb and the condition
that
thisuniformgrid.wnichis not body-conforming.
are evaluatedusingPastFourier Transforms C (2t) - f(s.t) (l0.1b)
Someotherdevelopents are described by Sinclair
(Ref 44) who reportson the developmentof a o
field-panelmethodfor three-dimensionalronfigu- alsolor ' n sb' FromEq (2.1c)it followsthat
rationswithgeneralgeometric capability, thenu. whichis now tangential
to the surface
satisfies:
Otherinvestigators (Ref.28) suggestthat there 1
are prospectsthat the nsnlin.arcompressibleflow -2 - *of(,.t)i?/(
2.•..L "l)
problemcan be formulated in termsof surfacein. lul /1]. I 2
torralsonly.thoughthe latterhave to be re.eva- (10 Ic)
iuuied in an iterativa procedure
whereu - + Ov. -q. (10 Ib) is to
be supple.
mentedby son& additional conditions suchas that
the surfaceis closed;the planformIs given,or
the positionof the trailingedgeand the spanwise
distribution of the chordlength;or someother
10 0 INVEtSEPIOBLEM conditions contraining the geometry, The inverse
problen,whichcan againbe expressed in termsof
In the precedingchaptersthe boundarycon. singularity distributions, is a nonlinear problem
ditionsreferredto simulating the flowabouta and resembles the wake relaxation problem.
givengeometry.i e concerned the so-called aI- However.the "in difference is thatnow a hon.
ysisproblem Subsequently the computedsurface intersecting closedsurfaceis to be found,rather
pressuredistribution was integrated to yieldthe thana single*.surface vortexsheet The general
forcesand momentson the configurationin the three-dimensional invers problemis a complex
designproblemthe pressuredistribution, and problemwith suchratherdifficult aspectsas that
therewith the forcesand momants,are specified the prescribedsurfare pressuredistribution can
and the geometryof the configuration Is the not he arbitrary, i.e. it shouldbe such thatthe
nought for solution Sometimes not the entirego- resulting flowsatisfies A- -oology rules
osetryis unknown,onlysomepart,eg. the body (stagnation and separation ...- , also in connrc-
goetry is givenbut the singgeometryis un. tionwith the sign of m in Eq. (l0.lc). Moreover.
knosw,the geometryis giveneverywhere exceptfor the resulting goestry shouldbe closedand should
some part on the uppersurfaceof the wing.the not intersectitselfotherthanat the trailing
geometryof the wingbox is fixedwhilethe nose edge Apartfromapects of uniqueness, ia
and the trailing-edge regionare to be modified, whetheror not an non-intersectirg closedsurface
ett can be obtained. the resulting geometryshould
also be acceptable froma structural pointof view
in the foIlowing somemethod.used in the design (vingthickness, trailing-edge angle.leading-edgo
of the geomotryof aircraftconfigurations are radius.etc
discussed. Designmethods basedon someoptimia-
tien procedure In whichpurelyan analysL method In "at casesthe designproblemhas beensformu.
is used as driverto find for exaple feasible lted as a conatrainedoptimizationproblemin
searchdirectiona are not considaredThe discus- whichthe mw geometry is obtainedby minimizing
a
sIon that is presented here is far from complete. functionallike
it Is meantAs a firstintroduction Intothe sub-
jectof the inverse(panel) methods P- l ( t- 2,* -. - 2
f (bpW - CP(x)) gin - x I IdS (10 2)
5-44
supplenented b certainconstraints . In Eq.
(10.2)C and x are the "target' pressuredistri-
buttonAd the -target- geometryfromwhichthe
geometryshouldnotvdeviate too uch,whilew and
V are weighting functions, Solvingthe problemin
this way Is generally more successful thansolving
simultaneously the two coupled nonlinearintegral
equations resulting from imposing Eqs. (lO.la and
c) by a Newton-like iteration procedure,
Inversepanelmethodshavebeen developedfor two.
dimensionalflow(e.g.Ref.45) whilealesoin
PANAIRthe tangentialvelocitydistribution
can be
specifiedas boundarycondition.
Thereare severalapproaches to solvethe inverse
problem.
One possibility is the following:
(i) Computefrom the specified surfacepressure
distributiongivenon the present(initial)
iterateof the geometrythe velocitypoten-
tial (a non-trivial taskin 3D);
(ii) Solvethe Dirichlet boundaryvalueproblem;
(iLL)Computethe velocitycomponent normalto the
surface;
(iv) Computethe geometrycorrection, takingall
kindsof constraints intoaccount;
(v) Determina the next iterate of the geometry.
Thesestepsare repeated untilthe geometry
correctionIs sufficientlysmall.In thisapproach
the condition at each
on the pressureis satisfied
step.the stresm-surfaceconditfonis iteratedon.
At NIR (Roef46) a slightlydifferent approachis
followedwhichcan be sketchedas follows.
(i) Definethe targetpressuredistribution, the
targetand the initialgeometry&s well as
the weightfactors;
(if) Determine the pressuredistribution on the
present(initial) Iterateof the geometry,
employingthe NIX panelmethod(thick
wings);
(ii) Determine the differencebetweenthe target
pressuredistribution And the computedpres.
suredistribution;
(iv) Solvethe inverselifting surfaceproblem,a
linearproblem(seesection10.3),to find
the correctionon thegeometry;
v) DOetermine the next iterateof the geometry.
The iteas(i)-(v) are revisited untilin step
(lit)the computedpressure distributionis suffi-
cientlyCloseto the targetpressuredistribution.
So. In this approachthe stream-surfacecondition
is satisfied at each atop,whilethe pressuredis.
tribution Is iterated on.
10 2 Perur ton.ali. mrhod
The methoddeveloped at McDonnell(MCAERO)
has the possibilityto computefor a givenbase.
linegeometrynot only the solution but also the
derivativeof the solutionwithrespectto geomet-
ric erturbations This meansthat if *0- 1(X )
is the velocitypotential at somepointx on b
I-l(1NG. also the threemetrices IJb.m
!!,. j-(l
Jp()N (10 e)
are computed, all for the solutionshoutthe base-
line configurationThe solutionfor a perturbed
geometry is thenobtainedby linearccarapolation. fromwhich,for givengeometryof Sr the doublet
I.
NG aing
6(ni) ( - xj)" (10 3b) pressionfor the linearpressurecoefficient.
j(i dcj
for i-()NU, vere, 1 . 1-1(1)N denotestheloce-,
tionof pointawonthe now.geoetry.,Althouh,this
requiresthe, computationof threeadditional,ma-
trices,solutionsfor (partly) perturbed aircraft
configurations are readilyobtained(no - trlx
equationto be solved),allowing extensivestudies
of for exampledifferent,wing thickness,andor
camber-distributions,flap~settings, etc.Also the,
effects of aircraftstructural flexibility can be
investigated rapidly.However.to what orderof
accuracythe stream-surface condition is satisfied
on the perturbed configurationsis not so clear.
The aboveperturbation analysishas been extended
to the designproblem,In thiscase the derivative
of the pressurecoefficient at ;i with respectto
all perturbationshas to be determined (likein
Eq. (4.19b)).e.g.
aC. NS C aO (I
k j (1.a)
k
where*k" k-l(i)NSare the *'e withinthe 'stn-
cil" (domainof dependence)of C at a givenpoint
on the base-linegeometry.Now t~s pressurecoaf.
ficienton a perturbedgeometrybecomes
C )
C (xi.Yi'Zi+4z) (x) + E- C
pi
(10.4b)
for i-l(1)NU. The perturbation Az is determined
froma least-squares minlization of the differ-
eocesbetweenthe targetpressuredistribution and
" )Zi e E )
Cp(X + given In (10.b).
With the 4zi, 1-1(1)h11,fourdthe pressurecoeffi.
cientcan be updatedusinglq. (10.4b), etc. This
procedure appearsto work ratherwell for vingsas
wellas for wing-body corflgurations. surprisingly
also in case the dovistions of the finalgeometry
from the base-line geometryisno longersmall.
Constraintsmostlyusedare thatthe trailingedge
is fixedin spaceand perturbations are allowedin
verticaldirection only.whileagainit is not
clearto whatorderof accuracythe stream-surface
condition is satisfied on the designed configura.
tion
10 3 Liftin,surfaces
As alreadymentioned. it is a possibilityto
considerthe inverseproblemin the framework of
the lifting-surface
apvroximation. It followsfrom
Eq (2 6f). see alao Fig.2.3. thatacrossthe
lifting-surface(assumingincompressibleflow)
r _ .r- ) _ 4r
(10 5e)
with Art denotinga pointon the upper(+) and
lover(-) side of the sing referencesurfaceSr.
From the expressionfor the linearpressurecoat-
ficient,Eq (2.3c),it followsthenfrom the di.
in pressureacrossthe liftingsurface:
r '
- •l 2 Ar/u
-0 (A - . u/u o
p p p /U.
- 2 1 O(s
(10 5b)
,
distribution P on Se can be deteined,. From the
sxigu of the pressureon the upperand lover
reference surface one obtains from the ex.
the
followingintegral equationfor the sourcedistri-

bution-on the given wing reference surface:
qISrf o S
2(C(~r+) + C(;r)) (10.Sc)
This is an integralequationresembling a Fredholm
integral equationof the firstkind and choosinga
stablenumerical schemeto expressq and its de-
rivatives at the panel expansion pointIn termsof
a set of sourceparameters to be solvedfor is a
non-trivial matter.In orderto automatically sot-
isfythe condition thatthe totalsourcestrength
mustbe zero.it Is advantageous to definethe
sourcedistribution in termsof the gradientof a
source-doublet (doublet with its axis tangential
to the surface)$istribution.
Once the sourcedistribution and the doubletdis-
tribution on the wing reference surfacehavebeen
determined the wing-thickness distribution follows
from Eq. (3.10b). againfor givenwingreference
surface.Finallythe wing.camber surfacedistribu-
tion followsfromEq. (3.10d).
In abovesketchof the Inverselifting.surface
problemwe justconsidered the liftingsurface
with unknownthickness distributionand leftout
the presenceof any othercomponents of the con-
figuration.Addingthesefixedgeometrycomponents
in the formulationprovidesno realdifficulty
otherthan thatnow pert of the "atrix.equation to
be solvedstem fromthe inverselifting.surface
integralequation. Eq. (1O.Sc). ratherthan from
the directlifting-surface integral
equation. Eq.
(3.10d)
The lifting.surfacformulationcan alsobe Used
in a *partialdesign-option.In such an optionan
incrementalcaber is definedby for example al-
lowingthe MAairfoilsectionsin a segmentto ro-
teteabouta givenaxisby a yet unknownangleCJ
J-l(l)HA.but stillImposingthe boundarycondi-
tionon the fixedwing referencesurface.This im-
pliesthatthereere MA parametore in the right-
hand sideof the lifting.surface
integralequa.
tion.Eq. (3.10d).or Itsdiscretized form Eq
(4.14).This leadsto MA basissolutions. i.e
NA
S - CS for i-lIl)MU (10 6)
J Cj"l
wher*S is the solutionfor the singularity pa-
ra-tere for whichthe J-thairfoilsectionis set
at a unit incresental Incidencewhileall the
otherC Is are set equalto zero.The MA degrees
of fre." can for instance be used to prescribe
the sparoiseliftdistribution, this in presence
of the fuselageand otherfixed-geoetry part&of
the configuration
A further exampleof utilizingthe linearized
boundary conditionsis to have control-surface do.
flections. and possiblyalso engine-inlet flowpa-
radetersor propeller-disc loadparameters, s
degreesof fredoo to accomplish trimed-flight
conditions
11 0 CONCLUDING
Ri266
- Panel metlod are important aerodynamic tools
with powerful and flexible modeling capabilli-
ties.whichare eed heavilyin aircraftdesign
projectsThe application of the panelmethodis
-5-45
shifting from the detailed aerodynamic design
phases to the preliminary design phases. [
The extension of panel, methods into the tran.
sonicflow regimeand the improvedhandlingof
wakesof closely-coupled components willhave a
directimplication on the extension of the do-
main of applicability of the panelmethod.
- Thereexistpossibilities for improvingthe com-
putationalefficiency of the panelmethodby:
vectorizationand or parallelization
on
supercomputers
.reductionof operational countfor the
evaluationof influence integrals
new formulationsand improvednumerics
.better,more robust(andfaster)iterative
proceduresfor solvinglarge,non-sparse
systemsof equations whichwill leadto a
furtherutilization of panelmethods.
- Pr.-and post-processing,
are an essential
part
of the Opansl-method
enviroment.
- At all timesduringthe applicationof panel
methodsit shouldbe realizedthatpanelmethods
are modelingthe r-.L flowundera greatnumber
of asa._ptions.
12.0 REFERECES
1. Hess.J.L..Smith.A H.O..Calculation of
Non-Lifting Potential flowaboutArbitrary
Three-dimensional bodiese,Douglas Aircraft
Report Mo. E.S. 6062? (1962), J. of Ship
Ro. f, Mo. 2. pp. 22.44(1964)
2 Rubbert. P.C.,Searls.C.R.:A General
Three-dimensional
PotentialPlow Method
Appliedto V/STOLAerodynamics.SAE Paper
66004(1968).
3 Prager.U.. Die Druckverteilung
an Kirperin
miner PotentlelatrZsung
Physik.Zeitschr.,
pp. 865-869(1928).
4 Martensen,E.: We erechnungder Druckver-
teilungan dickenCitterprofilen
sit Hilfe
von Fredholmachan
Integralgleichungen
zvei-
tar Art,Mitt.Max-Planck-Inst.
Stromuogs
PorschungNo 23 (1959).
5 Labrujere.Th. E.. Loeve.U.. Slooff.J V
An ApproximateMethodfor the Calculationof
the Pressre Distributionon Ving-bodyCo.
binations.ACARDCP-71(1970)
6 Kraus.W Des HMB.UFEUnterschallPanelver-
fahren ReportMiB-UPE633-70(1970)
I Hunt.B. Semple.U G. The 1AC(iAD)Program
to Solvethe 3-D LiftingSubsonicNeumann
Problemusingthe Plane PanelMethod Report
ARC97 BAC(MAD)(1976)
S ,odward, P A.. An Improved Method for the
Aerodynamic Analysisof Wing-Body.Tail Con.
figurations in Subsonicor Supersonic Plow
NASACt-2228 (1973).
9 Hoeoimakers. H.5. A PanelMethodfor the
Determination of the Aerodynamic Character-
istics of CosplexConfigurations in Linear.
ied Subsonic or Supersonic Plow RepoctNIX
TR 80124(1980)
I 5-46
HgherOrderPanelM-hod for Predicting tc Triplet - A NewAerodynamic Panel Siogne.
Subsonicor Supersonic
LinearPotential isritywithDirectional Properties. AIMA
FlowsaboutArbitraryConfiguration .AIAA Journal,Vol. 18, No. 2. pp. 138-14i(1980).
paper81-1255(1981).
27. Sytsma,H.A.,*Hewitt,B.L . Rubbert,P E.: A
11 Hess.J.L.:A Higher-Order~ftoel
Methodfor comparisonof Panelmethodsfor Subsonic
Three-dimennional
Potential
Plow.ReportMDC Flo- Computation.
J8519(1979). ACARDograph No. 241
(1979).
12. Roberts,
A..*Rundle,K.: Computationof In. 2. Oskam.
B., Asymptotic
Convergence
of Higher.
compressibleFlowaboutBodiesIod Thick OrderAccuratePanelMethods.J. of Air.
Wingsusingthe Splice-ModeSystem.BAC(CAD) craft,Vol.23, Ho.2,pp. 126-130(1986).
Rep.Asrm Ma 19 (1972).
13. 29. Hunt,B.. Hewitt.B.L.;The Indirect
Bristow, D.R.: Development of Panel Methods ury-Integral Formulation for Elliptic,Bound.
Hy.
for Subsonic Analysis sod Design. NASACR perbolic and Non-Linear
3234 (1980). Sea also NASACR-3713 (1983). FluidPlows.Ch. 8
of 'Development in Boundary Element Moth.
ods'. Vol. 4, Elsevier Applied Science
14. Lltstedt, P.: A Three.Dimensional Higher. Publishers (1086).
Order Panel Method for Subsonic Flow Pro.
blems- Description and Applications. SAAB. 30. Hooijuakers, H.WM.: Aspects of Second.and
SCANIARep. L-.1~ RIGO (1984). Third-Order Panel Methods Demonstrated for
the Two-dimensional Flat Plate Problem. NLR
15. Foranier. L.: HiSlS- A Higher-Order Sub. M 81074 U (1981).
sonic/SupersonicSingularityMethodfor Cal.
culatingLinearized PotentialFlow.AIM 31. Margeson,
R.J.- Kjelgaard,
S.O..Sellers
Paper84.1646(1984) 111.W.L..MorrisJr.*Chi.E.K.,Walkley.
16 Mashew. B.: Prediction of Subsonic K.B..Shields.Eli.:SubsonicPanelMethods.
Aeco. A Comparison
of SeveralProduction
Codes.
dynamicCharacteristics. A Casefor Low- AIM Paper85-0280(1985).
OrderPanelMethods Journalof Aircraft,
Vol 19. No. 2. pp 157-163(1982). 32 Foroasior, L., DiEspiney,
P . Prediction de.
17 Youngren.
8.8 . Bouchard, E E , Coopersaith, Dirive.,do Stabilit; pour lee Missilesavon
I!'Code do Singularites81115s.LA Rech.
R.M..Miranda.L R : Comparison of Panel Aerosp.- No. 1989-4.pp. 33-47(1989).
MethodFormulationssod IesInfluence on the
Development
Of QUADPAN,An AdvancedLow- 33 SlOoff.J U. Requirements
OrderMethod.AIM Paper83-1827(1983) and Developments
Shapinga NestGeneration of IntegralMoth-
18 L;, T H.. Morcholano. Oda. PaperIMA Coof.on Hum.Meth.Aaron
Y , Ryan.J Tech. Fl. Dyn.,Reading(1981).NIX1
niquesNuairiqusNouvelles NP 81007U.
danslIa Moth.
odes do Singularitis
pour I-Applicationi 34 Schippors,
dos Configuration H.: On the Evaluationof Aerody.
Tri-Dimenaionelee Coin. oasisInfluence Coefficients.
planes,Paper6, AGARD.CP.412 In 'Panel
(1086). Methodsin FluidMechanicswithEmphasison
19 Boppe,C.., Stern.M.: Simulated Aorodyoamice. ed. J. Ballmannat aI , Notes
Plowsfor on NumericalFluidMechanics.Vol. 21.
Aircraftwith Nacelles, Pylonsand Wingieta ViewsgVerlag.pp. 210.219(l9B7)
AIM Paper80.130(1980) See alsoNASA CR.
3242 (1980)and NASA CR-4066(1987) 35 Clark,R W , Valaraco,
U 0 SubsonicCalcu.
20 Stager.J L.. Technical
Evaluation lotionof Propeller/Vinp
Interference
AIM
Report Paper90-0031(1990)
ACANDFDP Specialists,
Meetingon 'Aplis..
tionof MashGenerationto Complax3.D Con. 36 Hosijmahkrs.
fSurationse ACARD-AR-268 H W 8 An Approximoto Method
(1991). for ComputingInviscidVortexWiakeroll-up.
21 Kellogg.0 D Foundations
of Potential NRT 19U(95
Theory,Dover(1954) )1 Hosijoakers,H 11.M.An ApproximateMethod
22 Wlard,
C 4 Linearized far Computingthe Flow aboutSlenderConfig.
Theoryof Steady usttons withVsrtoxFlow Separatison.
HIgh-lpeedPlow,Cambridge
UniversityPress MIR TB 86011U (1916).
(1915)
21 Mangler,K U , imith,J H a Behaviour 98 Hoaijaaksre.
N U N. Computational
Aerody.
of namicsof OcderedVortex Flow 81IXTB 88088
thc vortonSheetat the TrailingEdgeof a
U (1989)
LiftingWing RAE TB 69049(1969)
24 James.i H On the Remarkable 39 van Book.C M. Pier.,U.J . Slooff.J U
Accuracyof Bondary Integral Methodfor the Computation
ti,.VortexLatticeDisccetization
in Thin of
0Pot.ntal Flowabout Ship Coof igurations
VinE Theory DouglasReportDAC61211 with Lift and FreeSurfaceEffects NIXR
(1969) TB
85142 U (1985)
25 Hess,J L Consistent 4sloeityand Potan. 40 Piers,U J , Slooff. J U Calculation of
tial Expansions
for HigherOrderSurface TransonicFloeby Meansof a Shock-Capturing
SingularityMethods ReportHOC J691L FieldPanelMethod AIM Paper79-1459
(1975) (1979)
 5-47

41. Oska, B.: Transonic

PanelMethodfor tta 44. Sinclair.
P M.: A Three-Dimensional
Field.
EquationAppliedto Multi-
Full Potential Integral of Tran-
Methodfor the Calculation
component AIA Journal,Vol. 23,
Airfoils. sonicFlowon ComplexConfigurations
-
(1985).
No 9, pp. 1327-1334 Results.Aaron.J.
Theoryand Preliminary
S 42. Kandil, O.A., Yates. E.C.: Transonic Vortex neuy19,p
June/July 1988.pp 2-2.
235-241.
Flowpast Deltawings:Integrals Equation 45. LabruJire, Th.E.:MAD, a Systemfor Computer
Approach AIAAJournal.Vol. 24, No. 11, AidedAnalysisand Designof Multi-Element
pp. 1729-1736
(1986). Airfoils. MIR TR 83136L (1983).

43. Ericksson,L.L.,Strande,S.M.:A Theoreti- 46 Brandsa, F.J.,Fray.J.H.J.:A Systemfor

cal Basisfor Extending
Surface-Paneling TransonicWing DesignwithCeoetric Con-
Methodsto Transonicflow AIAAJournal, straintsBasedon an InverseMethod.ACARD-
Vol.23. No. 12 (1985).
pp. 1860-1867.
See CP.463,Paper7 (1989).See also NL TP
alsoAIA Paper87-0034(1987). 89179.
 6-1

HIGH ANGLE OF ATTACK - AERODYNAMICS

JohnE Lamar
NASA-Langley Research
Center
VA. 23665-5225,
Hampton, USA

SUMMARY CLL longitudinal lift coefficient.

(OL/Ox)/qb
CLo lift coefficient at a - 0*
Theability to predict high angle-of.attack. nonlinear, aerody- CL. lift coefficient curve slope
natnic characteristicsof flight vehicles.including aircraft, has C, rolling momentcoefficient,
made sigificant progress in the last 25 years.usinga variety rolling momciqS
of computat-,nal tools andinsightful analysesThe key tech- 1 damping-in-roll parameter,
nologica, elementwhich hasmadetheseanalyses possible is OC1/8(pb/2U), perradian
the ability to accountfor the influence of the shedvortical C, rolling momentdueto sideslip,
flow, prevalentInthis angle-of-attack range,on geometrtes perdeg
of interest,Using selectedanalysis techniques, applications C pitching momentcoefficient.
havealsobeenmadeto wing designinorder to improve pitching moment/qS
their high-speed maneuverperformance. Theseinclude a C saled nonlinear pontio of
complete wing obtlained bymodifying the entire cambered pitching momentcoefficient,
wing. anda wing whosemodiflcation werefocusedon the C,,/(Asinocoso)
leading-and trailing-edge flap regions. CN normal forcecoefficient.
normal fore/qS
Various techniques. associated with different levels of C. scaled nonoal forcecoefficient.
accuracy.txist to modelthis vortical flow influence Te CN/(Asin aceo)
onesincluded inthis papercover: suction-ana!ogy with Ci. scaled nonlnar pottion of normal
forcecoefficient, Cp /(Asin on o)
extensions,free-vortex-fllaments. free-votex-shet modeling,
and EulerandNavier-Stokes solutions Associatedrelevant C. yawing moment coefficient.
featuresof vortices arealsoaddressed, including; thewing yawing moment/qS6
andflow conditions which cause vortex fornation. andhow C" yawing momentdueto sideslip.
the vortexstrengthvarieswith angleof attackandwing per deg
sweep CP pressure coefficiet.(p - Pgs)/q
C$ leading-edge suction forcecoefficient.
2
Onc: this nonlinearvortical flow is present,the stability of sucton-forceNS; (1/2)Kv.i asn o
the aircraft canchangerapidly with increases tn angleof at. C leading-edge thrustcoefficient.
tack. These changes needto be known earlyin thedesign thauWqS
process sincethe forces/moments being genrated canbe C. sectionnormal force coefficient
be)ond the ability of conventional controls to handlethem. CR sectionprofile nosedragcoefficient
Dipending on whetherthe flow is still organired.engineer- c'€ sectionsuction force/q
tog methodsmaybe ableto estimatethe aerodynamic of- c, sectionthrust coefficient
fecls In general,whenthe flow beco disorganized or c chord
asymmetrical andtimedependent, the bestengineering tech. I referencechord
niqos areexpenmental. Furthermnoe, aircraft controllabil- cha-ateristic lengthin augnened
ity may needto befoundIonovel aefodynamic devicesor vortex fctor
cngine-thrusl vectoriog. This is especially true at anglesof cO chordat imgmidspan
attackbeyondwhich the onsetof large-scale vortexbsrsting ACt lift contribution from augmented
occurs overtheaircraft, Workin this areais highlighted vortex floW
aC, lifting pressure coefficient. CP.1-C,,5
AC,., changein uppersurfacepressure
coefficient from a - 0'
LIST OF"SYMBOLS Ax distancealongtip chordtoccnmroid

A aspectratio of wing of sidk-edgevortex lift

a fractional chordlocationwherethe dF, differential oige-soction-force
unit edge vector
chord loadingchangesfrom constant P forcevector
valhe to linear varytng valuetoward P fotceerto n
zero at traihnl edge 9 normal accelertion
& aspan Ix. Iz momentsof innia about
the X
andJZ body axes. respctiiely
CA axial forcecoefficient. axial force/qS K S)hv simlanty i
parameturs tan /etan(,
CD dragcoefficient. drag/qS also.thousands
of fret alttude, and
CL lift coefficient. liftyqS
6-2

unsteadiness
parameterdefinedby. Subscipts.

Kp potentiallift factor a attainable

Kovta Ieding-edge-vortex-lift factor 4n avetage
K side-edge-vortex-lift fddctor BD -bieditdowi -
Rd,,. nugmenited-vottex-tift factor c erossfiow
k reducedfrequency; flc0/2V ep centerof pressure
LID lift-to-drag ratio d design
dittance along leading edge fromapex(see dyn dynamic
fig. 24); also,inboarddistanceto vortex I designvarable index
core fromlendingedge.inches(seefig. 41) LE, le leadingedge
MAM.n free streamMaclhnumber I lower tnrface
MN component of Machnumber 2 normal
2 to1 2 utx maximum
wing LE. McosA( + sin cta t& A) / N normsal
2 2
M (Akf -1)/ cOtA onset associated with at at which significant
p staticpressure: alto, roll rate.rudiec vortexsheddingbeings
q freesteam dymnic presunre p potentialflow contribution
fi. Oh velocity comnpooent in indexnotation r root;alto residual
R. Reynolds number a separation
r ttreamwise distanicefrom leadingedgeto se tide edge
vorte acien point, identified with the t tip: alsotheoretical
rotatedsnctionforce;alto leading-edge TE, Ic trailing edge
radiannormalito theedge lot total
S wing referencearea:also, leading-edge u uppersurface
suction 0 vortex
T leading-edge thrust Oine vcu
f time: thickness Vie vortexflow contribution from the leading
U,V free streamvelocity edge
V. vertical velocity seeC vonex flow contribution fromthe sideedge
n'v perturbation backwash and sidewasis. to wing
respectively zz, Ytj zu secondpartialderivative with respectto
tvwi sum,of induceddownuash andUn xyz reipectively
atan-Irad 0 vaue at C1, 0
X, Y,Z localbodyaxess)stem(see fig 37) 1 first orderexpansiron in perturbation
Xf, Y1,Z1 smienflap coordinate axescenteredat quantities
t11V apexOfthe nlap(see fig. 55) 2 secondorderespansionin perturbation
X sectorof designvariables quantities
z streandosedistancefroesihe centroidof on freestreami
the areagiving augmented vontes lift to iime derioative
the referencepoiot
u/c fractionaldistancealongthe localchord GreelkSymbata
of thecalledout surface
x/c, fractional distancealongihe rootchord a anglteof attack.deg
from the actualor theoireiic4.i apen act_ angleof attackat which CL~, occurs.deg
2/c, fractionaldistancefromlocal leadingedge ad wimgincidensce on fuselage.dog
in termsof chsord aty - 0. am angleof asnack nortmalto wing LE,.
ru(l) s-coordit of vonenbreakdown tdu-'tnano/eosA). deg
2
4./c, fractionaldistuacealong the toodcbord 0 angleof sideslip, deg,also.(1 - A1 )1/2
to the centerof pressure for thenoot, r circulation or. esquivalent circulation
liear portmi of tisenortmalforce associateduih leading-edge suction
t,/(b/2) fraction of wingisentispan [' sealedcirculation dueto LE nonescore.
n/a fraction of local senruspari ['/buhia )
Y., z sealedl lateralandtenitcal locationsof distributed biouvnd vorticit) ata point
vortex core.respecively, distributed trailing vonticttyat a point
- ttv/(f/2).,4/(b/2) 6A. Or atlerondeflectionangle.posrtis trailing edge
I critical distanceto vortexcoreabuse 6. do. n. deg
uppersurfac. Inches.also, vtnical dLE soitex fiap deflection.poasitive leadingedge
distanceto called out iurcdonde
a/c wing camberelevationover total chord do n.de
 6-3

6L, leading-edge flap streamwise deflection, wing configurations: as usedprimarily in thegeneral-

positive LE down (inboard/outboard), deg aviationisport o 'transportindustries,respectively. the last
rudder deflection. deg two segments are treatedasone.For configurations that
6
brE trailing-edge flap strearnwise
deflection, aredelta-like with higher valuesof leading-edge sweep
positive TE down (inboard/outboard), deg andrelatively sharpleading-edges, the low-a rangemay
69 tip rake angle,deg be extremely small leaving only thelatter threeseg-eita
wing apexhalf angle,deg to be of consequence. In addition to establishing whicha
C surfacevorticiy vector segments arespecifically involved, the configuration also
17 s1/b determines whether the separated flow, which forms in
A leading-edge sweepangle,dug themoderate asrange,will ever develop into a significant.
A wing taperratio, ct/c,; also.2ndcoefficient vortical-flow structureor just becomewake-likeat the
of viscosity higher valuesof a
t
A Macthcone half angle,i t (l/M), deg:
also. Ist coefficient of viscosity Though the emphasis of this paperis high a. the flow
p density of fluid aroundconfigurations is the moderateandhigher a ranges
0. perturbation velocity potential will also be considered. This is done,in largepart,because
fl trailing edgesweepangle,deg: also. someof the sameanalytical to s usefulat high a have
circular frequency application at moderate a. Th. higher a rangeis most
W oscillation frequency,cyclesec frequently called thepost-stall rangeand it is of increasing
research interestin orderto respondto two aeronautical
Abbreviations: community need. The first is to preventunrecoverable spins
from developing on aircraft. andthe secondis to enhance
ADS Automated DesignSynthesis theoperational effectiveness of fighter aircraft, asdepicted
CFL3D A thin layer Navler-Stokescode in the joint US.A.-Oerman X-31 research project reported
FLO57GWB An Eulerequation codefor byDeMeis (ref. I). Experimenal procedures or techniques.
generalized wing.bodies which amalsoclassedasengineering methods,are currently
FVS Free-Vortex-Shect the bestmeansof obtaining the aircraft characteristies in the
LE. TE LeadingEdge.Trailing Edge higher a rangedueto the unorganized or asymmemcal and
LEVF Leading.Edge VortexFlap unsteadymructure of theflowfield not lending itself well to
NF Normal Force tathemotical modeling. With respectto the low-a range.
QVLM Quasi-Vortex Lattice Method engineenugmethods fc. use in the analysisanddesignof
SA Suction Analogy asreraftarecoveredby the other papersin this AGARD
SE SideEdge specialcourse(ref. 2).
2-D. 3-D Two-dimensional. three-dimensional
TEAM Three-dimentional Euler/Navier-Stokes This paperis divided Into chapterswhich address: the
Aerodynamic Method prediction of vortical, separated flow, stability andcontrol
TLNS Thin Layer Naviet-Stokes in the high-c range,and post-stall.flight characteistics.
VL VortexLift Thework presmed hereis mostly focusedon engineenng
VLM-SA Votex Lattice Method coupled with methods for predicting the aroyiarmie forces and rionsents.
Suction Analogy which dealswith the analysisaspectof this course,however.
VORCAM VORtex lift of CAMbered ings som of the maenal addresses the desig aspectof the
course Thethrut of this paperis on fighter configuttions.

The interested readeris referredto the publishedresultsof

INTRODUCTION AGARD sponsored lecturesand specialists meetingsover
the years,in particular in 1982(ref. 3) and 1983(ref. 4),
Sincethis paperfocuseson engineering methods usedfor for additional details andsupplementary infonmationon high
highangle-of-attack (a) arodynamucs, it as important to angle-of-attack aerodynamics
distinguish. first of all. exactly whatis meantbyhigh a.
Todo this. the a rangefrom 0* to 90 will bedivided
into four segments, the bound% of whicharedetermined
bythe dominantflow present,as shown in figure I These PREDICTION OF
a segments are low. whereattachedflow dominates. VORTICAL-SEPARATED FLOW
moderate, wherethere is a combhnation of attachedand
separated or voeical flow present,high, where separated This chaptercontains a review of high-a vortical flows, then
or von al flow dominates, andhigher, wherethe flow presents analytical methods for estimating the acrodynamac
becomeslss wellstractureddueto vortex breakdown effects of this flowfield - along with representative compaf-
(bursting) or massIV,Aall Thebeginning andending a's isons. andendswith somedsign opportunilies
for a par iclar segmentarcdependent on the Mach number
andthe aircraft gonmety which generates
the neighhoring
flow-field Forconventonal round-edgedunuwcptor swept
6-4
VORTICAL FLOW REVIEW
It is important to have a clear understanding of how vortical
flows are manifested in aeronautical applications.,This
section reviews some of the relevant background the reader
may need. It is organized into three parts: the first discusses
the pertinent local conditions necessary for vortical flow
onset and formation; the second examines those factors
affecting vortex growth; and the third does the same for
vortex diminishment.
Vortex Onet and Formation
Vorticily generation, which is simulated in inviscid flow
solutions through the imposition of the TE Kutta conchton,
is due in fact to the action of viscosity at the F. In addition.
vorticity is introduced into an othrwi e invslid flow due
to either the action of fluid viscosity along a solid boundary
or behind a curve shock (see e g. Anderson, ref. S). with
the focus of this paper being on the former. There the
vonicity is contained within an attached-flow boundary layer
and may lead to no other aerodynamic consequence than
viscous airfoil. or wing-drig. If the airfoil boundary layer
separatesnear the leading edge and then reattaches to form
a recircutlation region, this is called a bubble separation,
On a swept-wing, a bubble separatirn often leada to the
formtion of a coherent, leading-edge vortex-system, due
to the falling pressuresfrom toot-to-tip associated slt,
voticity entrainmem and increased axial flow. The bubble
vorticilty is now confined withir a small region called the
core. which grows in size and vortex strength from apex
to wing lip Core growth comes about due to the addition
of shedvortacity.associated with the flow sansf, .g the
Kutta conditon - a viscous sornteul - at the lesdIng edge.
being introduced into the vonex system along a helical path
(Sketches associated with these descripions are given in
figure 2.) This general desenpiron allows for vortex ontr
and formation to occur at a small a. but the exact manner
in which it happens Is dependent on the wing camber.
thickness, leading-edge radius. Mach sumber and planform.
The plonform effect car be to powerful as to lead to novel
flow situations Conssder figure 3. taken from Cunntngham
(ref 6). where at oderate a this 65' swepihack trapezoidal
wing has two leading edge vortex systems which merge into
a single one ata slightly higher a This getnraliy does not
happen at higher sweepback angles
Those wings which do not generate a leading-edge sd
vortex due to their plaufotm shape being rectangula or too
low in s%eepstill develop a vortex system at the rip one
way to descrihe the fonmstion of this system is to consider
i to be produced by the flow moving from the pressure side
4 the wing to the suction side This well known tip.fiow
causes the span loading to change from a 2-D rectangular
type to that approxiumatingan ellipse ad provides the
theoretical base for the traiing sortvs whith get wrapped
up into the tip vortex Viscosityplays a role in the tip ,onex
initiation and in the determination of the point along the tip
at which the vortex actually sepaates from the wing
This lecture, however, will primarily focus on leading-edge
vortices.
Figure 4. taken from MeMillin et at. (ref. 7), shows regions
where classical leading-edge vorical flow is to be expected
in terms of the a nonmal to the leading edge (aN) and
the resulting Mach number normal to the edge (MN)
[This figure is the latest version of the information first
quantified by Stanbrook and Squire in reference 8. These
authors found it convenient to correlate the leeside, delta.
wing flowfield with the quantities a and MN. the pimary
ndepen&nt variables associated with 2-D flow.] in-"2h all
this data was obtained at supersonic free streams, III gure
is heunstically Important is that it illustrates how the leeward
0
flow changeswith increasing N (or a for fixed A) from
small to large values.
Vortex Growth
This par examines the subject of vortex growth by focusing
on two of its component pans.vortex strength and core
location.
Ystexmgnglb It is well known that the strength of the
vortex system from a delta wing is a and sweep dependent.
However. the manner in which they are related has only
recently been established theoretically by Hlensch and
Lucknng (ref. 9) when they used an analysis based on the
Sychev sinalanty parareter. K(- tana/tante). [These
authors are not the first to show some relationship between
vorx strength and a parameter, for example, Smith (ref
10) used the parameter (a tan) 1 The Sychev parmerter
is associated with slender bodies at irviscid hypersonic
speeds but Ilemich (ref. 11) shows it not to be limited
to that situation In particular. K has application to even
moderately slender configueatiotn developing vortical flow at
low spelds The result is that the vortex strength present at
a delta-wing trailing-edge can be related to a and the .ing
sweep by
2 0 2
r/U C(tz.()03n1t o/c6 a or
2 r 2
cx c..(sln' a/os o a)/(tanA)O
This .4 uotiuonshows fo a fixed sweep and cr tst rJU
Increases rooloratly with o. which is an expected result
It also shows for a fixed a and c, that ['AJis reduced
with moreasing wing sweep, a result which may seem
contradictory to expenence and therefore be unexpected
The apparent contradiction is due to our intuitive understand.
ing that in the ooderate to high a range, a 75* delta wing
develops are %ontx lift than one with a sweep of 45*
We associate the increase in lift with an Increase ii vortex
strength, llowetr., the reason the 45* delta develops less
vortex lift is not due to a loss in strength but to a loss in
vortex cohence or stability kThis topic is coveredin the
vortex dmiurment part)

Figure 5,'taken from Heinseh (ref. II). shows the impor-
tane of K as abasis of analysis for vortex streugth. In that
solutions from the Free-Votex-Sheet (FVS) code for thre
delta wings, each at K i 1, yield essentially the same
nonthtensional value of vortex strength at the trailing edge
and similar growths along the chordl.This can be thebasis
of an engineering method,
V:llgx Cre bcuion Changes in a and wing sweep affect
not only vortex strength but the lateraland vertical loca-
'in of the core. Combining a and sweep according to the
parameter K. Herach (ref. I1) al" determined that engi.
neering estimates could be made for the core location as
well. Figure 5 also shows thtat K = I the vortex cores
for thesethree deltas increase with distnce along the in a
very similar manner.
Two experimental examples of .ortex core/system growth
areshown in figures 6 and 7. These figures (taken from
LatMare al. (ref. 12) and Lansar and Johnson (ref. 13).
respectively) illustrate the o effect for two aircraft, one
U.Sv sod one Soviet, as determined from in-flight vapor,
scren image& fNote that the vapor screen Images for the
U.S.A. P-106B aircraft have been digitally enhanced after the
01ght
Vortex Diminishment
Thetopic of vortex diminshmest is larger than just the loss
of vonex-sysem cohernce. It also Includes the loss-of-
influence a coherent vorex system his on surface pressures.
Each is discussed.
Lns-of-,,or~cx =: 'The losn-of-votex.colerence is
due to vonex-core breakdown or burst, which has as Its main
contributors (1) 0 effects on core size or swirl angle, aMd
(2) adverse pressure fielddisturbances. Whther the bent
is of theswiulor bub,,letype - see Lambourne AndBrier
(ref 14)- is not of concern here. bet when it does occur. the
flow in thatregion becomes, unsteady and begins to rotate
like s solid body with a larger radius than that of the core-
hereas, the flow ahead of the region may be steady and
coherent, As bent begins to occur ahead of the trailing edge.
Itcan lead to asymietrial flow situations which result in
an mbWance in the Aerodynamc forces on the left andeight
sides. especially lateral ones
%brtexbreakdown occurs with hysteresis over a wing durng
Apitching motion with a resulting lag. This is exaned
later with respect to dynamic stall,
The ablity to estimate under what conditions bnst will oc.
cur for s configuraion of interest and how to conrol the re-
talting flow or aircraft are of particular interest to the de-
signer working in thehigh a regime. Much of Outnill must
be determined expenmentally Figure 8, developed frontthe
basic data of Wentz and rIlman (ref 15). shows the exper.
imentalvanasn of the ckfor vortex breakdown at both the
trailing edge and apexover a large. delta.wsng.sweep range
As expected, aD-7Z < D0L ..A, for a given wing. how.
ever. what is revealing is how vortex b eahdw at the tril.
6-5
ing edge or forward affects the maximum lifting capability of
the wing, as denoted by ac.m. In puticular, note that for
A > 700 CL,., occurs at an a very near that for BD-TE.
This shows the aerodynamic importance of vortex coherence.
lowever, there is one analytically detenined piece of
information, shown in figure 9 - taken from Lamar (ref.
16), thatmy be useful here, It is that the leading-edge
suction dtstribution across the span for both delta- and
mapped-delta wings have their peakvalue increase and
oce r farther outboard with increasing sweep or tip chord.
By itself this doesn't help. but if a corelation is made
with the quantity aD - the a at which themeasured C,
ist begins to fall below the sctio Analogyesmate
as trend is noticeable. h is that aD increases when the
peak suctitonvalue increases and occurs more outboard.
i e. becomes increasingly triangular. This correlation can
he used as s tooi in trying to estinste which of several
configurations will have the highest *D by simply examiing
the respective suction dttrihutonts. iThe quantity crD it
slmilar to aBD.TR except that it is applicable to wings for
which a damamay not be available, and moreover it
Implicitly takes into account the lost-of- intluence associted
with vortex displacement.]
L LtNWLa=.:: The abilty of the vortex system to
influence the surface flowis related to its strength and
the distance to the surface; hence, the greater the distance
the less influence the system has. From expenments. it is
well known that the vortex-system vertical displacement
(see fig. 7) and strength grow for slender wings over an
a range, and continue to produce a strong influence on the
surface However, after some a. and perhapsbefore loss of
coherence, the vortexsystem is too far from the wing surface
due either to a symnmessdcal or asymmetrical displacement
- depending on the wing sweep and flight attitude and as
indicated in the sketches in figure 10- and thereby loses
its str ng influence.(Asymmetmcal displacement is often
assoctated with vortex crowding on a very slender wing at
higher Aiphas,as shown in the right sketch, but it can also
occur for most any delta wing at sideslip)
This lots-of-influence effect is apparet on a wing surface
from either an oil-flow or a ireside. surface-pressure test.
The effect is conspicuous from an oil-flow test by the pat-
terns beconing mor spread out and not as sharp in sur-
face detis. and from a pressure test by a reduction in sue-
tion pressureto a sore positiwe value or toJust maintain.
tag a coCUtanL value with increasing a. Regardless of how
these changes in local surfaceconditions are detected, the
influence of the changing coMiimonsproduce correspond.
tag global ones. Thes include either a reduction in lift (in
particular, for a fixed at a value >200 and with A tncrea.
tag above 76*. as indicated by the basic am of Wentz and
Kohiman. ref. 15)or nonzero values being developed for the
acrodynuic lateral charactenstics. even beforc vortex burt
occurs
66
FOR USE IN ANALYSIS
General'
Various techniques, associated with differeni levels of accu.
mcompl~hy~r~enera
areavailable to model the vortical flow
racand complexity,
to high a. The one included herein cover, suction-
metants
analogy withextensions, free-vortex-filamnents. free-sheet-
vortex modeling, and Euler aid Navier-Stokes solutions.
The lattertwoate known as Computational Fluid Dynam-
sea(CFD)techniques and are not yetconsidered engineering
methods, but may hosoon. In order to demonstrate these
techniques, at leastone comparison with experimental data is
presented for each of them.
All the techniques just listed are discussed in this section and
are done so basically in the order of increasing complexity.
Suction Analogy (SA)
The leading-edge suction analogy of Poihamus (ref. 17)
was originally developed for delta wings andhas become
known as one of the nore reliable engineering tools for
estimating the aerodynamic affects of separated vortical
flow at subsonic andsupersonic speeds Futhermore. it
is also one of the mostwidely implemented techniques
because the information it ieeds can bereadily obtained
from analytical orcomputational solutions to the linearized
potentil-flow equations Ibis section reviews the basic
suction.analogy concept, cites representative methods in
which it isemployed, details stmilanty use of it. and presents
extensions of it
P= Polhmus (ref 17)postulated that the in-plane
leading-edge suction [aforce) developed in attached flow
was not lost when the flow separated around a sharp leading-
edge of a swept wing, instead the force only became reori-
ented in the direction of the rotating vortex system This is
called the leaing-edge sucton analogy (LESAor just SA).
m that the extra normal force developed as a result of the
shed vortex system is analogously just cqul to the in.plare
force lost along each edge Flow sketches depictig this
change are seen atthe right infigure II.taken from refer-
ence 16
This figure also shows an application for a A - 75'delta
wing at At = 0 TheSA allows one to use potential flow
codes to compute the CN, and C S . which are then used
in the lift and drag equations In particular, thepotential
flow pai of the lift curve is identified as Involvtg a factor
called K, This factor is nothing more than the low as
value of CL,, or CN. The vortex lift portion coies by
knowing the factor Kj, which is deeresned by taking
the 0(2 one-edge CS)/8(siaho) Figure 12. taken from
reference 18. shows the Kp and K, k vanation for delta
wings Sinular curves for arrowand diamonds wings are
given by Pohamas inreference 17
Gt these factors are determined computationally or from
curves, they are used in the formulas cted on the figure to
obtaii the total lift TIe sortex drag associated with a ,iog
having no edge force is justACD = CL tano. Note the
I K
good correlation obtained with th Zerolift drag rm ioved.
Polhanmus(ref, 17) also showed how using the Prandtl-
Glauert teansformations one could obtain other subsonic
esultro
results outindthteeadrm
Polhanus in references 17 and IS demonstrated that the
SA was capableof maisng lift and drag estimates to other
pointed wings thandelta, i.e. diamonds, arrows and even
wings with cranked leading edges. Moreover, Polhamus
showed tn reference 18that this concept is not restricted in
speed regire but only to the development of a leading-edge
force. Since analytic solutions exists for thin delta wings
with subsonic leading edges at supersonic speeds, Kp and
Kwje can bedeternasned and they are reported by Polhamus
to be.
Kp t=xA/(2E(k)),
where E(k) is the complete elliptic integral of the second
/
maid and k - (I - (OctA)h]t l,and
2 2
- (A,7) ][A + 16)tl2/16E2(k).
Kj. - r([16
ligue 13 shows two examples of neasured and estimated
lift at supersonic speed for an A a 1.147 delta, also taken
from reference 16 There are twomajor points to be made
here (I) the reduced amount of ,orex lift available at
M - 28. as compared with that at At - 1.2; and (2) the
lift is well estimated at M.t= 1 2 butnot as well at At - 2.8
The poorer agreement at thehigher Mach is due to the lower
surface of the Mach cone coming near the leading edge with
increasing a which effectively moses the lower suiface
separation line closer to the leading edge ad reduces the
amount of flow turning around the edge Consequently. less
vortex flow and lift are available
Representative micthods: On:y two of the many methods
which employ the SA are cited in this section. They are the
Vortex-Lattice-Method coupled with SauctionAnalogy (VLM-
SA). and DIGITAL DATCOM.Othets areintroduced in the
later sections which deal with eutensions or design.
VLM-SA.The NASA VLM code developed by Marga.
son and Lamar(ref 19)contained the ability to calculate
leadiug-edge suction Since then the code has been contin-
ually up-graded toinclude the SA affects, as indicated by
thetiile of the repo by Lamar and Gloss (ref. 20). and
that feature Is cunently embedded in themost recent VLM
code release, refered toas Lamar and Ilebate (ref. 21) An
example of the VLM-SA code is given in figure 14.taken
from Snyder and Lansr (ref. 22). inwhich it was used to
predict he lonagitudinal-load- disinbuttois -CLL - foran
A - 1.147(A - 741)d, at three salnes of a. This work
was doneto addless an initial con ei that the success ob-
taud wih estimating lift and drag using the SA would not
he repeated when trying to estimate pitching tniotoL, The
concern was based on the nowledge that to obtain reliable
etitsates of C,. itwas necessary to have valid predictions
 [
6-7

of the longitudinal distributions for both potential andvortex This suggests thattheSychiv slender-body sinlarity may
flow, somethingnot required by theSA. at leastbe applicable to the portion of the slender wing or
body loading inducedbythe vortical flowfeld," The result of
Snyderand Latsar obtained the potential lift cu.'vesby this action isthatthetotal C doesnot collapse to a single
Sperfoiringa spanwis integration of lifting pressures at line, whereasthe vortex portion. Cv, does. What is also
a variety of longitudinal locations; whereasthe vortex interestingis thatthe theory shown for theC,, curve is a
lift portioncamedirectly from theleading-edge-suction "best one-termpowerlaw fit" given by
distibution. Theresulting curvesshow thevortex lift
contribution to become a larger fraction of the total with C, 3.07(tanaIA)°g,
increasinga andthe measured-and predicted-total results
to be in fairly good agreementover the a range Basedon w
thesuccess of this early work, theSA conceptis now used which isvery close sothe Pothamut ressit. wrtten is
routinely to provide reasonable estimatesfor Cm.- similarity form.as

resultsusing this methodare given later.

Other C,, = K*(t-*I/A),

DIGITAL DATCOM: One well documented engineering

method,developed for theUSAF by Williams andVukelich whereK ,,0 is known to become only slightly greaserthani,
(ref. 23), is thatof DIGITAL DATCOM. It is a computer- over this sweeprange.
based systemfor obtaining "static stability, high lift and
control, and dynarmic derivative characteristics"over a This fige alsoshowi the fractionaldistanc to the cester
rangeof ancraft geometries. Mach numbersando's The of pressureof the nonlinear portion of the normalforce as
a functionof K/4. Hemsch notesthat this term"doesnot
computational methodsareprimarily linear aerodynamics
scaleverywell", which "meansthatthe aspect-ratio range
with the nonlinear lift portions forsome combinations of
for using the over which onecan expectto scaleor extrapolate subsonic
planforms andMachnumbersbeing accounted
only straight-tapered, pitching momentdata is censiderably smaller than it would
SA.In particular, at subsonicspeeds
speeds be forsupersonic flows"
low-aspect-ratio wings arecovered:and at supersonic
wings with a subsonic-leading-edge
only straight-tapered or a
supersomc-leading-edge with an attachcd-flow-shock at zero- Regarding smoothslende bodies,the resuln mgC. and
a are covered. TheSA is alsousedto estirt.te forebody C estimate aredependent on M and on whetherthe
lift and pitching momentat subsonicspeedsabovethe a for body is an elliptical coneor denved from a powerlaw The
"ost of noneslift", generalresultsarcthat.

Similaity. The useof the similanty parameter K. as re. C. cc (tano/A - (tuna/A)oti .

portedby Hcmsch (ref. II). hasbeenpreviously introduced elliptical conefor %f < IM > 1. also
powerlawbody for At < I
Ilere theemphasis is on discussing a link betwen a simi.
lanty parantcer (tuna/A), which reduces to K/4 for delia r ( )
wings, andSA for wings andsmoothslenderbodies. To as- or(tana/A) - s
sist in this effort, consideragain theCLL distibutions pre- powerlaw body for M > I
sentedin figure14. Sincethe magmtude andshapeof each am
disibution arcedependent on a. theremaybe a scalingon
o which would make eacherve likethatfrom anther delta C, oc(tana/A - (tan/A)a..u,
wing at soie othera. Ie, use a similarity paramevter to son elliptical cone,for if < 1. Y > I; also
properly scaled resultstogether. powetlawbody for M < I
J).
Ilemsch presents the longitudinal-nornal-force distribution - o (tno/A)F -ir4
-
a quantity similar to CLL - scaledby(Asinoos) t for powerlawbody foeM > I.
a family of thin gothic wings at Af - 0 and095 fora
valueof thesimilanty paranet. (tana/A) - 0.3. These gfljgig The LESA has spjaned a vanety of extensions
scaleddistinbutions havebeenestimated from theFree- An eatly onewasthe estimation of thevorex flow effect for
Vortex-Shot (FVS) code- to be discussedlater- aid show wings with finite sipcbons Another dealtwith estimating
closeagreement to exist amongthe respective potential and theeffect of a vosex s)stem on a doAnsu.am areanot
total curves. Thismeansthatthe scaledvonex normalforce associated with its generation- it is called an augmented
contbetion betweenthe vanous wings musthavebeet also vortex ternm. Ohers have addressed more generalgeometnes.
inclose agreement Figure I showsthe impactof applying which include wingswith camber, non-zcreedgeradius,
this samescaling to FVS estinmates of the total normalforce thickns cifects. combariss of a wing with a canard.
coefficient and to only the vortex flow porion asa function strakeor body. and asymnsetcnal flow situations.For
of K/4 for thin delta wings Iiersch atibutes the rationale camberedwingsdeveloping %ortex flow. the conceptof she
for doing this to the fact that"severalresearchers havefound tortex action point is hscussed because of its ,mpotane
thatthe %elcisyfieldof thepnrnaiy ones is nearly conical lany of theother listed itemsaredetailed in thefollowing
eventhoughthewing surfacepressure distbotion is not paragraphs

the trn AOL with known terms, the Kuna- Joukowski
relationship was used for tre differential leading-edge force,
d&P.as shown. The result is that another factor is identified,
1R, which can contribute to the vortex flow aerodynamics
based on quantities already known. and which uses the
same trigonometic functions in its' computations for the
forcelirent characteristics. as K,t and K.,...
The only quantity not specifically known is Band it is used
to provide a representative length onto which the forward
shed vortex system acts. This quantity is a geometric term
defined to be the streamwise distance from the tip leading
edge to the apex of the trailing edge. and canbe positive or
negative depending on tie tip-chord length and the trailing-
edge sweep. For pitching moment estimation the streamwise
distance from thecentroid of the "affected atrea"to the
reference point is needed, a quantity called i
Figure 25. taken from reference 16. shows the relative size
of the vortex lift factori and that the augmented factor is
toolargefor these wings tobe ignored. The cropped delta
configuration atthe top right is the same as shown infigure
23. but the results am for a lower Mach number. Note the
improved CL agreement up to the highest test a. For the
cropped diamend at the left. the augmented factor iv the
some size as die other vortex lift faciors andleads to good
agreement with data, again to the highest test a.
The other twowings, having notched tuiling edges, will not
have such large values for the I?, ,. Fuithennore. both
the A - 1 069 and 1.917wings have C,. rmolts which
show a ift falloff by 24'and 19'. respectively. Even for
a coherent leadingedge vortex system. notching the trailing
edge reduces the room onto which flow reautachment can
occur which will lead to a reduction as measured C,.
Figure 26.taken from reference 28. shows the definition of
to yield generally good agreement for a less than 16*.yet
it leads to an underpredilcton of the CL in the moderate
o range for this 45* cropped arrow wing Inthatrange
thetip chord itself better tepresents th, length onto which
the forward shed vortex system acts These points ate
illustrated by oil-flow sketches show'aat moderate and high
a valus Above a a 16' one of three things happens to
this vonex system which cause CL to fall off. They am (1)
the leading-edge sotex system bursts - on the basic delta
breakdown at the TE would occur at a much lower angle
than 16*. (2)the system gets so large that its influence is
dimiushed due to vertical displacement, and (3) the loss of
reattachment area
The points being madehere ar that there isan additional
vortex flow factor beyond tlose of KIu, and Kv,. it a
called the augmented lift term. and when used with judgnt~n
about what the leadng-edge vortex system is doing can
lead to good acrodynantc estuates A good example of
this isfor the strake.wmg cimbination depicted tn figure
27,taken from Lamar and Campbell (ref 29) Ilere one
can scethat the nambet and sze of the lift augu'entation
regions can vary with a to reflect the actual flow. Cranked
wings and wing-canards are other ronfigurationalexamples
6-9
which may employ this type of flowomodeling a-variation.
as relteted in the construction of both the k4,. and Ki.u
terms. Sample results are given in thenext chapter.
Wing camber Vortex flows and theseeffects on cambered
wings are of increasing importance dueto emphasis on
vortex flow control devices, such as leading-edge vortex
flaps (LEVI). Extensions have been madeto heVLM-
SA code to account for theseeffects (ref. 21). Other SA
methods which have also been extended, including one
which uses the Quasi-Vortex Lattice Method (QVLM) as
a potential flow base, as described by Lan in reference
30 Another one developed by Lan and Chang(refs. 31
and 32) ascalled VORCAM (VORtex lift of CAMbered
wings) and ts derived from an improved version of the
chord-plane acrodynamic-panel n sthedof Woodward
(ref. 33), Thiscode uses tie SA to calculate the vortex
induced aodynamic effects on cambered wings, including
those with vortex flaps, and is valid at those subsonic and
superionic speeds where the lineariszedgoverning equations
apply.
An application of the VORCAM code toa conically cam-
bered delta wing as M = 1.4is shownin figure 28. The
inclusion of the orte contnbution is seen to provide some
improvement with the measured data over this restincted a
range.
VORCAM also has an option fot designmg a portion of
a contiguous wing surface to represent an integral vortex
flapinsm into the wing. An example of using VGRCAM in
LEVF design is given later.
Vortex action point. Lainand Chang (ref. 31) have also
modeled the effect o5the center of the vortex, called the vor-
tex action point, moving boardl downstrean with a. This
is physically correct and not accounted for in the ongisal
suction analogy modeling schemes. Inthese e.iler schers.
as previously noted, the vortex was assumed to reman small
andalong the leading edge regardless ofthe a value. The
vortex action point movensent produces no aerodynanmc ef-
fects for a planar win. but for a camherAwsed wing there
will be differences hey ateassociated with the local mean-
camber slope vatysng along the chord, thereby cawing the
local contrtu,iois to lift and drag, calculated from the suc-
tion force. to differ from earlier results, flis can be under.
stood by examining the nghithand sketch in figure 29, taken
from Iref. 31)
This concept was derived by comparing measured vertical
velocties present near the wing leading edge with those
associated with potential flow The difference isattibuted
to the action of the vortex system and its magnitude based
on data forone wing at one value of a and was determined
to be V../2. Fron this cosept the strewanwise flow model
was developed shitch has the chaactensiict outlhe in the
left and center sketches on thinsfigre. The basic assumption
is thatthe exchange of lincar momentum into and out of a
control surfac of length 2r would be jus balanced by the
section lading- edge sucuon force Physically. itsays that
the force required to keepthe control surface from moving

the term ACL with known terms, the Kutta- Joukowski
relationship was used for the differential leading-edge force.
dF,. as shown. The resultis that another factor is identified,
k, which can contribute to the vortex flow aerodynamics,
based on quantities already known. and which uses the
same trigonometric functions in its' computations for the
foroe/momnt characteristic. as Keu and Kv,,
The only quantity not specifically known is antdit is used
to provie a representative length onto which the forward
shed vortex system sets. This quanuty is a geometris term
defined to be the strearwise distance from the tip leading
edge to the apex of the trailing edge, and cn be positive or
negative depending on t'ie tip-chord length and the trailing-
edge sweep. For pitching moment estimation the streamnwise
distance from the centroid of the "affected area"to the
reference point is needed, a quantity called i
Figure 25. taken from reference 16. shows the relative size
of the vortex lift factors and that the augmented factor is
too largefor then wings to be ignored. m'e cropped delta
configuration at the top right is the same as shown in figure
23. but the results are for a lower Mach noumber.Note the
improved C1, agreement up to the highest test a. For the
cropped haroond at the left, the augmented factor it the
sorte size as die other vortex lift facrors and leads to good
agretment with data, againto the highest test a.
Theother two wings, having notched tc,hng edges, will not
have such large values for the k,. Furthernore. both
the A - 1069 and 1.917 wings have C, results which
show a lift falloff by 24' and 190.respectively. Even fo
a coherent leadng.edge vortex system, notching the trailing
edge reduces the room onto which flow reattachment can
occur which will lead to a reduction in measured CL.
Figure 26. taken from reference 28. shows the definition of Z
to yield generally good agreeent for a less than 16, yet
it leads to an underprediction of theCL sathe moderate
osrange for this 45' cropped arow wing In that range
the tip chord itself better representi the length oto which
the forward shed vortex system acts. mese points are
illustrated by oil-flow sketches thosn at moderate nd high
is values Above a - 16' one of three things happens to
this vortex system which cause C1 to fall off Theyare. (1)
the leading-edge vortex system bursts - on the basic delta
breakdown at the TE would occur at a much lower angle
than IVl: (2) the system gets so large that its mfluence is
diminished due to vertical displacement: and (3) the loss of
reattachmnt urea.
The points being made Iere am that there is an additional
vortex flow factor beyond those of K,. and K., it a
called the augmented lift term. and when used with judgment
about what the leading-odge vorses system is doing can
lead to good acrodynamtc estimates. A good example of
this is for the strAe-wing cimbnaton depicted in figure
27. taken from Lamar and Campbell (ref 29). Hereone
can see that the number and size of the lift auncnitation
regions can vary with a to reflectthe atual flow. Cranked-
wings and wng-canards ate other configurational examples
6-9
which may employ this type of flow-mdeling er-variation,
as reflected in the construction of both the k.,rr and K,rr
terms. Sample results are given in the next chapter.
Wing camber: Vortex flows and their effects on cambered
wings ace of increasing importance due to emphasis on
vortex flow control devices, such as leading-edge vortex
Raps(LEVF). Extensions have been mae to theVLM-
SA ce to acout for thes effects (ref. 21). Other SA
methods which have also been extended. including one
which uses the Quasi-Vortex Lattice Method (QVLM) as
a potential flow hase, as described by Lan in reference
30 Another one developed by Lan and Chang (refs. 31
and 32) is called VORCAM (VORtex lift of CAMbered
wings) and is derived from an improved version of the
chord-plane aerodynatsmc-panel n nhod of Woodward
(ref. 33). This code uses tio SA to calculate the vortex
induced aerodynarmc effects on cambered wings. including
those with vortex flaps, and is valid at those subsonic and
supersonic speeds where the lineanzed governing equations
apply.
An application of the VORCAM code to a conically eain-
brd delta wing at M = 1.4 is shown in figure 28. mhe
inclusion of the ,orte. contnbution is ten to provide some
improvement with the measured data over this restricted is
rMnge.
VORCAM also has an op-ion for designmg a portion of
s contguous wing surface to represent an integral vortex
flap in=x into the wing. An example of using VORCAM in
LEVF design is given later.
Vortex action point. Lanand Chang (ref. 31) have alto
modeled the effect of the center of the vortex, called the vor-
rexaction point, moving inboard/ downstreamwith a. This
is physically correct and not accounted for in the original
suction analogy modeling schemes. In these earher schemes.
as previously noted, thevortexwas asuned to remain small
and along the leading edge regardless of the o value, mie
vortex action point movement produces no aerodynanuc ef-
frels for a planar win', but for a cambertAwisted wing there
will be differences Theyare associated with the local mean-
camber slope varying along the chord, thereby cau~singthe
local contrbuioss to lift and drag. calculated fromthe suc-
tion force, to differ from earlier results. lus can be under.
stood by examlomog the righthand sketch us figure 29. taken
from (ref 31)
This concept was derived by comparing mcasurod vertical
velonties present near the wing leading edge with those
associated with potential flow,.me difference is atributed
to the action of the vortex system and its magnitude based
on data for one wing at one vaeueof a and was detenmined
to be V./2. From tus concept the streamnwiseflow iodel
was developed which has the characteistics outlined in she
left and center sketches on this figure, The basic assumption
is thatthe exchange of Imear momentum into and out of a
control surface of length 2r would be just balanced by the
section leading- edge suction force. Ph)sically. it says that
the force required to keep the coitrol surface from moving
6-10
awayfrom thewing, dueto the linear momentum exchange.
is just balanced by an additional forceon the wing These
forcesareboth causedbya suctionpressure prewnt above
thewing andleadsto r = c~e. Thesketch at the right shows
the reorientation of thesuction force dueto the movement of
the vortex actionpoint.
RoundLE simulation: For a round leading-edge wing, not
all of thesuctionforceis converted into an additional lift
whentheflow separates. Some of it remainsas a "residual"
suction forcethatactsin theplaneof the leadingedge.
Polhamus showed for uncambered wings in the late1960's
(publishedwith permission later byKulfan in ref. 34) that
therewasexperimental evidenceto demonstrate thesumof
the residualleading-edge suction andvortex normal forceto
be essentially the sameasthe theore'mcal valueof thethin.
wing leading-edge suction. Figure 30 showsoneexample
prepared by Polhamus from existing data for an A = I delta
wing .h a roundleadingedgeandt/c - 0.10.which
tuppons theprecedingstatementThesketchon the left
illustrates the forcesinvolved, andtheequationat the otton
showsthe algebraicrelationship. Henderion. in reference 35,
later demonstrated experimentally thattherewasevidence
to renderthis statementtre over a wide Reynoldsnumber
range
Thetwo mainmethods of simulating theeffectof round
leadingedgesuse thisPolhanus conceptas a basisfor
detme-ting the vortex force, however,theydiffer widely is
the basicassumptions andcomputational proceduresKulfan
(ref 34) uses a theoreticalprocedure
for detemitning the
vonex normal force,thenemploysthe equationin figure
30 to find the residual suction, wherras. Carlson and lack
(rcf 36) and Catlson and Walkley (ref 37) uv emprcal
formulas to dterrmne the resideal suction at supersoni Wnd
subsonic speeds, then employ this equation to detefrTn the
vonex normal force
Kulfa's prcedure. developed in a Boeing research effort,
in depicted in figure 31 and ",tich has been imptenrritemedin
the VLM.SA and other codes It is based on the assumptions
that (I) the atrfoil nose section is parabolic and (2) tepara.
lton begins wherver the local value of theoretial leading,
edge s-iction exceeds the parabolic note drag value, el The
sonex and its associated ionsal force are assumed to occur
%hen the local a excreds that required for local separation,
oa. an a I sn(a - o.) l stl(a - o.)
Carlson assumesthat the thrst at the leading edge is hm-
tied by the amount of pressure thit can be attaunedthere
An ¢xam;A.i of how the hmting p ssure can reduce the
leading-edge thrust to its "attainable" value is shown on fig.
ure 32 llere the huoting pressure is sacuam and its unpact
car be clearly seen with increasing a or the theoretical sec.
lion thrust coefficient. cs (Note, if the luling pressure
were on, cq,/cA would be I 00 for all vius of cit ) By
analyzing airfoil dlat. Carlson correlated the experrmental
residual thrust with no nl Mach number, airfoil thicksrs
and leading-edge radius ratios, andblmiting presswe The
proper values for limitig press$re were determuned empi-
cally from an airfol data base that covered a wide range of
ts extendedto
Mach andReynolds numbers.This procedure
wings byusing simple sweeptheory.
Unsteadyflow: Lanin reference38 hasextendedthe SA to
unsteadyflow bycouphngtheUnsteadyQVLM met.A (ref.
39) with theidea of "vortex lag." Vortexlagis associated
with the phaselag anglethatexistsbetweenthe wing motion
and thebuildup of thevortex strengthat the leading edge
Lan deterined the phaselag angleandwiththatwasable
to estimatethe unsteadysuctionforce.andhencethe vonex
flow aerodynamics
Others The readeris referredto Lan(ref 40) and to Lamar
andCampbell(ref. 29) for additional extensionsto the SA.
Free-Vortex.Filaments
Free-vostex.filamnt models are usedto represent the shed
vortex systemoff the leadingedgeby using discretevortex
filaments which interactin a mannersimilar to that shown
in figure 33. Variousre.earchersinsmanycountrieshave
developedmethods basedon this nodel for both steadyand
unsteady flow. "Ilsy include MehrotraandLin (ref. 41).
PacandLan(ref 42) andKandil andYates(ref. 43) for
steadyflow: and KatzandMaskew(ref 44) for unsueady
flow. The methodof Kandil andYale- highlighted Wcausc
of its transonicapphration
This methoduses an integral equationipproach anda shock.
capturing techniqueto establishthefeaturesof transonic
flow aboe the wing andin the ortex systemThese
includeshocklocation andthe dete ination of its shapeand
influence One interesting result repotted ifor a thin, A - 1 5
delta at o - 151 and M . 0,7) is that the captuted shock is
cured, attached to the vortex sheetand doesn't extend to the
leeward wing surface but towards the core This is sen at
the right of figure 34 along witi a favorable compaison of
pred.icted and experimental pfessa at r/c, - 0 80
The left sideof the figure shows three views of the leading-
and traiing-edge free-vostex lines on the wing along with
the invoisd LE and TE cores This method defines the core
to be the centrmd of the enoss.sectiotll ara and Air the
filament has made one revolution it is temmnated and its
vOricity added to that of the core The fact that there are
two cores may weemunusual but they result from different
vontety shees The leading-edge shele produces a Counter-
.lockvse rotation about its core - when looking upstream.
whereas the uamttng-dge sheet produces a clockwIse rotalton
about its core on the right wing pariel due to the span
loading not decreasmg nsoionically to cero under the
influence of leading-edge votical flow Tr- e ,t.sectiosal
shape of the system appearsmushloom.like in ihe trailing.
Odge region.
Free.-Vtee.-St"
C The fre-vOelex-shet (WS) code. deal-
tned by Johnson Ct al (ref 45), swtisfies the Laplace equa-
tins by using logher-ond-r panel technology to represent the
loading on the wing and differs from attach-d flovwmthods

byvirtue of themorecomplicated boundary conditions. The
chief difference is associated with the freesheethaving to
stmultaneonusly satisfy both the no-load andno-flow bound-
aryconditions, this rendersthe subject problem non'.-iear. A
seconddifference is associated with the near-wake bou.diy-
condition. This condition needsto besatisfiedto secondor.
der accuracytn orderto obtain correct results Figure 35,
takenfrom Luckeing etal. (ref. 46). showsthesefeatureson
a representative wing
Solutions havebeenobtainedwith this codefor a variety of
configurations andare catalogued in the paperbyLuckrng
etal. (ref. 47). That paperaddresses solution procedures to
beemployedin order toovercome convergence difficulties
'encountered with morecomplex configurations. The partial
restartprocedure is oneof thosedeveloped.The secondof
thetwo FVS examplesshownhereusesthis procedure.
fke examples,cited in order of presentation.
are an A - I
delta wing andtheP-106Bconfiguration.
Avolication to A - I delta: Figure36 (Lucknng ctal..
ref. 47) provides a comparison betweenthe measured and
predictedlift curveandspanwise pressure drstnbtion results
for an A - I deltawing. [Tbemeasured resultshaveconi
from an experimental study reportedbyHunimel in reference
48.1 GoodCL agreement is notedover the a rangeup to
30 After this a the flow physicsbeginto changefrom
that asnmmedby theFVS methodto thatwhich encompasses
vortex b¢esedown. The reference alsoshows sinlasly good
agreement with dragandpitching momentover theC range
up to I.I.
Regardingthe spanwise pressure distrbotions. the peak
suction pressureis overestimated andthedistrihution tiwat
the leadingedgemisseddueto theFVS having no mean
of accounting forthe influenceof the secondaryvortex.
The ma)or measurable effectsof thesecondary ,onexaw.
twofold firstly. displacing theprmaryvortex upward,
therebyreducing the influenceof theprimary. andsecondly.
increasingthesuction pressurenea theleadingedge,due to
the presence of Ihesecondary
Atitn hlcattoF-106B. The partialrestartprocedure cnahics
a startingvortex-sheetgeometty., hich hascubiter been
specified bythe user or previously obtained ona similar
(wing, wsg-fuwlage. etc.) configuration, to be applied to
the currentone.heretheFPI06BThis procedure hasbeen
usedin a three-stepprocess,outlined at thetop of figure 37,
to obtaina converged solution (ref 12)
Ike first step is to acquire a convergedfree-vortex-sbect
solution fora flat. * deltawing Secondly. thatsheetis at.
tached to the iamewing mountedonto a geneti cylindrical
fuselagewith a conic-like forebody.Lastly. theconverged
ortex-shect solution fromtheprevious stepbecomes the
inital guessfor the final configuration. 11e final contigura-
lion modelsthe actualairplanebymaking threegeometnical
changs Theyinclude changingmewing plarom from ow
with no imlmg-edge sw"ep to onewith S' of forwandsweep
(going from delta to a diamond), introducing a closeapprox-
6-11
imation to the actualwng camber,andincorporating a more
realistic fuselagemodel In particular, theactualforebody.
canopy.faired-over inlet arewell represented andthe after-
body is closely approximated
Stepsoneandtwo gaveno evidence of convergence diffi-
culties, however, someweremanifested whena very precise
modeling of theactualwing camber,which exists outboard
of 80% local semispan. was attemptedTocircumvent this
problem an alternatemethodof modeling the cambered-wing
was employedThis method wasanalytical andmadethe
leading-edge coordinates of thecambered-and flat-wing to
be the same.The effectof this wasto causethewing to be
placedonthe fuselageat a negativeincidence (approximately
1.25') as shownin the sketchat thebottom of figure 37.
Figure38 showsthesurfacepanelrepresentation of the
wing-fuselage andtheconverged free-vortex-sheetsolution
at a - 19*andsubsonicspeeds. Also shownis the flight
location of a vapor-screen light sheetandwhereIt intersects
theconverged fre;*vortex-sheet. ILight sheetis oriented
II 2 ahead of perpendicular to the fuselagecenterline, as
documented by LamarandJohnson(ref. 13).JSinceforce
andpressurecotuparisons havenot beenmadenor publithed
forthis configuration - duein partto thesmall numberof
a solutions made- only the vortex corelocation will be
reportedandthat.subsequently.
EulerandNavier-Stokes
General Currently. methodsVhich modeleitherthe inviscid
Euleror the viscousNavitr-Stokes equations fall under
theclassification of "expertcodes".This is due in large
partto thespecialatiention requiredindeveloping an
acceptable grid.andthe knowledge requiredto stipulate
suitableparameters to the flow solver Illo ,eer. this
situation is improving by the introduction of CFD codesthat
have suitabledocumentation aridsamplecasesto assistthe
newuserin their application. e g. theTEAM codeof Raj ct
al (ref. 49).) In adition. dueto the lnge requirenments of
computermemoryandtime.thesecodesaremostoften run
to eitherassistin understanding experimental resultsor to
helpguidethecxpennentalist m areas whereunanticipated
phenomenon maybe presentAfter the Eulerand Navier-
Stokesequations are presented m tensorform -summation
convention iniphed by epeatd idcx, example solutions
are given. itshouldbe notedthat eachof thesesets of
threeequatons cuitains no bodyforceandincludes 5 and
7 widependentvariables,respecti ely. To obtain closure,the
equationsof continuity, total energy,perfect gasequalim-of.
statefor static pressure, Stokeshypothesisfor bulk viscosity
andSuthetland's law formolecularviscosity arealsoused.
asneeded ]
EulerEqos
O(pW)/0(t) + (Pq) + i,,), -0
6-12
Navier-Stokes
Eqns This figure alsoshowspredictedspanwise pressure distnb-
tons at two longitudinal
locations Primary vortex capture
+(pq,)+ p6,), -Aq,,j, -p(qj, +q.,,)
+ 0 s noted in thecomputational solutions, though the peakval-
f, , - - uesfor suctionareover-estimated. Ihs is duein pas to the
inviscid Eulerequations having no mechanism for modeling
the secondary andtertiary vortices generatedon the surface.
Eu.k.rC.
,Q& Three-dimensional Elder codes, like the
FLO57GVB codedevelopedbyRajandBrennan(ref. 50), The secondaryvortex is themore influential of these
two and
have demonstrt-Z
notonly
thecapbihiy
tocapture shock itseffectshavealready beendetailed in theFVS section
waves at transonic and supersonic speeds but can capture
regions
ofrotational
flow
atthi"andlowerspeeds
on gen. Application toF-106B Thereasona representative
vortex
eralized geometres Unlike potential flow methods. such as system is expected for Nls wing is that its leading-edge ra-

theFVS.Euler codesdo not requirean explicitmodelofthe dius issmall:ic.strefuwise radius.to-chordratioreported

Instead.they appearautomatically asa partof the
vortices to he lessthan 0 2% acrossthespan(ref. 13). Further-
Thereasonsarctwofold' firstly, geometnra and
solution. more. a discetired representation of a radiuswill yieldan
secondly,computational. acute angleatthis or any other edge Th FLO57GWB code
was alsoselected because, at thetimethework was being
The geometrcal issueis an easyoneto understand in done,this codewas both readily available andfairly straight-
thatfora real flow oneexpectsa separated flow tohe forward to useinassessing theflowfield on a geometryas
generated at thewing leading-edge iflit
issharp,regardless complex as theF-1068.
of theReynolds number, due to thenaturalenfoeemen'
of the Knit condition there.Thus.if the geometryto be ThebasicF-106B wasanalyzedbyPao (ref. 56) using a
ndeled hast sharpleading-edge, onecmialsoexpect C-H grid of 129x 25x 25 with points clusteredaroundthe
this condition tobe enforcedcompusationally This bnngs wing section.Thesurfacegrid representation of F-106B
in thekampurational issue.namely,thatthe 'discretized wing-fuselage configuration anda typical C-Il grid around
Euler equations are diffusive near theleading-edge, dueto twing stationare shownin figure40 The conditions of
iruocation error added artificial viscosity". accordig interestare M . 0.4 anda . 19" Lift andsurfacepressure
soPowell arid Murxmaninreference 51 Since theKutta resultsare presented in figure 41. andvortex corelocation
condition oves its existenceto the effectsof viscosity ora at thesameposition as measure from flight vapor-screen
diffusive effect,it is understandable that theseauthorsnote itmages is given in figure 42
"any computational modelthathasa diffusive effect atthe
leading-edge t -: ,frnuc realdiffusiveeffectsshouldtugger Regardingfigure41.theagreement betwen n.asured and
separation. regard.,s of the magnitude of the diffusion" predictedlift curveslops is go'odover thea rangefrom
Thus,a methodemploying the nvoiscidEuler equations 10' to20 This isonly important within thecontext that
is ableto predict, in a faitly reliable manner. the leading, the Machnumberfor t-' experimentwas 0 2 andforthe
edgevorex.separation effectsevenfor thevery complex computatiral solution was 04. Theprydi ngleadsto
geometries, providedthe wing hasa sharpleading-edge theconclusion that thereis no igwificn Mach number
(SeeMurmaraet al.ref 52) effectat this lowsp-eu At o'sabovs20" een the lift
cuie slopesbegin to differ significantly l isknown
Two solutionsusing theEuler equations aregiven. oneis thatvotex breakdown occursat thetrailing edgefor a
fora 74 delta ing(A . 1 147)usingthe TEAM code sharp-edged flat 60 deltawing at a's greater than 14'
in its Eulernrode.and the other for theF-106B aircraft (Wentz and Kohlnsan.ref 15) Therefore.for thu F-106B
basically a * dcltawing with cotc-like eamiber- using configurarion the lift difteerees at the Ligheralphasma) be
an earlier serston of the 1TAM codecalled n.OS7GWB duetotheinabltty of the cste to model the flOAphysitca
lit maybe surprising to thereader thatsomeCFD codes accurately.tih the numberof points available Regarding
.anaccommodate configurations having a high degreeof tle.coxpttatisital solution ata 30. itis known thatthis
geomtrical generality, seealsonloes andChadcrjian (ref onedid not convergeto a steadystatevalue
53) andGhaffan elal (ref 54)1 Strictly speaking,this
codeshouldonly beappliedto geometies in which thereis Themaor differencenoted in the10 to 20 a range
reasonto expect a leadig-edge vortex-sy~uem to beformed is theactuallevelm CL This differenme may alsob
Reference 12 showsthatthe P-106Bairctaft ad motdels attisbutable
to therelatively few numberof tonmuational
meetthis crtcna eventhoughthey do not havea sharp pointsavailable toresolvethe configuration and flow field
leadng-edge
Exainng thepressure data portionof this figure, it should
Application to A = 1 147delta wing Raj Itef 551present he notedthatthereare no measured pressure data aaiable
.omparisons. sinular to thatof figure39.betworn measured for comparisonwith thecomputedvalues. The resultsat
andpredictedlift andsurfaceprestures at M - 03, where a - 19'showtheexpecteddropin suction peakin gong
the predictedvalues havebeenobtainedwith a II 0 grid from z/c.of 051 to0 89 The relatively high suction
of 30 x 37 x on ponts Thefilt agreement is goodup to prssutesnearmicallto.mitonicaourg cage is atnotutea us
a = 30" Abovc this a converged vscdy-state solutions were par toa asieling difficulty associatedwtth thesolution of
not obtained

the Eulerofequations leading edgeand in partto thesmall
at aavailable.
Vnumber god points
Figure 42 providesa comparison of the vortex coreresult
and that from theFVS solution discussed previously. The
vortex systemchosenfrom theflight test is theoneassoci-
atedwith thevortex nearestthe leading edge,andit appears
at theextremeright in the enhanced photograph shownat the
top right in this figure.The selectionwasbasedon the fact
thatonly the outervortex extendedto the leading-edge at the
tight-sheetstationand had thenecessary progressive inboard
movementwith increasing a. (See McGregor, ref. 57.)
On the left sideof figure 42 the theoretical core locations
from the FVS andEuler codesae shown The corefor the
FVS is at the endof the free-vortex- sheet andis indicated
by the triangle. Forthe Euler codea crosssectionof the
flow-field velocity vectors just behind the light sheetplaneis
shown.Supenmposed on it is the corelocation, indicated by
thesquare.asdeterminedfrom staticpresssre contours.To
establish the corelocation alongthe light sheetplane,inear
interpolation wasused.
Thecore locationsfrom theprecedingaresummarized at
the lower right of figure 42 for M i 0 4 anda - 19 '
Themeasuredlocation in flight was made dung a I-g
,celeration maneuver at 25.00 feet. andhasan accuracy of
+ or - oneinch. A comparison of the lateralcorepositions
showsthatthey ae all within 30 inchesof the leadingedge
with the measured location slightly inboardandnearerthe
FVSresult Regardingthe heightof thecore, ills scn to be
vcll predictedby the Euler code.
In searching for the causes of the disagreement between
ti predictedandmeasure core loation. it is clearthatthe
differencesare associated with unmodeled and/orunresolved
effects This suggests thatthe F-106Bconfiguration needs
to he mn in a Navier-Stokes codewith a sufficiently fine
gnd in orderto resolvethegeometryandsubsequently all
appropriate flow features
c TheNaie.r-Stoes (N-S)equations
differ from theinviscid Euleroes in thatviscosity as
inherentregardless of the numerical solution Ilence.these
equations naturally admt and can resolvethe viscous.wing-
surface, flow-field This allows the previously nussuig
secondaryandtertiary vortices effectsto be estimated
Often.a thi layer approxitnation to the Reynolds averaged
N-S equationsis suffi.ient for manyaeronautical problems
The termthin layermeansthatthe vitscous effectsare
fouased nearthe solid boundaries, usa manner tinular to
the bouncay layer approximastiOsAn examplecodewhich
doesthis is CFL3D. doeto Thomasetal. (ref 58).
A compotational exampleof this iode is for the aric A - I
deltawing alummel. ref 48) previously exaied with the
FVS code
Api-m , A =a~tt Th.i A - 1cta
modeled with a Sd of 129x 65 x 65 al M 0 3 and
a 0 9.5 a in la inairflow The lift andsurface
6-13
pressure resultsfor wing arelift
thisabsolute presented in figure
agreement exssup This
43. to
figure shows that good
a i33 andd atte ooper lfttrend is reproduced at the
higher valuesof a. Sincethe predtctionsover-estimate the
peakCL value,thereexists an apparentoffset betweenthe
with a flow
two setsof lift results.The offset is associated
modeling difficulty in the vortex breakdown regimewhich
existsfor a > 33
Regardingthesuction pressures at a - 20.5*. it is notedthat
for the forward stations,theoverall level underthe primary
andsecondary vortices agreesclosely with theexperimental
results.The differences at theaftmostpressurestationare
attributed to the presence of unmodeled turbulent flow.
This figure illustratesthepossibleimprovements available
over the previousdeltawing results, in both thetift carve
and surfacepressures, whenoneusesa codewhich incorpo-
ratesapproximations to the N-Sequations.
FOR USEIN DESIGN
CompleteWing
0.Imr: Two examplemethods are highlighted which
yield low dragsolutionsfor a completewing designin the
presence of leadhngedge vortical flow Thefirst is associated
with Lamarel al. (ref. 59) andbeginswith an attached-
flow. completewing camberandtwist design Thenfts
shapeis operatedonby a geometrical constraint andthe
VLM codecoupledwith theSuction Analogy (VLM-SA).
in a mnanual design.by-analysis mode,to achievethe final
shape.Thesecondcode(WINGDES2) associated with
CarlsonandDarden(ref. 60). is subsonicor supersonic.
shares somefeatureswith thefirst methodbet the whole
process is moreautomnated.Themethodof reference 60.
alto basedon a onex-lattice representation, hastwo design
modes known as"whole wing" and"mission- adaptive" The
lattermodewhich hasa specialprovision for the designof
flapswilt be presented here
Eachmethod is illustrated byin applicason. a crankedwing
for Lamaranda swept trapezoidal wing for Carlson.
g Theassumptions anddesignprocedure of Lamaret
at. tref 59), along with the resulting compansonbetween
predicons and measured datafor a Pi-SCAMP cranked
wing follow
AssumptionsIhe inherent assumption. basicto theuse
of the suyntonanalogyfor a cambered-wing, is thatthe
lcding-edge votex systemwould promotereattached flow
nearthe leadingedge.As is well known with theaddition
of positive camberto a wing. the pomential-flow lift will
increaseat a positive angle of attacL Tbis increaseis.
howccr. toupled with a condition uswhich the flow is more
nearlyalignedwith the leadingedge The "alignent" does
two things in the realflow: I) the leading-edge vortex that
is fouraed neartheedgewill notonly reattachnearit. but
on-sag ui .. 0rn ai w, . an zfcc
suction or negatisedrag. and2 reduces the lft associated
with vortexflow [Ience. thereexists a dichotomy which
6-14
mustbebalanced.A relatedassumption is thatthis vortex
systemwill be small, notbe shedinboard but extendto the
tip.and begin to comeinto play only on the upper surface
as thedesignC, is approached. Therefore, the procedure
to befollowed is basedon the flow beingnot far from the
smooth on-flow condition. Hence.an attached-flow solution
for smoothot-flow is obtainedfrom a mean camber design
Method (the VLM technique of Lamar(ref. 61) is employed
herein)andusedastheinitial warpedsurface
DesignProcedure
and Application: The designconditions
soughtfor thejoint NASA-General Dynarcs crankedwing
wle CLd =0 5 andMId 0 9.In additin, a rooftop ACp
distribution (a ft0.7)
wasinitially specifiedalongthe chord.
Itshouldbefurther notedthatthe resulting solution for span
loadfrom the VLM attached-flow designcodewaselliptical
in keepingwith minimum vortex-drag considerations
The methodemployeduniformly 20 hosoeshoe vortices
chordwise at eachof 10 equally spacedspanwise statios
on a semspan Thispattern wasalsousedin theVLM.SA
code
Spreeding conditions led to thesmoothon.flow mc-
dence ditstributton shownin figure 44 for the"wing box".
The termwing-box incidencerefersto the incidence of the
centerportion of the wing chord (for this study assumed to
lie between15and75%of the local wing chord) Theex-
tremec variation of the structuralboxtwist, depictedin this
figure, from the tide of the fuselageto the tip requiredfor
smooth On-flowwould be impractical for any realaircraft
configuration In order to provide a morepractical design
from structuralandaerodynatue standpoints, thefinal box
incidencedistribution (restrictedto12') wasused,asshown
in this figure er the structural boxreMaie atan cssn-
tinily constant incidence an is twisted only over the outer-
most 15%of the serntspan
Lines consecting thewing-box leading Md tralng edgesat
four different spansttions for the final Incidenceare shown
lafigure45 Thoughthe z/cand /c scales ate different, the
relative incidence vanazon across the spantisdicermable.
Associated with earchof these iUs, as well as theother
stationsacrossthe wing, is theinitial smooth on-flow camber
rotatedbythedifference of thetwoa, curvesin figure44
andpassing through the trailing edge Thiscombination of
incidenceand canber wasthen euaayre using the VLM.
SA procedure to dettffnsnelift, drag. and the strengthof
the suctionforcealong theleadingedgeard toprovide a to formnaturally on sucha wing.
refernce for successive rodifications. Thecamberahead
of thewing box (the 15%chord) wasthenrepresented by
five equalstenspan camberedleading-edge flap segmVnts
whosedeflc1tion angles wereadjustedpamitnesrically while
monitorng theVLM-SA draglevel.Eventhoughthese
levelswereoptimistic, theywereconsodered relable in
estimating the proper trend of loweringdragwith flap
deflection angle.Aftera Setof angleswasobtainedabout
the 15%chord le which produceda mimmum dragvalue,
the reulting camberwasSmoothed and the processwas
repeated about the 2 5% chordhim. Theis Smoothed caniber
linesare shown in figure 45 and labeled the final designed
caniber It should be notedthatthe final cambershapesart
changedin the direction of the initial incidence distribution
(shownin figure 44).
In order to put this camber on the wing. two things were
done.The first was to shift thelocal camberdistibution
vertically to provide a constantelevationalongthe wing
nudchord. The secondwas to matchthefuselageincidence
to the finalinboardwing incidence to provide an evenwing.
fuselage Junctum(Note that
theCL. occurs atana of
about9 4* ) Photographsof the designedwing mounted
on
an existing fuselage
appearin figure 46
For thefinalcamber,the VLM-SA codeindicatesthai Cd.
occurs ata wing etslightly larger thanrequiredfor smooth
or,flow allacrossth span If the flow featureswhich are
indicated are largely realized, then this shouldenablea large
amountof the available Icautngedge suction to berecovered
at the designpoint.
Dataobtained for the crankedwing. whosedesignwasjUy
dericld. arecomparedin the nextsectionwith theory,and
an assessmentof thedesignprocedure is madetherein
Lift The lift comparison presented in figure 46 showsthat
the VLM-SA method(solid carve), obtained by combining
the potential-flow resultswith the vortexlift from theleading
and side edges, predicts the measured lift well over an as
rangeof 3o -12' Above a 2. thereis a lOssm the
amountOfvotex lift realized. partially dueto thelack of
flow reattachment in the regionof the wing-tip trailing
edgeas a coisequenee of the realflow having insufficient
chord thereto peemt the finite.sted vortexto develop
reattached flow ad full lift IFor wings with trailing.
edgenotching this lift los is increased.) Regarding the
comparison with thesolution from potential theoryplus
100%leading-edge suction. it Is apparentthat tptoabout
a * 8 theeffectof the vortex flow ISto reduce thelift.
imdicatiove of reattachnisnt on the lower sutface Another
interesting featureof obtatnng CL,,(. 0 5)with vortex
flow is thatin compartso with the potential-flow solution
for this Samecamberedwing anangleof attackof about
2'liss is required.Of e it is realizedthattis wing
was notdesigned to reach CA4 with potential flow. Still it
is interesting to realizethattheorcically there is an aqle-
of-atack redulction possibleif vortex flow is presnt on the
slender cantberedwing. eipecially sincevoitices would tend
With regardto the0% suction withno sonexlift andthe
100% adusg-edge suctionsolutions,its note-othy that
thepresence of the potential flow leading-edge suction on the
highly cambered leadingedgeactually reducesthe C, over
the a rangeShownThis is, of course. dueto the edgeforce
acting tangentially to the highly cansered leadingedge.
therebycreatinga negativelift force
Dragpolars,Figures46 to 48 present thedragdataand
other datato aid in its miepretaton Forexample,figure
46 sho%sboththe planar and camberedwing dragpolars
mncompaion with two theoetical curss Over mostof

the CL range the planar-wing data follow the upper or
zero edge-force curve asexpected. The camttered-wing
data are generally much lower than the planar-wing data
and approach the lower bound polar in the CL range of
about 0.35 - 0.5. even though the wing is thin (maximum
thickness/chord ratio - 3 2%) and the leading edge is
shatp. Furthermore. at the design CL the data reach a level
equivalent to 77% of full leading-edge suction. This lrge,
value of equivalent suction is remarkable for such a slender
wing. particularly at tis high Mach number maneuver
condition. The data further show that a largerfraction of
leading-edge suction is realized at CL = 04. indicating that
the wing mean camber surface has notbeen fully optirmzed
at the design CL.
Figure 47 displays the saue cambered-wing drag data but
here in place of the planur-wig lower bound polar are
two attached flow polars obtained from the VLM-SA code.
One is for full edge force, 100%leading-edge suction and
the other for no edge force. 0% leading-edge suction. It
is well known that a planar wing of the sameshape will
have more edge force than a cotresponding cambered wing
under the sameconditions, because a potion of the suction
available on the cambered wing is distributed cherdwise over
the surface. Thus. the figure shows that die displacement
between the full. and no-edge- force curves to be smaller
than for the planar wing Petiher. the data are quite close
to thefull-edge-force curve for CL values equal to or less
than CL,. This is in keeping with the onginal idea of being
at an angle of attack slightly above that for smsooshon-
flow. in that at smooth on.flow full suction is realized but
is distnbuted over the cambered surface In terms of the
suction available, this cambered wing achieves a level of
effective leading-edge suction of about 67%.
Axial force Another wa toestablish %hen flow changes
occur on the%ing. beyond examning the lift curve, is to
examine the axial force, since itis a sentstive measure of
the edge flow Figure 48 shows theaxial-force coefficient
variation for the cranked cambered wing asa fuc-tion of
2
n e.because boththe edge-force and vonex-flow terns
have this dependency. Iti interesting tonote the sharp
change in the CA variation near a n V".because at this
same a thelift data of figure 46 show a rapid change
The faired straight lines in figure 48 have atsocsatcd with
them labels describing the types of flow which am hypoth.
esized tobe present. From the tses of planvicw oil piho
tographs, it isclear that atboth a - 5* arid 10"the flow on
the upper surface appears to he attached even though theCA
curveshows that some change in the data has occurred It
needa to beremember here that, since this leading edge is
highly cambered. the flow at the edge cannot easily be seen
from the top. At a = I" there is a definite indication of
vortex activity on the upper surface, which means thatthe
vortex system has jutt fomtrW orbecome strong enough to
be noticeable
Carso Ohe-mission-adapive" design-mnodemethod of
Carlson of Darden (ref. 60). to be illustrated here. hata
feattr whicuhallows it "toprovide a twisted and cambered
6-15
surface restricted to specified wing regions". The resulting
cambered regions nearthe leading, and trailing-edges
may then berepresented with flaps The basic premise
isthat with most of the wing fixed, say dueto structural
constraints, there exists a particular combination of leading-
and traling-edge flap deflection angles which will yield the
lowest drag or highest effective suction. The concepts of
attainable thrust, suction analogy and vortex action point are
all employed m this design mode of Carlson's method
This method is applied tothe 60*- swept trapezoidal wing
shown mounted on a body in figure 49 in the following
way Firstly, the "whole-wing" design mode is employed
at specified values of CL, M and R These results provide
a camber surface, which the designer may find helpful in
selection of "usssion adaptive" or flap system design areas
consistent with structural or other considerations. The
"whole-wing" solution also provides a design moment. C.i
- -0 17. which in the absence of any other specific C"
constraint is used in the next step toinsure an effective
contribution of trailing-edge flaps tothe overall lifting
efficiency. Secondly, the program is run in the "mission-
adaptive" mode with CL. M, & and C, specified along
with a definitiaonof the design area in the form of spanwise
leading. and traling-edge chord distributtons The results of
this second run provide a "mission-adaptve" wing camber
surface shown in figure 49. Superimposed on each of the
mean. camber surface wing sections are the flap-hinge-line
locations and the limits of the design area The code also
provides for automation of a flap-fitting strategy, illustrated
in figure 50.The idea is to replace the smooth program
generated camber surface with straight linesegments to
approximate the design camber surface and its loadings.
The resulting schedule of leading- and trailing-edge flap
deflections is referred to us "code" in the inset sketches of
figure 49 Thirdly. the designer selects an appropriate flap
segmentation plar. On this figure itislabeled "modified"
and consists of four leading-edge and two trailing-edge
flapsegments Fourthly. using thes segmented flaps a
separate butrelated analysis code SUBAERF2 may be used
toprovide an estimate of the actual flap system performance
(Much of the text in this paragraph has been contnbuted by
Carlson in a private communication ]
No direct comparison with datais given in reference W
howescr, an off-design situation is analyzed for a two
segment leadig-and trailing-edge flapmodel and the results
shown at figare S1.The analysis predictvthe masured
values well.
rFhe analysts codeSUBAERF2 can also used in a design
mode. Itisdone by varying the leading. and trailing-
edge flap angles systematically while recording the suction
level achieved for each combuation. Thesuction levels
and flap angles arethen use as basic data in developing a
"thumbprtnt" or an "optimization" chart to help select the
best combination ]
6-16
Leading-Edge VortexFlap
Genm: Designing a wing with leading-edge vortex flaps
(LEVE) is distingished fromthatof Carlson's complete
wing method in thatfor this designproblem thehinge line
is assumed known bet the flap shape(leading-edge outer
boundary) andits deflection arenot. The -eaderis rennded
thattheLEVF is just a specialpurposeleadmg.edge device,
as discussed by LamarandCampbellin reference62 and
illustrated in figure52. Initially. the function of theseflaps
wasenvisioned to be thatof dragreduction for slender
wings while maneuvering at moderate to high o. Since
then otherfunctions havebeenconceived, asdetailed in
thecited reference. Regardingthe accomplishment of
theinitial function, it wasto occur as a resultof the flap
previding appropriated capturearea andorientation for
theentire separation. inducedshedvortex systemabove
itself. Dueto the downward deflectedorientation on the
forward facing surfaceof the flap, a substantial suction force
wasgenerated in thethrustdirection to provide the drag
reduction Furthernore. the"captured"vortex alsofunctions
asa rotating fluid cylinder to turn theflow aroundthe
leadingedgeonto the wing upper surface,thereby promoting
a smooth transition to attachedflow on thewing nearthe
hingeline
Two methods are highlighted for designingtheplanforin
of the LEVF The first is thatof Fnnk (ref 63) given in
conceptfocu. and shescnM isthat of Hueltct (ref 64)
given in sonsedetail, An example of eachis given for a
r-I06B configuration. [For otherapplications theinterestoa
readermayreferto the threeconference publication volumes
dealing with VortexRow Aerodynamics (reft 65 to 67) 1
EnnkAs illustrated in figure 53 thisconceptwasoriginally
validated in 1978on a highly cambered Pre-SCAMP design,
just discussedIt was further demonstrated duringthe same
wind tunneltest thatcomparable levelsof moanuer peefor-
nxce improvementcould be achievedbydeflecting cer-
tain continations of simple planarleadirg-and trailing-edge
flapson a planarwing of the sameplanfonn. Thesimple
flap resultswereveryattactive from a practical designand
fabrication standpointandwarrantedfurther study.As repre-
nted in figure53, maony additional experimental andanlyt-
ical tudtes wereconducted on the simple flap concept An
examnaton of theresultsfrom theseandoec' sthe saled
Fnnk in 1982to the evelopirsnt of a LEVF designprone-
dare - publishedis refrence 63 A typical resultis shown
on the lower right of iis figure
Another example isgiven byLamar c Al in reference 12
for the F-1061)arcraft. Therethea rodynamic designof
the LEVF was developed through an iterative processthat
encompassed Frnk's procedure. nd-tunnel results,and
practical considerations ald constraintsA flightphotograph
of the LEV mountedon theaircraft is showAn in figure 54
Theassociated flight test program- is -.aech pressureand
flight performam data andvapot-sreen imagt are recorded
- isschaedledfcecompletion bythe spinne, of 1991 [The
housingforthe rotating-light-slscet system- oneof three
systemsneeded in order to obtai vaporscreenimages-
is seenon this photograph to be locatedjust aheadof the
vertical tail. Details of this systemare alsoprovided in
reference11
Huebric The designprocedure of Huebner (ref 64) is
basedon theanalysis sethod of VORCAM andshareswith
Carlson's wing methodthe ideaof amving at an appropriate
amount of flap area anddeflection angle.However, as
previously noted,this procedure differs from Carlson's
methodin thattheshapeof ihe leadingedgeis a part of the
solution This procedure alsodiffers from thatof Fnk in
thatthe flap geonmetry can extendbeyondthe wing leading
edge.i n. a "bolt-on" flap implementaton, andusesa
numerical optimizing procedure.The prinmary goalof this
effort was to develop the vortex flap planforimn.
deflection
angle.and wing angleof attackto maximize L/D andsatisfy
CLd at M = 15 for ther-106B This speedwas chosen
as typical of a supersonic maneuverfor atsadvanced tactical
fighter. TIe F-106Bwas chosenasthe hpphcation aircraft
sinceits 60* sweptleading edgeis capableof generating
measurable amountsof vortex flow.
Analytical FlapModeling: Figure55 showsthe modeling
of a typical flopwith its designvariables (geometrical
features)in flap coordtates. TheX axis corresponds to
thewing leadingedge(hingeline) in global axes.andthe
dimensions of theflap havebeennormalized to hase a range
of ze-o to one. The Yf variabledetermnes the flap planform
shape.Usingthe VP.D4 flap - developedbyFnnk - as an
initial guess,this proceduremodels theplanformshapein
threeregions Regins one and threearcparabolas which
areuniquel definedbytheir two endpoints anda slope
condition at the pointswheretheynivet with region two.
which is a straighttine. The specific designvariablesneeded
to definethis flap are shownin the figure X(I) and X(2)
determisetheextentof the threeregionsin the X direction.
X(3) throughX(5) provideactualplanfonn chord length and
ultimately planform shape.X(6) specifiesthe flap deflection
angleandX(7) is the modelangleof attack
It is worthy to rote a few things aboutthis method.The
apexof theflap is shownto be at the ongin of the flap axes
In reality, thechord lengthatthis point neednot be zem. but
it is not a designvauribteandremainsconstantthroughout
thedesignprocessThe valueof Xi can go to zero while
thevalueof X(2) cango to one. Thus.thepossibility exists
that a flip design olution could yield a constantchord,
taper.or ivere taperflap rurthemsore. the valueof X16)
waschosenin sucha way that it represents the aresangent
of
theflapdeflection angle.
Certaingeomeivincalconstraints arisebased on this rsethod.
In orderto resnct the flap to a reasonable size.X(3) through
X(5) areconstrained suchthattheir naxtnim valies are no
morethai 10% of the leiadig-edge hinge- line length Also.
to avoid -maningless flap shapes, the value of X(2) must be
greaterthano equalto Xi1)
Procedure,The flap-destgn-upttizAation processis given or
outlined form in figure.56 with additional detailsprovided in
both luebner (ref. 64) andLa=sar(ref 68).

Apphcation. An application for the F-106B is given at the
design condition of M - 1 5 and CL - 0223.
The initial geome rtc design variable values X(l) - X(5),
associatedwith the supersontc application, were taken from
the design solution of vortex flap VF.D4 at M - 0 3. along
with X(6) which specifies flap deflection angle. The design
variable X(7), which determines a was started at an arbitrary
value corresponding to a = 40,
Figure 57 shows the initial and final planform shapes and
other pertinent results from this design study. The flap chord
has decreased for most of the flap, designated VF.DOI.
except near the flap tip where it increased slightly. Flap
planform area decreased by 6.5%. The flap deflection angle
converged at 18.470. which as quite close to the slope value
at and perpendicular to the leading edge of the cambered
wing Finally. the angle of attack converged at 5 060
A comparison of the competed aerdynamic performance of
VF-DOI and VF-D4 on the F-106B is shown in figure 58
The VF-DOI design shows an tmpeovement in L D at CLA
of 0 6, or 9% over VF-D4 at 10 deflection Further. the
improved I.D values extend throughout the entire CL range,
The mital design solution is also inclided to show the total
performaunceimprovement from the beginning to the end of
the design process.
Figure 59 shows the aerodynamic chrmctnsttcs of these
6
two flap designs at LE m 300 and Al - 0 3 lie purpose
of this is to determine te crodynansc characteristics
of flap VF-DOI at an off.design Mach number. Minor
variations occur fo CL and C, versus i. however, a
measurable improvement in L.JDjna is noted Thus, this
figure indicates that the flap optimized for Md - 15 would
be quite satisfactory at Af - 0 3
A vortex flap designed for the F-106B at subsonic speeds is
also given by fluebrier in referemce64
STABILITY AND CONTROL
IN HIGH-ALPHA RANGE
This chapter cxurmnes stability ard control both aalytically
and experimentally in the a range up to high-c Ilie analyt-
ical reults preseeted are based on the analysis rocheis do-
settbed in the preceding chapter. are focused moe on stabil-
ity rather than control, and are compared th experiments
The expenrmental stability.ai cortrol resurs presented are
not restncted to those situations that can be predicted, ht in.
dude those fkom devices htch are likely to be successful in
providing either longitudinal and/ or lateral control in this a
range
PREDICTIONS FROM ANALYSIS METODS
General
Selected longitudinal stability results have already been pit-
sensed with the introduction of the various analysis methodi
6-17
In this section only predictions from SA methods will be
showe since it is very general and has been widely applied.
(Though SA only applies to the vortex flow contribution to
force and moments computed by potential flow methods. in
this chapter its usage is sometimes broaden, for reporting
purposes, to include the potential flow conrribution.] The
examples shown cover geometnes from isolated planfoms
to interfenng wing surfaces and at speeds up to supersonic.
The order of presentation will be (steady) longitudinal, in-
cluding some configuratons for which only CL is presented,
and then lateral characteristics, which include both a steady
and an unsteady example [Other examples can be found in
the cited references.]
Longitudinal
Simple sm Compansons are presented here for six
pointed wings with round and sharp leading-edges at sub-
sonic speeds lTe configurations range from arrow to dia.
mond
Delta wing with LE radias, Figure 60, taken from Lan
and Hsu (ref. 69). shows an application of the QVLM-SA
method to a 600 delta wing with a round leading edge at low
speeds The SA predictive curve is labeled "thin- sharp" and
is swen to estimate the measured CL and C,, results well
up to 10* and t. respectively When the mod leading.
edge effects are accounted for by using Kulfan's technique.
Lan estimates a noticeable aerodynamic effect. This leads
to an extensionof the a range for which the CL andC,,
agreement is good. 6 and 20. respectively The lack of
agreement beyond these a values means that there is still
an unmodeled affect. It is obviously associated with vortex
breakdown, which is known to commence at the TE on a
thin-sharp delta wing of this sweep near a n 12*. Lan and
Ilso (ref 69) developed a procedure for quantifying this
affect with and when employed for this wing produces
good agreement over the enrse a test range
Pointed wings, Figure 61, taken from reference 16. and fig.
ures 62 and 63. taken from reference 28. present expenmen.
tal and predicted CL data for a variety of pointed wings Re-
gading figure 61. it should he noted that since these wings
haveno tip chordthe K,. valuesare all zem. however, this
does not preclude there being an augmoeted. k.,. term In
fact, suce the sign of the augmrsentedterm depends on the
sign of Z it is rteresting to note that three of these wings
hav. positi|e values and one has a negatree eatue Positive
augmented values produce hft above that of SA. whereas
the converse is also rire Note the improved agreement at
f - 06 achieved when the augmented teros are inclued
in the Ct estimate
Figures 62 and 63 Present the CL and C. results for the top
iwo wings in figure 61. bt a townr and higher subsonic
Mach number These figures show that the ability to predict
the expenrmental CL is similarly improved at these Mach
numbers Both figumr also show that this extension to the
SA gives a tremendous improvement in the ability to predict
the expenrrunetalC,. This is more tree for the diamond
img than for the arrow. since the diamond wing effectively
6-18
addsarean theregionwherereattachment canoccur,
whereas,thearroweffectively removes area. In addition,
the trailing-edge wakefrom the arrow wing caninteractwith
the leading-edge vortex systemso asto moveit farther from
the wing, therebyfurther decreasingits influence in the aft
region.
Geometncal combinations Comparisons are presentedhere
for five combinations of wings They include a cropped-
double-arrow wing, a wing-canard, a strake-wing-body. a
cambered-thick lifting-body andwing combinatton, anda
cropped-delta-wing body. Thespeedrangecoveredis both
subsonic and supersonic.
Cropped-double-arrow wing- Thethin, sharp,uncambered.
complexconfiguration of figure64. takenfrom Lamar
(ref. 70). providesa good illustration of how the various
vortex-flow termscan be used to estimatethelongitudinal
aerodynamics at low speed.(Notethat thefigure legend
groupstheseterms by moderateor high c, which just
recognizes thatthe particular elements of eachgroup differ
accordingto the local flow features, as outlined in figure 27)
In particular, at moderatea'sthereare two Kvje andkAe
terms(an inner and outerpair associated with eachvortex
systemianda K,... term At higher a's. thetwo leading-
edgevortex systems are expected to mergeinto only one
which extendsfrom the apexalong thewing leadingedgeto
thetip Thissystemcan betepresented by a single Kvj. and
k,,t termwhich is thenconibiied withtim pevious Kva
termto producea total vnoexflow effect
Thedetermination of the Z termused in k._ andi used is
estimatingCm needs to befurtherdetailed for completeness
(Thereadermayfind it usefulto refer to figure 26 for the
2 vanation with i justification I In particular, at soielrate
c's 6 for the inboardsystemis just thesrraunwise distance
from the leadingedgeto trailing edgeat thespanlocation
wherethe wing s.eep changes, and for the outersystem6 is
thetip Lhord Each assoviated x term itthe halfwa, distance
along 6 sincethe areabeing represested is rectangular.At
tugher a's Z is the streamoisce distaice from the tip leading
edgeto the trailing edgeape., which for this wing is a smal
postie number The associated i is computed the %aie
way asbeforesincethearearepresented is also tectangular
Consideisg nowthe predictedand teasuredresultspe-
seted in figure64.itis clear thatthe high a ieory gives
betteroverall agteement thaneither te modete i or po-
tentialtheoriCs,as expected. The C1 expenmeital data are
well predictedup to nearly28 andtheC,, up to16' For
highera'sthe vortes systemgrowsin size anditoves far-
ther from the surfaceoverall the wing. especially in the aft
region This givesrise to thefocmud partof the wing still
lifting well.whereas the aft portion respondsto the effcts of
vortex dimirshment and finally breakdown
Ober cxantples of unsplex tigi are given inrefetens 70
Wing canard Figure65. taken iotmreferencelb. presents
appli ationsof theSA to a wing-forebody anda wing-said
at lowspeedsOnly thewing CL results arcshown, onthe
left in thepresence of the foreody, andon the right in the
presence of a high canard(a/l = 0 185) The wing-forebody
comparison showsa variation typical of wings with moderate
sweepbecause they areknown to havea low c departure
andvortex breakdown, which leadsto theSA overestimating
theexpeimentsl resultsat c'sabove8* However, in the
presence of the high canard,a favorableinterfernce results,
andevenwith the reductionin CL, on thewing, dueto
canard downwash. the predictedamountof vortex lift is
developedon thewing The measured results are well
predictedover thec rangeandreachhighe CL valuesthan
thosefor the wing in the presence of theforebody
Strake-wiug-body: Figures66 and67,takenfrom Lamar
(ref. 68). presentcompanions betweenexperimental and
theoretical datafor a completestrake.wing-body andfor
itscomponents, strake-forebody andwing-afterbody. The
theoreticalresults,called high-andmoderate-ahavealready
beendeveloped ,d outlined on figure 27. (Additional
modeling detailscan be foundin reference 71.) For the
completeconfiguration (fig 66) at M = 0 2 itis seenthat
upto CL, the measured C. datais betterpredictedby
the high-camethod Above the corresponding a. neither
theoryappropriately modelsthe flow Itis alsoseenthat
the two theoriesgenerally brackettheC, data.againup
to CL,, or vortex breakdownThe ability of thesetwo
simpletheones todo this is encouraging, in thattheyare
ableto estimate collectively the genetalnonlinearC, versus
CL,tot characteristics for this classof configuration It
can benotedthatthemoderate-a theory may.in general,
estimatebetterthe C,, resultsthanthoseobtainedwith the
high-c theoty This occursbecausethe moderate-a theory
producesa loadcenterfartheraftat a particular valueof
CLan eventhoughthis valueis largerthanthe dataat the
sameangleof atiacL The potenial-flow curveisaddedto
the CL,a versus c plots forreference
The wing afletliod) and strake-forebody longitudinal aerody-
nait data andthehigh-aandmoderare theoriesare given
infigure 67 for Af - 0 2 Justas for thecompleteconfig-
uratian,the individual datatopneers are g-ierally well
estimated by the high-cvthor) or a collecitie combination
of theories up to CL, or large-scale votex breakdown
Whatis particularly u lf is thatthe individual C,, com.
ponentt aretightly bracketedbythe high cv and nooderate-cv
thecoresThe CLdatafor the strake-forebody are, in gn-
oral, reasonably well estiniated by thetwoclosly spaced
theoriesuntil the strakevortex beginsto break down on the
stlaLe atthe higher satuesof a. The spacing bet,-t the
two theonesis larger(of the wing iftetbody. with the data
tendingto be geneally on or abovetheestimatesfrom the
high-a theory This continuesuntil the strakevortex be.
ginsto breakdown aheadof thesing trailhi edge.From
this figureits seenthat.ingeneral,thiscunfiguration has
its arodilynamic compneos betier estimael by thehigh-a
thesry Lastly, note that at te higher anglesof attackthe
wing-aftertody lift vanationsfollow thepoteclal curveeven
thoughthe flow ts closerin a Ileluholtz type
Cambered thi lifting bodyandwing A proposed by-
personicresearchaircraft configuraion composed
of a

cambred-tuck lifing body anda cambered wingis shown
in figure 68 (takenfrom Lamar, rrf. 72). Severaldiffer-
entways of modehig the various wing, body andaug-
mentedvortex-lift effectsdeveloped on tis configuration
at M = 0 2 wereexaminedusing the VLM-SA code. The
methodwhich worked bestin estimating theexperimental
data wasthe onewhich only mcluded thecambered-wing
leading-anduncambeed.wng side-edge vortex-lift terms
- addedto thepotential terms- andis given in figure 69
bythe solid curve. TheVLM-SA computational model for
this configuration included the body andwing mean-camber
slopes,wing dihedral, butnotthickness
Tht representtion is seen to be sufficientto well predict te
valuesof CL,0andCa. A comparison of the resultsalso
showsthatreasonably good overall lift anddragagreement
is achieved.However, both theCL andCn areonly well
estimated uptoan a of about16". For larger a's, the
influenceof the vorexsystemis evidently getting smaller
over the aft portion, mostlikely dueto vertical displacement.
whichcauses the measuredCLandC. to decrease and
becomemorenose-upthan predicted,respectively. However,
theoverall resultsarequite encouraging given the modeling
of the configuration
Croppeddelta-wing body:Figure70. takenfrom reference
16,presents a companison of the aerodynamic characterastis
obtained on a cropped-delta wing.body model testedat
M 12 with the SA methodresultsfor the wing alone
at thesameMach number.The comparison showsthat
inclusion of the leading-edge., side-edge.,andaugnened.
vortex-lift effects leadsto improved agreement with the CL,
C, and CD measured resultsover this restricteda range,
Thevonexflow contributions toC,, areobtained byhaving
therespectivelifts actat their cmtroids. andbypertonrung
theanalytic surfaceintegration. both insideandoutside
of the tipco., of theproductof thepotential-flow lifting
pressure and its chodwise positron (All C D curveshavethe
expeimental valueof CD,0addedin I
Lateral
tedy The QVLM-SA method, with allowancefor leading-
edgevortex breakdo-n, hasbeenappliedto a croppeddelta
wing byLanand Ils i refetrnc 69 to deeraanethe
lateral acrodynarmc charactenstics. Figure 71 showsthe
agreement with the expeninental resultsto he remsarkable
Lanpoints out thatthe inclusion of the side-edge vortex
termsis important to get this goodagreement(The steps
noted in the theory curvesare dueto the vonexbreakdown
cnitena - developedin this reference- affecting eachsideof
the modeldifferently at a with 139 Or. e. d
dpendent upon
thelocal flowconditions present.)
U .Figure /2 showsresultsobtained by applysng the
unsteadysuctionanalogyof Lan(ref 38)totheprediction
of oscillatory roll dampimgfora gothic wing Shown are
experimental andtheoretical data for0 1, versusa for
reducedfrequencies of k - (w b/2U)- 0 75 and 1.20 Tbe
thmeretical resultspredict the expenmental dataquite well
primarily dueto an appropriate modeling of theVortexlag
6-19
andconvective effects. Notethe reduction in roll damping
which occursathigh a'sdueto a vortex-mduced effect
This feattre offers a possibleexplanation of the wing rock
phenomenon encounteredby slenderwings geometries
operating at thoseattitudes.
EFFECTIVENESS
OF CONTROL DEVICES
General
Conventional control deviceson aircraft maybe effective in
this a rangeif they havebeenproperly integratedinto the
dominant flowfield of the configuration Altematively, non-
conventional deviceswhich work with vortical flowfields
should proveeffective. A few selected devicesareexamned
. I
to illustrate thesepoints
Aileron
The rolling momentgenerated by a single trailig-edge
ailerontip-mounted onto a croppeddelta wing is illustrated
on theleft sideof figure 73,takenfrom reference 68.as
a functionof a. This aileronis mersed in the vortiral
flowfield off the wing leading-and side-edges andat a 5'
deflection its effeciveness at generating rolling momentis
constantto the highesttest a. Deflection angleshigher than
5' were tested,but the growth in rollmg momentdoesnot
increaseImearly with deflection Therefore.the effectiveness
is degraded at the higher deflection settings
Vortex-Flow Roll-Control Device
The vortex-flow roll-control device. inproof-of.concept
form. is alsoshownin figure73. This deviceseeksto
develop useful lateralcharacteristicsbygeneratingflow
asynrsneaes through a planform geometrymodification In
particular, the intentof thegeometical changeis to alter
thesynmrical flow situation by modulating theleading-
and/orside-edge vortex systemon theraked.lip sideand
byregulating the amountof areadownstream of thetip
lending-edge on which the voex systemhasto act. The
experimental resultsin the middle of thefigure showthe
sigaificant andlinea, left.wing-down, rotling-monsent
growth with a for a tip rakeangleof 5. Though ero
rolling momentis producedat zero deflection. themiddle
.gure shows the Ci value for this deviceto first exceedthat
of the aileron, just discussed. neara of 12'
Theeffectof recreating the tip rake angleat an a near
18, shownon the right in figure73, is alsoto produce an
almostlinea increasein rolling momni. The resultsof
the precedmig indicates a potentially usefsldevice, which
would work best whenboth tips weredeployed in thesame
direction -either right or left Another featureof this device.
though not shown,is thatit producese:ther no-cr a p~overse-
yawMgmonment.
The potential theorycurvesshownhereweredetermined
from combntitions of symmetrical modelanalyses, andare
sen toaccountfor only a smallportion of the measured
rolling morent
6-20
Leading-Edge Vortex Flap
Rao and Campbell in reference 73 discuss many vonical
flow devices which can be used to manage this flowfield in
a useful manner Among them are full-span or segmented
leading-edge vortex flaps which operate on the lower or
upper nrface. The lower surface LEV have already been
discussed an the design section. sothe upper surface type,
shown in figure 74 (taken from ref 73). will be considered
here. This figure shows a full-span LEVF and how it
functions at moderate and high a's. Rao reports that at
moderate or's "a vortex formsinboard of the flap whose
sucton generates drag on the flap, butalso increases lift
on the exposed wing area." (Rao actually used the term
"low". butthe term "moderate" is employed here for textual
consistency in this lecture I Thus. the LEVF behaves very
similar to a thin, unflapped. highly-swept wing with a sharp
leading edge is the sme a range Whereas, at a higho
coniuon Rao notes that "a dominant vortex develops in
front of the flap while the inboard vortex tends to weaken.
the net effect being a thrust force," T s is a relatively
new flow feature, and therefore one which has not been
fully exploited. Since the local vortex flowfieids behave
differently in these two a ranges. Rao suggests that this
device has "potential applications in different flight regimes".
Figure 75.also taken from reference 73,shows some poten,
taluses of a sgarted vercsionof this devi at high o's
The topsketch indicates how it can provide a drag reduc-
nonby deploying all ou segments at a high lift condition
in order to get the thrst benefit off the front surface of the
flap Theieddle sketches shows how pitch-up or pitch-down
canbemanaged by deploying only the rearward or forward
par. respectively By manipulatng the flaps in this rae
the lift is maximized ahead of or beund the center-of- gras-
ity, respectively, giving rise to the associated morr.erts The
bottom sketches display how roll and )aw control can be ac-
complished through deployment of the devices on one side
lnly
and a coupling of theright'fro segment with the left.
back one, respectively. The right roll is peoduced due the
dflecitod flap,onex-system being farther outboard than that
for the aideflectd side. Th right yaw is associated wath
the thrust on the deployed flaps being properly oriented with
respect to the cter-of-gravty. These eamples tugight
single degree-of-freedom miOnons,buti is clear that with an
approprate-control-system ancdsdh properly sized flap seg-
mentscontrolled maneuvers about more thanone axis at a
time are possible
POST-STALL-FLIGIHT
CHARACTERISTICS
This chapter examines the problems of post.stall flight, or
flight at hilte o's. andoffers somepotential solutirus. In
addition tk blenfits associated with "dynamc stall" are
itraolced midan engiering method given for estmatlng
theeffects, Latly. soice flight at the higher o'simpacts
not rely the aircraft aerodynamacs butalso the enguictnlel
flosfield, a brief discussion is given of vays to iniumize
this effoct
PROBLEM STATEMENT t
Aircraft operating at post-stall-flight conditions ar suscepti-
ble to quickly occurring, unusual maosns - including turn-
bhing,spinning, coning. wing rock and nose slie. These
motinsare caused by the flowfield around the vehicle be.
coming asymmetrical, unorganized and/or unsteady Assoc-
ated with the change in flowfield is a degradation us aircraft
control, primarily lateral, even at zero sideslip. This is itus-
trated in figure 76,taken from Mum and Rao (ref. 74), asa
loss in available yaw control at higher osjust when the re-
quirement for control is increasing The significance of the
flow/control changes, with respect to current fighter aircraft.
is better understood when oneconsiders the evolution is de-
sign which hasoccurred for this class of airplanes is the last
50 years. In partcular, these aircraft now have a subsmtanal
portion of the vehicle ahead of the center of gravity, as re-
ported by Chambers (ref. 75) and shown here as figure 77.
The consequence of this is to make the aircraft very suscp-
tible to differential changes is the lateral flowfield oer the
forward part of the configuration. (T reader is referred to
the two papers by Chambers (refs. 76 and 75)for a discus-
Sionof high a effects and expenental solutions, in panr si.
lar stall/spin, on fighter and general aviation aircraft.]
Apart from lateral solutions suggested by novel flow control
methods on an aircraft. it is still possible to use design
crieria for the "prevention of directional departure due
to either stability or control charauienutics". as woedby
Chambers (ref. 76). In particular. nuliahy aircraft are more
likely to be :.sstant to directional departure if bothC%.
and the Lateral Control Divergence Parameter (LCDP) ar >
0 These cnteria -defined in figure 7g. are not absolutes but
should be viewed as a useful guide with sihlch to examine
each new aircraft design because they arebased on a large
collection of conelated data Even Ifa proposed design fails
these coteria. there me still altemarive solutions to address
the post.stallfight problem.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Possible solutions to the problem of redlced aia raft lateral
control in this a range do notlend themaelves well to
analytical tirett with a resulting mathematicAl approach.
Therefore, the engineering method to use is that of an
expermetsal proces, like that depicted in figure 79 -
taken from Nguyen and Gilbert (ref 77) A successful
pass through this process vonld be one as which potential
problems are iKntified early on aW solutions verified
This section. therefore presents some possible solutions to
this problem through either novel aerodynamic or powered
devices
Aerodynamic Devices
Several novel devices hasebeen stuied whlch offer the
potential to increaw the lateral control at she higher a s The
ones presented is ths section workto control the relatively
small nose vortex on the long forebody, and are called
nose devices Some of the devices discussed previously,
e g.vorexlift roll contrl device andLEVF (plu others
4
 6-21

pesented in reference68), should alsobe considered

for a rangeis an active areaof controls research.
flightcontrol in this a regime.
[The readerinterested
in learning nre abouttheaerody-

Thenosedevicesconsidered include in actuatedforebody namicandnon-aerodynamic reasonsfor using thrust vec-

shrake,Jet blowing, tangential slot blowing andjet suction, toring is referredto thecommentsbyPoisson-Quinton in
asshownin figure 80, takenfrom reference77. Though reference 781
different in activation, all seekto changethe localfluid
melchartcs in such a way thatthe nosevortex on oneside DYNAMIC STALL
of the forebody will be closer to the surfacethan on the
other. One canview this as removing vortex symmetay. The Thereis anotheraspectof flight in thisflow regimethatcan
closer the vortex is to a surfacethe more"suction force" well havea positive benefit. It is called "dynamic stall" and
it generates andthe larger the yawing momentfrom that is assocsated with a pitching motion, in which theslender
s.,e. Figure 81. takenfrom reference 77, showstheresults configuration reachesa given a rapidly beforethevortical
from oneof thesedevices.Note how effective the actuated- flowfield can changecharactere.g breakdown.This can
forebody strike deployed on the left sideof a genericmodel occur because the vortex systemhasa hysteresis response
is at generating a noseright yawing moment.The effect is during a pitching motion, asnotedby Lawson (ref. 79).
seento increasewith strakedeflection andto peakbetween andleadsto the phenomenon known as vortex lag with it
,
400 to 55* depending on the deflection, attendant effect of keeping thevortex systemcoherentto a
higher o. All this can leadto aerodynatmic forces/moments
Thrust vectong in excessof the static values.The studyof "dynamic stall"
effectshasreceivedincreasing emphasisin recentyearsby
Thrustvectoring hasbeenemployed for many yearson the manyresearchers, not only becauseof its positive effectsbut
Harrier aircraft to provide total lift at zero (andlow forward) therear concerns of its impacton higher-a stability and
airspeed, lift enhancement during "ski-jump" takeoff and control of flight vehicles Sec.for example,thepapersby
flight, andin-flight thrustreversalSincethis aircraftcan Naumowicaet al (ref 80).BrandonandShah(ref. 81) and
"fly" at low airspeed,thereis a needto augmentthe aero- Nguyen (ref. 82).
dynamc controls with a dedicated reactioncontrol system
(DRCS).Without a requirement for flight at zero air-speed. Ashley et at. (ref. 83) haveput togethera simpleempirical
theneedwould no longer exist to havethe enginethrust theory to estimatethe Cy andC,, effectsof sinusoidal
vectored(deflected) neartheaircraft's center-of. gr,;.) pitching - a motion of (-cosfit) between00 and900.
nor for a DRCS In particular. if thenozzlesare locatedis - low aspectratio wings The keyingredients are to keep
theregionof aircraft rearclosure,as is a conventionalen- tsvc, of the fluid physics andan uosteadiness parameter they
ginearrangement, this putsthe thrustin a logical locatuio cull . '-hich is relatedto .,e circular frequencyandthe
'oe its deflection ia order to provide effective longittaonl rat.sssir-n of do/ Their analysis follows 'he wing's
and/or lateralcontrol The peeceding is the curent fi.us in torn-.. acodynamic forceper unit chordwise distanceis
,
thrust-vectonng research wherethedeflected thrus t to i, assunco ' consist of threeparts.(I) a portion determined
pat sorne,if not all. of theneededaircraft control as o' from the uste of changeof crossflow momentum, as in
for which conventional aerodynamc controls are itre nt. a.4cj theory, but with slabsof incompressible fluid
-cdt
Theimportanceof this focus is reflectedin the curem fliet orteiQt normal to thewing surfaceat 0. (2) a portion
research programsutilizing ther-15 SMTD. F-18 IIARV ctc lr'd on a quasi.steady bastsbyrotating the leading-
andX-31 aircraft tige fiction through 900(Poihami.s, ref. 18) and(3) a
Ive,. dominantat thehighera's andfound by cromsflow-
Figure82. takenfrom reference 77. illustrates howa naral. drag corsuteratons. In therangeof a's whereit-ahhility is
deflcted 30. becomes increasingly ineffective at generatait, presentabove the wing. the first two part. ie ...sumed to
yawing momentas a is increasedThis is causedby the actonly aheadof the point zBO The third partactsonly
2
rudderflowfield not experiencing freeair, butinsteadbeing behindthatstationandis proportionalto Co, sin a. where
exposed to increasingamountsof "the low energyseparated CD, is takento be the measured drag(ornormalforce) at a
wake"which comesfrom the %mg andfuselage,asnotedby - 0* For pitching ot) aboutan astfl.ed at .he two-tiurds
Ngu)en andGilbert Figure82 alsoshowstheconabution chordlin 1c,), thenoemal forceandmoment about thataxis
to yawing tomentdueto thrust vectoring at 10*yaw -t are" gsven as-
mavimum power.It is miietsting to notethat thiseffect
is only weakly dependent on a Is order to .... re fuel C, . (6m)
I- 8cO/V)cesa
it would be beaeficatlto have 6 tan -A -
bumed durng a maneuver.
the yaw-corirol- transition occur gradually from being + 16( C/V)(zBo/a)cono
2
fully dependent on the rudderat lower r's to beingfully + (6C/V=)[3(zaD/1O) - f ixln/MOli
dependtent on thrustvectorng at thehighera's -isn ianner - 2-
simila to thatdepictedbythe idealized.acro-yawcontrol + x -. /
curve + 8(ic.lV)[(zBD1co) - llam
2 2
Theblending of acrodynamic controls, deploynent of novel + (oc9/V) [3(xa1CO) + (8/3) - (16xBLj3.b))
2 j}
aerodynamic devics andenginethrustvectoring over a wide + CD,[sm a + (t/l)(Oeo/V)
6-22
and
2
C. 21(XBD/CO)(o/) .(XBDCO) - 1sin2a
taA- - sion concerning how these flowfields form. grow and decay
2
+ (& o/V)13(zBD/CO) - 4(XBDIOO) + (4/3)] cos
2 3 2
+ (a4/V )[(3/5)(ZBD/c) - (xBD/C)
+ (4XBDO/9c)]}
- presented include the suction-analogy with extensions, free-
2
A \J
',fisin
+ (ac0fV)i3(cBp/c0) ( I[(cBD1/)
' 2 - (16xBt/3A) isin a
+ (g/)]nina
2
+ (aco/V)21-(16/9) + (16XBD/3C0)- 6(XDD/cO)
+ (12/5)(xoD/A)J}
2
- CD,(coy/)((9)(co0/V)sin a - (l/135)(aco/V) )
Figure 83, taken from Ashley et al (ref. 83), shows mea-
sured and predicted results at a value of K = 0 04 where
the Cm has been corrected to be about 77% e. They note-
The fir agreem between coreponding plots is clear."
(Only one shown here.] "One can peihaps conclude that this
very elementary attempt reproduces quite well that qualita-
tine behavior of the aitloads and might serve as the basis of
methods for prelinunary-design estimation on lifting surfaces
of supeenaneuvenng aircraft"
[INGINEfINLET
In order to minimize the pressure or Mach number distortion
across the face of an engine or inlet, a successful imegra-
lion with the airframe is needed This is especially iroe for
fighters and is done by taking into aconunt. eatly in th: d-
sign cycle, the flowfieldin which the inlet is to be imnmersed
Peener (ref. 84) illustrates this process on the Mirage 200D
%shorewith forebody reshaping alone flowfield distortions
acre reduced 30%. Beyond reshaping. Leytnaeri(ref. 85)
shows how the faselage.boundary-layer flofield can be kept
out of the inlets through hvertets tas for the Rafal¢. F-I IA.
etc ). splitter plates (as fot the Rafale,. or hieeds(as for the
YF-17 or F/A-18) At high c's. minimizing the d-,tortions
hecon'es more difficult because of flow separation which cn
occur at the inlet lip
Leynaett notes that for a fixed sharprinlt lip there areat
least two basic solutions either add vortex geeratlor to
control the sepatatd flow in the inlet duct or bleed the
bondary layerat the lip. as per Concorde For nassable
inlets, there is a potential weiglsttnechatism problem but
also a significant benefit This benefit is documented in
figure 84 for the auxthary, door device, along with two
other types of o%able inlets Theroiatng cowl lip (or cowl
lip dloop) has also been studied, as reported in a summary
by Nguyen and Gilbert (ref 77). and the results shown in
figure 85 This figure shows the measured improeienits in
pcessure recoscry averagetutolence and distoftion oilagund
by increasing the cowl lip droop angle at the higher is
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This lecture focuses on aircraft high angle-of-attak acrvl)-
namics with their attendant vortical flo.fiehis In order it,
perform analytical or experimental work in this a range, it
ts imperative that the fundamental features of the dotmmnao
flowfleld be well understood. Therefore, an extended discus-
has been given. This was followed by a representative sam-
pie of varioic aalysis methods used to predict the effects
of vortical flow, along with examples of each. The methods
vortex-filaments. firee-votesele. and modeling of thc Euler
and Navier-Stokes equations.
Vortical flow can also be used in the design process using
engineenng methods. Four examples have been given which
include a complete wing, a portion of a wing and leading-
edge vortex flap systems Each of these was subsequently
analyzed or analyzed and wind-tunnel-tested Upon exam.
m,ng the aerodynamic results, the conclusion is reached that
the salient flow features have been captured in the design
process
Stability and control in this a range has been examined with
methods which employ the suction-analogy with extensions
The result of which is to establish that these methods are
able to make reasonable and quick engineering estimates
of both longitudinal aid lateral global charactensties as
long as the vortex system is coherent. and sometimes even
beyond overall coherency. A general role is that once
large-scale vortex breakdown occurs, the experimental
procedures with their emphasis on a sequential process
ard/or redundancy should currently be viewed as the method
of choice, provided all of the test parameters and length-
scales are ',ell understood Novel control devices, such
as forebody nose devices which utilize vortnal flows aid
which (as of yell have not been nosleled aalytically, have
been shown to mke a significant coniution to the lateral
characteristics in the higher-a range or post-stall flight-
regime Thrust sectonng is also shown to make a significant
contibution in this a range where conventional latial
contuol surfaces fail
An ergineenng method, which also employs the stction
analogy, is provuled to estimate the normal force and
pitching moment of delta wings underlgoiPgdynamic stall
Though exact agteenent is not achiemsed witl measured
das, this inCtho does captur the qualitative behavior of
the loadings
REFERENCES
l1) DeMets. R X-31 will turan a dinse Aerospace Amet
ica. October1990. pp. 2629
(2) Manyauthots Engineering Methodsin Aerodynamc
Analysis and Design of Aircraft AGARD Report-R-783,
'Ay 1991
Many authors High Angle-of-Atiack Aerodynanucs
.3)
AGARD-LS-I! March 1982

(4) Many authors:Aerodynamics of Vortical Type Flows in
ThreeDimensionsAGARD-CP-342, April 1983.
(5) Anderson, J. D., Jr: Modem Compressible
Flow with
Historical PerspectiveMcGraw-Hill Book Co, p. 166.
1982.
(6) Cunningham. A. M., Jr.: Practical Problems:Airplanes.
In. Unsteady TransonicAerodynamics. Prog in Astronautics
andAeronaitics. Vol. 120.p 92. 1989.
(7) McMillin, S. N; andThomas.I. L: andMinaran, I- M.:
Navier- StokesandEuler Solutions for Lee-Side Flows Over
Supersonic DeltaWings,A Correlation With Experiment
NASA TP 3035.December1990.
A: andSquire.L C.- Possible7 pes of Flow
(8) Stanbrook.
atSweptLeading Edges.Aeronaut Q., Vol. XV. P 1,
Febroaiy1964.pp 72-82.
(9) Hemuch. M. J.:andLuckling. J. M.: Connection Be-
tween .eading- EdgeSweep.VortexLift, andVortex
Strengthfor DeltaWings.J. of Aircraft. Vol. 27.No 5.
May 1990.pp. 473-475
(10) Smith,J. H. B.: Calculations of the Flow over Thick.
Conical. SlenderWingswith Leading-Edge Separation
Aeronautical Research Counctil R&M 3694.March 1971.
(It) Hemuch. M J: Similanty for 8figh.Angle-of-Attack
Subsonir/rransonc Slender-Body Aerodynamics. J.of
Aircraft. Vol 26.No. I. January1989.pp.56-66
(12) Lan ar. J E.: Ilalhusy. J.B; Fnnk.N. T.: Smith. R. H.:
Johnson. T D.. Jr.: Pan. I -L: andGhaffan. F" Review of
VortexFlow Flight Projects on the F-lO16B.
AIAA PaperNo
87-2346CP.August 1937.
(i3) Lamar.J.E, andJohnsonT. D. Jr. Sensitivity of
F-106B Leading.Edge-Vortex Imagesto Flight andVapor.
Screen ParametersNASA TP 2818.June1988
(14) Lamboume.N C. andBryer. D. W.: The Bursting of
LeadingEdgeVortices.SomeObservationsandDiscussion
of the PheomenooAeronautical Research
Council R&M
3282.1962.
(15) Wentz.W I1. Jr. andKohlma. D L VortexBreak
don on SlenderSharp-Edged Wings J of Aircraft. Vol 8.
No 3. March 1971.pp. 156-161.
(16) Lamar.I E. SomeRecentApplications of theSuction
Analogy to Vortex-Lift EstimatesIn Aerodynamic Analy.
sesRequiringAdvancedComputers. Pi II. NASA SP-347.
pp 985-101. MArch1975.
(17) Polamus. IL C A Conceptof ,1, Vmrex Lift of
Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Basedon a Lea'ng.Edg.Scticon
Analogy. NASA TN D-3767, December 1966.
6-23
(18) Polhamus. E. C.: Predictionsof Votex-Lift Charac-
teristics Basedon a Leading-Edge Suction Analogy. J.of
Aircraft. Vol. 8, No. 4, April 1971.pp 193-199.
(!9) Margason.R. J; andLamar.J. E.: Vortex-Lattice
FORTRAN Programfor Estimating SubsonicAerodynamric
of Complex Plaifors. NASA TN D-6142.
Characteristics
Februay 1971.
(20) Lamar. J. E.; and Gloss.B. B.: SubsonicAerodynamic
Characteristicsof Interacting Lifting Surfaceswith Separated
Flow Around SharpEdgesPredicted
by a Vortex-Lansce
Method. NASA TN D-7921. September1975.
(21) Lamar. J. E; andHerbert.H. E.: Production Version
of the ExtendedNASA-Langley VortexLattice FORTRAN
ComputerProgram- VolumeI User's Guide. NASA TM-
83303.April 1982.
(22) Snyder.M. H., Jr,;andLamar, .. I: Application
of theLeading-Edge- Suction AnAlogyto Prediction of
Longitudinal Load Dismrbetin andPitching Momentsfor
Sharp-Edged Delta Wings.NASA TN D-6994.October
1972.
(23) William. J.E., and Vukelich, S. R.: '1HE2
USAF
STABILITY AND CONTROL DIGITAL DATCOM. Volume
II. Implementation
ok'Datcom Methods AFFDL-TR-76-45.
Vol II. November1976.
(24) Lamar.). E: Extensionof LeadMing-Edg-Suction
Analogy to Wingswith Separted I-low Around thq Side
Edgesat SubsonicSpeeds. NASA TR R-428.Octo.r 1974
(25) Bradley R.0: Smith. C.W.. andBhateley. I. 1.:
,brtexLift Prediction for Complex Wing Planforms. I of
Aircraft, Vot 10.No 6. June1973.pp 379-381.
(26) L.an.C E; and Mehroma. S C An Improved Wood-
ward's PanelMethodfor Calculating Leading-Edge and
Side-Edge Suction Forcesat Subsonicand Supersonic
Speeds NASA CR-3203. November1979.
(27) Lamar.I E. Predictionof VortexFlow Characteristics
of Wings atSubsomc andSupersonic Speeds J of Aircraft,
Vol 13.No 7. July 1976.pp 490-494.
(28) Lamar.J.E. Recent Studhes of SubsonicVortexLift
Including Parameters Affecting StableLeadig-Edge Vortex
Flow. J of Aircraft. Vol. 14.No. 12.December1977.pp.
1205-1211.
(29) Lamar.J E., andCampbell.I P Recent Studies
at NASA- Langley of Vorwtcal
flows Interactig with
Neighboring SurfacesAGARD CP 342.PaperNo 10.
1983
(30) Lan. C. IL. A Qual-Vtirtex-Laitce Method in Thin
Wing Theory J. of Aircraft. Vol. II. No. 9. September
1974.pp 518-527.
6-24
(31)Lan. C E; andChang,.J..F.*
Effect for Cambered
Calculation of VortexLift
Wingsby theSuctionAnalogy. NASA6
C'9.3449.july 1981.
(32) Lan, C. a:; andChang,J.F.: VORCAM - A Computer
Programfor CalculatingVoetexLift of Cambered
Wingsby
theSuctionAnalogy. NASA CR.165800, November1981
(33) WoodwardF. A;Tiaoco. E.N:and Larsen. I W:
Analysis andDesignof Supersonic Wing-Body Combia.
tiona. Including Flow Properties
in the NearField. PartI -
Theory andApplication NASA CR-73206.August1967.
(34) Kulfan. R. :Wing Airfoi; ShapeEffectson the
Development of Leading.Edge
Vortice-- AIAA PaperNo
79-1675.2979
(33) Henderson.W. P.: Effectsof Wag leading-Edge
RadiusandReynoldsNumberon '.onguudinal Aeroenamlc
Charaicterstics,
of flighty SweptWing-Bodly:onigurv:ons
at SubsonicSpeedsNASA TN 0.4361, December1976
(36) Carlson.12 W1:andMack. R.J.. Studiesof Leadang.
EdgeThims Phenomeina AIAA PaperNo 80-0325.1980
(37) Carlson.If W1:andWalkiry. K B A Computer
ProgramfoeWing SubsonicAerodynamic Performince
EsimateisIncluding AttainableThrustandlVortexLift
Effects NASACR-3515.March 1982
(381Lan.C E. TheUnsteadySuctionAnalogy andAppli.
cations AIAA PaperNo 81-1875.August 1981
1391Lan,C r TheUinAeady Quasi-Vortex
LatticeMethod
with Applications to Animal PropulsionJ of Fluid Mechan.
ict. Vol 93. Pt. 4. 2979,p 747
140)Lan,C a Applied Airfoil andWin3 Theory Cheng;
ChungBook.Co.- R 0OC- pp 459.374.2988
(41) Mehrira. S. C. inaldLars,C a A Thoeccal Inses.
ligation of the Acrodynxawics
of Lox-Aspecuslatio Wings
with Prt3J Leading-Edge SeparationNASA CR-14304
;anuary1978
(421Pao,I L, anldLan. C E A Vorsex-rilament
Wd Core
Iodelfor Wingswith EdgeVortext
SeparationNASACR-
1638-47.February2982
(431Karidil, 0 A. andYates.C C. Jr TransorucVorex
FlowsPastDella,Wings IntegralEqu~ationApproach AIAA
J. Vol 24.No 11, Novetmber 2986.pp 2729.2736
(44) Katz.I.- andMaskesu.B UnsteadLaw-Sped Aerit-
dynamicModtel(f oeeplcte AinvraftConfigurations
3 of
Aircraft. Vol 23. No 4. April 2989.pp 3G2-3
10
4
( 5) Johunson.
F T. Lu.P, Tuxico. -N .and EptonI M
A An lmir.iod anetlMethodfor theSolLior of Three.
Dimensiontal
Lea/ar8;- bige VortexPlows VolumeI1Thory
Document NASACR-32 /F. Jul; 1980
(46) Lucksng. I M; Schoonover.
T. RecentAdvances
W. E., Jr; andFrank.N
1
in Apptyirg FreeVortexSheetTheory
for the Estimation
c' :x Flow Aerodynamiucs.AIAA
PaperNo. 82-00953.-auary1982.
(47) Luiclaing,J. M. Hoffler. K D.;andGrantz.A. C.
RecentExtensions to the Free-Vortex-Sheet
Thory for
Fxipanded Convergence Capability NASA CP-24l6 pp.85.
114. 1986.
(48) llummsel,D Onthe VortexForation Overa Slender
Wingat LargeAnglesof IncidenceIn AOARD-CP.247.
PaperNo. 13. January2979.
(49) Raj, P.Olling. C.R..Sikora.J. S.: Keen.J M: Singer,
S W.: andBrennan.J. a- Three-dimensional Eulerftjavicr-
StokesAerodynamic Method(TEAM). Vol F Computation
MethodandVerification APWAL- lR.87-3074. Jane1989.
(501Rnj,P. andBrennanJ.. Improvements lo an Ester
Aerodynamic Mltsod for TransonicFuow Similation. AIAA
PaperNo 87-0040.January1987
(51) Powell,K G. andMunnan. E. M -A Comparison of
ExperimentalaridNamenical
Resultsfor DeltaWings with
VortexFlapsAIAA PaperNo 86.1840.June2986,
(32) Mutenan.
E M: Powell. K. G,- and Miller. D S.,
Comparisonof ComputationsandExperinmental Datafor
LeadingEdgeVortices- Effectsof Yawarnd VortexFlaps
AIAA PaperNo 86439, January2986
1531Fles. J. anldChadterjan,N M The Numerical
Simulation of TransonicSeparated
Flaw aboutthe Complete
F-16A AIAA PaperNo 88-2306.June2998
141 (shaffits. F, Luckinog.I1M.. Thionsas.J L, andBates.
B L Navier. StokesSolutionsAbout theP/A-IS Forebody-
Leading-Edgte Extensio Configuration, 3 of Aircraft, Vol
27 No. 9. September 2990.pp 737.748
1351Rts).P An EulerCedefor Nonlinear Aerodynamic
Analysis Asseusmwa of Capabilities.SAE TechnicalPaper
Sei 881486.Osioter 2988
156 Pao.1 1. wortcal nowx Analysisfor F-10611Configo.
ialons A2AAPapeiNo 88-3'45-CP. Jul) 1988
1371Mc~jiegur.I DiTeVarvia-Scrcen Methodo R2FowVi.
sualotro I of Fluid Mechanics.Vol 11. Pt 4. December
196. pp 461-511
(01 T1homas.I L. Krit. S T.-aid Anderson.W K
Navier-StoIkes
Compuatios of VoisicalFlows uver Law-
Aspect-Ratio
Wings AIAA J. Vol 2S,No 2. rebiusry
1990.pp 205-212
1(91Lana..I E. Schememsly. R T. and Roddy.C.
S Deselopmractof aVortxif DesignProcedureand
Appl.stiuoeto a SlenderManseuver-WingConfigurationJ
of Aircraft. Vol IS No 4 April 1981.pp 259-266
 6-25

(60) Carlson.H. W.; andDarden.C. M Validation of a ActuatedForebodyStrokesfor YawControl at igh Angles

Pair of CompaterCode-,for EstimationandOptimization of of Attack ALAAPaperN~o.87-2557, August 1987.
Subsom6d Aerodynamic Perfonmanceof Simple Hinged-Flap
Syitemsfor Thin SweptWingi. NASA 7? 2828.November J R : High-Angle-of-Attack Aerodynamics
(75) Chambers.
1988 LearoedAIAA PaperNo. 86-1774-CF.
Lessons June1986.

(61)Lamar.J.E.: A Vortex-Lattice M-thod for theMean J. R.. Overview of StallSpin Techology

(76) Chamrbers.
CamberShapes of TrimmedNoncoplanar Flanfoims with AIAA PaperNo 80-1580.Angust1980.
MinimumnVortexDrag. NASA TN D-8090.Jane1976
(77) Ngnyen,L T.; and Gilbert. W. P.: Impactof Emerging
(62) Lamar.J. E; andCampbell.3.F.- VortexFlaps- Ad- on FutureCombatAircraft Agitity. AIAA 90-
Technologies
Fighters.Aerospace
vancedControl Devicesfor Supereroise 1304,May 1990.
Ameisca.January1984.pp 5-9 (78) Poissori-Quiton. P., Comments
on Propalsion/Airfranie

(63) Frink. N. T.: Concet(for DesigningVortexFlap Capa-

Integrationfor Improving CombatAircraft Operational
Geometries(U) NASA WP-2233. December1983. biliries In, AGARD- P.740 SpecialCourseon Fundamers-
ratsof FlghterAircraft D -sign, Februiary 1986.
L D Performance
(64) Huebnes. Analysis andSuptisonic
VortexFlapsfor the Convair
Designof Wing Leadingt-Edge (79) Lowion. M V.. The SeparatedFlow on SlenderWings
F-106B.MastersThesis,The GeorgeWashington Universrty in UnsteadyMotion Reparts& Memoranda No 3448.
andAppliedScience.
Schoolof Enginceertg September Research
Aeronautical Council. London.U K. September
1985. 1963

16.
Vol I NASA CP-24
(65) VortexFlow Aerodynamiucs. (80) Nanmowier. T, Jamb. M. A.. andMargason. R L.
1986 of DeltaWings wita LargePitch
Aerodynamic Investirgation
Amplitnde. AIAA PaperNo 88-4332,August1988
Vol 11 NASA CP-2417.
(66) VariesFlow Aerodyniamics.
1986 (81) Brandon,J.M; andShah.G If. Effectof Large
Amplitude Pitching Morionson the UnsteadyAerodynamics
Vol III NASA CP-2418,
(67) VortexFlowAerodynamic%. of Flat-Flair Wings AIAA PaperNo 88-
Characteristics
1986 4331,August1988

(681Lamar.J E.. Nonlinear Lift Controlat HfighSpeedand
Fow TechnologyIn.
Iligh Angle of Attack UsingVortexn
AGARD-R-740 SpecialCourseon Fundamentals nf Fightr
Airft Design.February(986
(69) Lan. C I-. aridIlsa. C It Effectsof VoriesBreak.
downon Logitudinal andI.ateral-Duicronal Aerodynansics
of SlenderWingsbythe SuctionAnalogy. AIAA PaperNo
82-1385.Angust1982.
(82) Nguyen.L T. Flight DynamicsResearchfor Hfighly
Agile Aircraft. SAETechnicalPaperSers 892235.Septem-.
bee1989.
(83) Ashley. It - Katz. J. Jarrati.M A; andVaried..T
UnsteadyAeradynanuc Loading of DeltaWingsfor Low
andIfigh Angler of Attack Proceedings of dieIntrnational
Symposiunion NonsieadyFluid Dyniaracs.ASME FEiDVol
92. Toronto.Canada.Jane1990,pp 61-78

(70) Lamar.J. I.. Analysis aridDesignof Suake-Wing P, Techiqtuesfor Performance

(8.4)PFencer. Optiniisaio
1980
Coofigurations J of Aircraft. Vol. 17.No.), Janurary In AGARD-R-740 Special
in Cruiseansi Mainoeuvrabiliry
pp 20-27 Courseon Fundamnrtals of FighterAircraft Design.Febru-
ary l9tFi
(71) Lamar.J. E.: andPrank.N. T.: Exprmental aridAna-
lytil Studyof the Lonsgitadinal Aerodynamic Characters- 185)Leyriacrt. J Fundamental,of FighterAircraft Designi
ticsof Analytically andEmpirically DesignedSnalie-Wing EngineIntakearndAfierbody In AGARD-R-740 Special
Configuaiorns at SubcriticaSpeeds.NASA TP 1803.Jane Courseon Fundamentals of FighterAircraft Design.Pebeu-
1981 ary 1986

J.E.: Summaryof SomeRecentStudiesof

(72) Lanmar.
Affecting TheILeading ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VortexUtt andParameters
Suhssonuc
F, . re Stability. AIAA PaperNo. 76-414,July 1976
The authsorirshesto thankall rallcagoes. iho coenbued
(73)Rps. I) M. andCampbell,J F VotclFlwMn for novis thislecture,also.Mr. II W Carlson.
informnations
agemeart !cnce ' V 24
TechniquesIn. Prog Aerospace Dr li I Hiratch. SMr L T Nguyen.Dr E. C. Yates.
pp 173-22-i.1987 ;r.- aridmywife. Joyce. far their martyhelplul suggestions
regardingthe inarpt. ws it eter P JacobsandMrts
(74) Mumn.D G.-and Rao,D) M Exploratory Studiesof Corsir Smithfar manuscriptprepiaration.
6-26
0 ortexo7-1
laSpil
Low ModerateHigh Iligieraor 5 coU ee~bbl
a a apost-stall 00 4 0 0,000.
kd e be

Sofi yroob~olso obooood

.5000wSl
Opennynbfl W1.01 r-k0 Oot-d
30

10 * <
O.SiO-0 ShoOkrd0

M,

W oSMok
bubbl OOO5rb

a.deg Ref. 7.

Fig 1. Schematic of lift curve by asranges, Fig 4. Classification of experimental data for sharp-
leading-edge delta wings.

Lateral position
A 8- of core
~65
.... 75:
~ c-
Aiiached Flow LEBobbie Separaion 2
4~ Core strength 0
30 3f Vertical position
3Dri 2 4 of core
Delta Wing i 'z

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
LE shoatlr/c
Voreo /r /

Fig 5 Le-Ading-edge vortex characteristics for thin

Coredelta wings, %tf 0,K =1

Fig 2 Fkc sketches

f oderate as Higher a

2-vortex system 1-voltee system Anlofatcs10-

Ref 8 Ref 12
Fig 3 Vurtex systems on high aspect ratio wing, Fig 6 Multiple sortices foind above wing of k-1061)
A = 65* during flight, all = 25, 000fi , AM= 0,4, 1? =-3x0
 6-27

Lasersheet
plane "x 6-s7
Cameraa
Ogee wingg inrea

0.77 C,
a=158' a =30.4",L
aa04 A Increasel

Ref. 13. Fig. 10. Effect of a and delta-wing sweep on vortex

system displacement.
Fig 7. Vapor screen applied to Soviet research aircraft

80 cC c
'0CLmax Cs
, ,
- BD-Ape x

c . ''
'v~c;d
&9'=8F E.P
deg 40

5 4 C, 1

0 ' Ref. 16
40 50 60 70 80 90 Fig II Original application of suction analogy
A, deg

Fig 8 Variation ofa for vortex breakdown and CL,ma.

for delta wings

iA~

U A= 1 13

20155 , A:"a -
A '7"7 ..0 iS
10
.'W
e.36 . k-
40in
7,9
kK - . '_
40 A: 15

32 X.03 Y , NA . KK,10

A.4

Rilef16 Ref 18
Fig 9 Leading-edge suction distributions 4iad a for Fig. 12 Variation of K, and K, i, with A for delta
departure At 0 wings. M = 0
6-28

U
u fJ0,
"OMI forceal
2"I 7 0 Exp L~e~adi
edgeo. force or Norm
t-hrd'
tg

1.2 M 1 eSIMe.e2ge M:2800

-Kpol$ 1.68 Ki4=128 force
Wietlon
oK,,,. 22 8K 0 6 .2 N
C1 Ci vIe force
.40 Sl .edge
suck i force
SC

0 11 Ref. 24
a. deg a, deg Fig. 16. Vortex-lift concept, suction analogy applied to
LE and SE.
Ref. 16.

Fig. 13 Effect of supersonic Mach number on CL for

A = 1.147 delta wing

0 Experment
5r A.
to--
------
TotalVt
Puzenulato n Kp 1461
~~
- I0001ei601y
(L-Sk
ortex
hitteoms
v-Vro~lLJKj.08
CLI~~~~~
0_-____ _ ' "___ 20 K,". .2126 cpeOO."

200

0 2 4
eLL 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 a "0
a.atQ.
F ,

Ref
24
Ref 22 Fig 17 At.OdYrcsAiIC characteriatICS of A I rvctan-
Fig 14 Longitudinal loadd rib r, 1 = 1 147 gular wing, M 0
delta, At ; 0

, A N.
0 65 187 16
i701 146 12 , u
075 107 CN vIa
,%80, 71 T.. ioryTotory
N 85' 35 I
* ... \1 -
,.I
~ oo02
03
777t,
3264r N~1 Kv,~1/
.24 56- ao,

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 01 2 3 4 5 6 0 8 16 24 32 0D 3 16 Z4 3.2
K14 K14 0

II
fief Rtef 27
Fig 15 Sim ilarity for computational solutions f r tbin Fig 18 Theiret ecal
%alues of A0 . &utd Ar/e for
delta icangs, M = 0 K14 tan ,=/A cropped delta Wings
 6-29

A =41S K6 = 1431 .4~A=2 K6 =2279

1 0 - x Pol~o5e
t Oo , vrI.ESdO2
-P~2otIMthory 0nn A = Kl = , 101 A=45 K,,.=2037

f A.0 K,, 2412 0 1.0 KA,=0I0

A=III ( ,S
in.: 1r
6r.
4 e 6r CL 08 oo -- Pote

-t M 00 Lae

A . 2.0 r A 3.0 -. 0 exi en

8 16 24320
-:O-i 8 16 24 32
40 4 8 12 16 20 0 4 8 12 16 20 a. deg a deg
Ref.
27.
Ref. 28. Fig. 22. Aerodynam,- characteristics of two sheared
Fig. 19 Effect of vortex normal force on spanwise load rectangular wings, M ;-;
0.
center; Mm 0

s A = 0 8735 - C.31
M 145 N=6 3 2 Cn-, C. we
A.2 -04 C. P
M4150 K o,307
C0 Experiment

2Y 075 2 FO Kvso . 1 466 - 0% LE sucion

cpermet
,21 CLP, CL!t2 0 100 LE suction
120 AO 0 . CL ) .V.: t
.I ", "26 L 08 C 4 '"
Cs .2enA
0 764 ~ 1. Pot I=-uo
.
C

I- .I ';' 0 0 16 24 32 0 4 .2
T -- 'deg CL
0 8 1 24 32 0 4 8 22 16 Ref 27
,d ,I Fig 23 Aerodynamic characteristics ofa cropped delta
Ref 27 wing, M = 0 6
Fig 20 Vortex lift at supersonic speed

Actual
4e4N4.C,, CL.W.e CLv:e

- 631- 62 ' ' , - "

1 2, 5 8. 2g' Phinar polnlisi Kuta-Joukowski ielaitonship

t 7
o "" "oV 4G 2,' dFs5 dFs(I)= PWnet(/) rf(ldl
h' , ' "Jk'
/l"().teads to
(A -i a- d-
dt K010

ig 21 "lheoretical vlues of h', ,, and Az/e, for

wingo with subsonic leading edges and sonic trading Ret. 28
edges Fig 24 A mned vortex lftdevelopment
 6-30
12Z07~ Kp,1I279 K7 6*

Ci..Oai -. L..,
i. . PotentialflowA A

c t. I. ..
-i C .3t..t I
7 ,
,

"'CLA-3 L-A .0.673Potential 2- 06 SectionA-A

.04"
Experiment ACD

0 . '6 "1 -02

16A. IM 1 /A:1.St '0466 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 -.1 0 .1 2 .3 .4

C,.sn
1 .... X .. .... Ref. 31.
Fig. 28. Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of
0 a 1' 24 02 "-2 delta wing with conical LE flap; A = 1.333, M = 1.4,
Cleo , VORCAM.
Ref. 16
Fig. 25 Lift chr.racteristies of wings with streamwise
tips, A 0.

On~wg tO U.0 Vm v-.L 11 0 ,

£ ....... c DL- .L-C

*--,CV/2

/"i4.€
-
4

*
-'
" ,..'
2- *"
Pl~ni,21
0%Lt[aOcn.,
Pe~Seebnon
5
s
e oA
c'C
" q.

AA

0 4 12
i
On. 16 20 24R Reffl31
Ref 28 Fig 29 %ortex action point concept, Lan
Ilg 26 Effect on definition on estimated CL

Moderato a ligh a CNv Round LE

f low sketch Sucto :anogy E petelnot

ii fs
fEe C - CCr
44
.( ., CT.,x )lCl

I fnentat~
• 0 10 20 3

Ref 29
Ref 29 Fig 30 Relationship between vortex normal force
lig 2; Effect of a on vozt-x flow models for compley and residual thrust, A = 1 0, A = 76, f/c = 0 1,
configorations, VLM-SA FFA 10.-5601 airfoil
 6-31

(A)Compute
ectonPaboC nosedrMg (B)Compe wi 12 00 0 Experiment
somooendhV
edge :I l~
fV.
suction F The0ory
¢RP ¢=u \Q

Vortex whenc, z c
forms
(C)Vortex .
Det kV grows
(0)Vortex LEcore \-TE core 0 y's 10
flow
M,=04 z1 --
NA , 63A&

- - - ---contours
----- -- - Mach
0 24- Free-vortex sheet
- Captured shock
Ref. 34 Ref 43.
Fig 31. Kulfan's method of predicting vortex normal Fig 34, Typical free vortex filament solution, A = 15
lorce. delta, Af = 0.7, a = 15".

(I - U!Je;. Vo 0,u. 0

Ouadifalk: dowh~ts
Linea souces F"h~
Wit r ae
0
10[r- pva

\ no - .o
octio
8 -- 1

-161 - - 2 Lm/'/
0e"$ssuI
2 ,- 3, Noma mach/
4. Thickness atio Trading/ /
0 2 4 i'o 5. LE radiusratio .F / she
Ct_. ... Note C l a* (Ct r eop

05--- 20 " Ref, 46.

a dcg Fig. 35 Theoretical formulation - panel method- FVS

Ref 36
Fig 32 Carlson's method for predicting residual
thrust, Af = 0 6, i/c = 0 12, r/c 0 0048

o"taWv
tvI 2o0

,- 12- p

0809

x/' -'0 875,an-et

Wa~~e
/
... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . 'I . . . .Ref 47. . 1 0.. . . . .

33 Free vortex fiament mothido

tr', fig 36 FVS solution, A= 1 delta Al .'a0
6-32

20 ctO$
0
StepsE- K ®0to C

Q.
i41t.4A ,0 We\ 0

Secton A.AH ~
... Y CL

X 0
.- - Flatwlng
FVS wing camber
----- .203040 '0 24 810

Ref. 12. Ref. 56

Fig 37 FVS solution steps and camber representation Fig. 41. Euler solution, F-106B, M ; 0.3

Ref. 12. right

Fig 38. nee vortex sheet paneling for F-106B StiotA-A 0
2-

Cor I10 05,1,6

0 Expe, tri a o
oEtervU."
* E~O~19 -040
A "2 Z'K~ 0 t02.304.
t/C Eatet (LE t

2 4 C 12 0Ref. Fig 42 Measured and 12.

calculated core locations;

8 4

Ref 65 02 e0 0

typical wing sectton )JrJJIII,.],48

Ref ,8
Ref 56 Fig 43 Thin layer N-S slution, A = t delta. A 0.
Fig 40 C-Il grid applcatin to F-106B for Euler code , 0.95 10W
 6-33

2 Side of fuselage .24 Vortex 766

24- Initial: due to

\smooth on flow
16- t..\ due to
Final: .20 No edge force 66.6-A,
8- structural
"cst nts. 1: ' .16 no vortex

.0 Full edge force

of, 0 de '' CO .12
jdeg 0 2 .4 '.6 .8 / /

Incidence shown) .08

-8 .Note:
here Is for the wing box • 1 No edge force
-between 0.15c& 0.75c : n.04
ndpr . probable vortex
-16- Initial chord load 04 , , Note: Flat wing CD
0
-24 ACp 0 2 .4C f 6 .8 added to theory curves
X/c'1CL d

Ref. 59. Ref. 59.

Fig. 44. Incidence distribution for cranked cambered Fig 47 Edge force recovery on transonically cambered
wing. wing; MA 0 85.

.02

05xc0 50 0 LEvortex on lower surface

04, 01 or attached flow
- 03 .06 .09
.
2 Y=0.15.045 2
it=0 75 0 90 sIn a 76.6

, CA 66.6
0 w neLE - vortex on upper surface
.1 s c
nC .03
IIl camber with final wing box incidence
- Final designed camber •04
4 Sameelevai0on•
110
10 I 175
15
-.0"0
5
Ref. 59, a, deg
Fig 45. Cranked wing mean camber shapes; A = 1 383,
CL, = 0 5, = 0 9, a=07 Ref 59.
Fig 48. Effect of flow type on transonically cambered
wing, A = 0 85.

- 9M

Data
D, *CL

I 4 o mfia at ++ 13,0 4+

24 co ''01" .. ..o-
04121620
8
' *P1&" j, Ctan 0 *Cd,
~ - $13
b2 '0

Ca.snbd ngdaa 0 3 -
E1 0 a.
. 50IL18 C,

59
Ref
Fig 46 Longitud.ual aerodynamic characteristics for Ref 60
designed transonicmaneuver wing, A = 1 383, Fig 19 Restricted-area-design camber surface for 60'-
ALE = 76 6'/66 6', CL, = 050, Al4 = 090, sAept trapezoidal-wing fighter, CL.d = 0 73,
VLM-SA C,, = -0 17, M = 0 5, Rn = 2 9 x 106
~
- 6-34

D-9. 0 L.hdo 0A.0.~~al

___

c
A~ytW 0001808

F5 g0Fit ing ffap s r ac st w g ds n sufa e . e.0 12. o

Fig.ig surfacesc
FVtring 530 flap hisapy aoewng-dyigamurace

,1 'L~jE ) OE TEf

C 0 C,

C 4 C,,, 3o ;

5 20~ lhpewt d101

-I5
1 - Ta aa o

2 04
00 5 101i5n 4 20 2 A 6 8

Ref 60
Fig 51 Theoretical and experimental data for GO*- Fig 54. F-106B with leading-edge vortex flap in flight
swept trapezoidal wing fighter; Al = 0 3,
R= 19 X 10 6, 1L*_2-'l 6/20, = 15*/12*

, 1 Region Region Region y

Plain wing .Vortes suction utliue 2 3
NM3nsaisly for lift increase
Vortex flap -Provides a thrust componeift L
for drag reduction X(3) X ()

1 XX

tan(E
X()8arcal
WIS*X X~l
V~lfowild$ with adcomparing '-0
g
wiiotz ex fla Id th.%vrtex flap greatly exaggerated angle of attack

Ref 62 Fig 55 Analytical Nortex flap msodel with design vari.

Fig 52 The vortex flap concept ahles
 6-35 --

1.0 12
design
6et metiaoes 8 10
Update desg n variales 6 8

-0 2FO1&L50

A.nalss . Pertudeign
40.6 01

6LE a C

nals ign do 506 dogu022304VO

WV.01Yes7 r CA

FlCalde26gn(VF.D4) 0.16804 114deg102deg

2.o imes largerithan

the horIzontal scale 1=

IiA~tCA
t .2 r F It a

Ref 64, o .. *o ,

Fig 57 lnitr and final vortex flap design results for ang sang
the F-106B3; M* 1 5, CL,4 = 0 223
Ref. 69
2.
Fig. 60 Longitudinal aerodynamic charactertcs of a
lagetlrne
tha
Fina12s
delta w ith round LE; A = 2 31, A 0

8
3 7 I

/o" 2 ~ ~ C-1.4..2

5oe
4 a t Is 6 ./e /le 14
t
2T 7
'6D
u, 32

L/D
4 / Baseline A
16

3/----...VF-D4, LE: 10~

2 / -- VF-DO1, 8LE =18.47° I' ""
-c~
c .-
i.~

1 ... VF'D4, LE =3O° 5..o n,,oI 5,.6

16j . 1557 * Ks./nIC11IS

t
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 ct. :5z-... hi
P'
CL,d CL
1 . '.'

Ref 64
Fig 58. Performance of VP-DOI with VF-D4 on Ref 16
F-I06B at Al = 1 5 Fig 61 Liticharacterscs of pointed ags.
6-36
A -_.+ K =2011 : K 0 2031

-- -- 0en i$6 - Po t (LE ug4.fK

.Lo~tIf
--0vo01
P ex01y p
O 221 A 2.4A
Xo=0.2443 , P;
Kh e r 2am d Kv00$.=0392
=0.,0

12 M..eO4 - M.O 12 . ACL- 12

C0 Lse

0'~ i 4 W ~ t,

0 0 1 24 0 8 16 24
.4 M~
deg. odeg
0 2 24
a. 30 0 d
fte
24 3 Re
Ref. 16.
Ref 28. Fig. 65. Suction analogy applications to configurations;
Fig 62. Effect of Mach number on augmented vortex M =03
lift and p'Ich; diamond wing, A = 0 843, A = 74*

P 1 1t~t4
ty
-01.. .A - P10otal (LE Agleol.)
16
- - PLE
*160 1vonux
o102 h heIM1
012066 o0y,
."
/ :, 0 Cop-
UxP0vo
8Okit"v
.- 14.... ory

3L 2 04 24 $ 20 16 22 .0 08 62
C
,. .. . - . U Ref 68
Ref 28, Fig 66. Complete longitudinal aerodynamic charac-
Fig 63 Effect of Mach nu mber on augmented wrtex teristics for strakewing-body, strake AD 24, A =44*,
lift and pitch. arrow wing, A = 1 463, A =74' Af = 0 2
-c4-

32

4 ~~0122440 48.1

40 , 4

0 1 2 24 24 3 1521 .0 VI5 0 4 16 2D

Ref 70 Ref 68
F.g 64 Longitudinal ae8odynamc characteristics for Fig 67 Component longitudinal aerod)namic charac-
cranked wing, A = ac1 ,
, A = on80n/65r
amt 0, teristics for strake-wing-body, strak AD 24, A = 440
VLM-SA 4M =0 2
 6-37

S- 2C Experiment 417c,-(f 76*

- OVLM-SA
-- - - - - --- C, C;.
1 2 P01 C
I'
8004 00
04 -008 004 CC
0-0120 -> -
L -
-04 - - 016 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 0 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
o deg .deg .. deg

Ref 72. Ref 69.

Fig 68 Cambered-thick lifting-body and wing combi- Fig 71 Stability derivatives for cropped delta,
nation. A=0333,A=05,#=5, MmO.

..... po iy 0K3 Experiment

Eapeeet
PoL. wepy g (iL.ESF)yoa, i. I ' - ,V Unsteady
, . SA Q07

0 O)b/2U
C 68% 04
1.2- .08
,body
.04
Iegi / i ./f'&i *.0.75
>1.

-L
8 16 24 32
-80*
?,d
u5,-~ ...

.8
.-
Lz
4 0 .4 112
0 10 20 30 40

a, deg
Ref 72
Ref 38
Fig 69 Longitudinal aerodnamic characteristics for
cambered thick.body. ing combination, f = 0 2 Fig 72 Oscillatory toll damping for gothic wing,
A =075, A 0

Exp e me n t - - (Po i nul,

li n " ) 2 B.Sia $p a8t
M Potential flow contribuion .. .0.ci a. 00135
' - Potenial , LE vortex , SEvortex d Dp
.ugrnened flowcontribuions 004r Aiearn lp
A=2 Kp= 3558, Kvje. 0 957, K,$,. 1 125 0
2 v.45* kv 0 338 0.
0333 O1 .. 034k
(Biconvel O.eclion 0 -

2 -012
Ci. -2- _4C ,

0 4 12 4 2 0 $ 16 4 0 8 16 24 32-4 0 4 80
. deg Ct C,deg a. deg 6,. deg

Ief 16 Ref 68
Fg 70 Aerodynamic cha&taensti:s ofa cropped delta Fig 73 Roll-control device effecti%enss on cropped
-ing body, ,I = 1 2 delta wing, Af = 0 2
 6-38

Moderate a

Ref 75
High a Fig. 77 Fighter design evolution.

Ref 73
Fig 74 Upper vortex flap concept

Military Airplanes
*Stability:

A A Cn
C Pdyn cos (I- (IzIl x ) Cl sin >0

al high 1,1\ Control l

Pich up PRch-dOw Aileron alone.

nlghl /R'
f 98 cR hl LCDP- Cn 1 CIII C ,a
0
,oilVa
A;leron + rudder proporliona! to aileron.
Ref 73 LCDP Cnill - C IO Cn6a K2C16 r >0
Fig 75 Ilypothesized application of segmented up. on
per sortex flaps for drag reduction and aerodynamic K2 - cr 'Sa
control at high angles of attack, filled segment denotes
deployed Ref 76
Fig 78 Criteria for elimination of directional diver.
genre for fighter airplanes, militar) airplanes

r Available

lRequired

Yaw
control

Maximum lilt LE =
Angle of attack -
Ref 74
Fig 76 Typical yaw control requirements for maneu- Ref 77
vermg Fig 79 lligh. aero deselopment process
 6-39

Actuated strake CN Cm
Simpleempirral theory --- Simpleempincaltheory
Experment
------ - Experment

Jet blow ,ng 25 r

Tangential ON /
slot blowing CorN. 100
Cm 5

Jet suction 0
tO1 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90
otdeg
77
Ref
Fig. 80. Forebody flow control concepts Ref. 83
Fig. 83 Aerodynamic characteristics during pitching
motions, A = I delta, Al so 0, K = 0 04.

0'/ M-5

20 - Rotating Forward Intake Rotating Cowl Lip

15l Fomebody strake 60..,- (F-15)

to 5S.9
0 to, Ope
Yawing
moment 05 L Rudder • 105 M-
........ Pressure9
0 -recovery
5-'t- L J- J- -- L "--
.-- Presur Close
0 10 20 30 40 50 60700 805078
Angle of attack, deg Auxiliary Door a. deg

Ref 77 Ref 85
Fig 81 Generic model results Fig. 81. high a special inet devices

100
~Fr-v . veio"' 80xis

CONTROL EFFEC OR ,t 92
-30 rudder -of
yaw vector g maximum power
1-0--10

04e
6A 0 hocOoop
040" p xr'bmsbee
V

Yawing - I%
dealized aero .1~00,l
moment yaw control
coefficient y oto

0 10 20 30 40 50 0
Angle of attack deg 0 20 60 100120
r0

Ref 77
Fig 82 Low-speed )aw control effectiveness, Ref 77
alt = 20, 000't , M = 0 3 Fig 85 Cowl lip droop concept
 7-1

AIRCRAFT DRAG
ANALYSIS METHODS

by
Charles W. Boppe

Grumman Corporation
Aircraft Systems Division
Bethpage, NY 11714

ABSTRACT

A collection of aircraft computatonal draganalysis methods and Vt/Vo - Required Inlet Velocity Ratio
dragreduction techniques hasbeen preparea for theAGARD P - PlateForce
Fluid Dynamics Panel Special Course on "Engineeng Methods q - Dynamic Pressure
in Aerodynamic Analysis andDesign of Aircraft "Pressure. Xl. X2 - Length Scales
skin friction (viscous), wave (compressibility). lift-induced MFR - Inlet Mass Flow Ratio
(vortex), interference (multiple coponents, multiple flow Vol - Volume
fields), throttle-dependent (inlet andexhaust plume), andmm R - Correction Factor
dragsource predictions amincluded Background information Log - Logarithm
o complrmenucty handbook shemes andempirical datais In - Natural Logarthm
provided The need to establish acomputational dragprediction p - Density
experience baseisemphasized andillustrated Project type At. An - Founer Coefficients
applicatons aredescribed inwhich thesedragprediction tools A - Wing Sveep Angle
have been implemented for dragreduction processes The paper
concludes bysarnsaiing therole played by computerized drag A - Wing Taper Ratio
predicton methods in aircraft design programs eff - Effective
p o/l - Non-Dimensional Axial Location
10 - Boat Tail Angle
NOMENCLATURE 1 H1eight
NACA - National Advisory Council on Aeronautics
Cl, lncompreasible Frncuon Coefficient SLOR - Single Line Over.Relaxation
Crc Compressible Friction Coeffcient 8. - Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness
V Velocity t/c - Thickness-to-chord ratio
d Denvuve D - irag
Cp Pressure Coeffic-ent U. Free-stream velocity
I' Load Distribution (CCUICavgl. Circulation CLOC - Local Chord Length
C Chord CAVO - Average Chord Length
y SpanPosition CDp - Profile Drag Coefficient
L Lift LE - Leading Edge
)1 Induced Drag 0 Shockwave Angle
C1 LocalLift Coefficient
al oftack , - Ratio of Specific Ileats
a Anglof-aVelci e - Surface Local Orientation Angle
w Downyash Velocity
M Mach Number
Pcn Critical Pressure IN'RODUCTION
Re Reynolds Number
Ct) DragCoefficient
CL Lift Coefficient Aircraft design hasevolved over thepastcentury into aprocess
C Lift-Induced Drag Efficiency Facto requiring increasing levels of sophitstication to meet
CD, Lift-Induced DragCoefficient rcquirements for expanded speed/alutude envelopes and
Ss Suction Parameter flexibility with improved cruise efficiency andcombat
AR Aspect Ratio maneuvering perfoemance Over a large portion of this peniod.
inventors anddesigners combined good engineering practice
L~eading Edge Flap Deflection with sub-scale testing prirans to develop avehicle for full-
&tE Trsting Edgeflap Deflection scaleflight evaluation Aviation history reveals successes and
Canard Deflection Angle failures that werefor themost pan deterined bythe quality of
GAW - General Aviation Wing the vehicle engineering design effort.
I/d - Length/Djameter Ratio
NPR Nozzle Pressure Ratio Following close behind baiic stability, control, and handling
CDo - Zcro-Lift Drag Coefficient qualities, performance derived by naxiin gthrust and
C Chord minimraing aerodynamic drag often makes or breaks anew
-L Centirline design concept Prediction of aerodynarnic dragforces poses a
foridable challenge Elemental flow physics driving viscous
T - Temperatue andpressure resistance components canbequite complex. In
A.S - Area akhton. thre is anextraordinary number of ways in which the
L - Length elements can interact andcombine to produce thetotal drag
T - Non Dimensional SpanLocation y/W2 forceReferences I-I I provide useful insights into the
b - Wing Span complexity of dragpredicton problems Full-scale aircraft drag
V V0 - Calculated Open Inlet Velocity Ratio predction errors of 10-20% have occured in thepast,this is
V2/V0 - Calculated Closed-Inlet Velocity Rato often notwithin therange needed for success
7-2

One problem facedby the designer is thatthere isa large gap
betweenconceptual/prelmnary design "handbook" methods
typically usedto rough out a newconfiguration, andthesub-
s~ale model testing typically usedtogeneratethefirst true
performance esurtes This gapexists in theform of modeling
fidelity andtime. so it is usually beneficial if certain key
configuraton characteristcs arenot locked-in before suitable
tesnngandinterpretation efforts arecompleted It is%ellknown,
however, thatsub-scaletesting in wind tunnels can occasionally
mislead thedesigner In thesecases,theproblem canusually be
tracedback to testing anomalies causedby wall interference,
flaws in simulatng viscous effects, model geometry fidelity, test
procedure errors.andsupport inierferencelfoulingPT
(Fig 1) gives rise to another drag component pressuredrag It
should berecognized thatviscous drag is unique in thatit isthe
only drag sourcefor which the force-generating mechanism acts
angental arederived via
to thesurface All other drag sources
the integrated effect of normal pressures
-
fressure o form drag is a "normal-pressure" type drag - the
origins of which can be tracedback to multiple sourcesIn the
simplest case,pressuredrag (or thrust)is generated any time the
normal pressureintegration is non-zero Figure 2-A depicts the
mostcommon occurrence usinga symmetmrc body-like surface

Over the past20 years.computenzed flow simulation methods

haveevolved Applications on aircraft programshavefor the
mostpart focused on the prediction of pressureAclocity
characteristcs, lifting forces andmoments,andboundary layer
parametersButthesemethods canalso provide drag force
predictons If the applications engineer is careful in modeling,
andcantake advantage of a computational prediction expenence ,
base,multiple benefits arepossible On onelevel, computational
predictions serveto bridge the gapbeteen simplistic handbook Fig 1 Boundary Layer Velocity Characterlstlcs with
methods and tal modeltesting results Whenanomalies Wake Total Pressure
betweensub- andfull-scale testing aceobserved.computational
predictions can beusedto judge which is correct (a third
source)Finally. computational methodsprovide a means for the
design engineer to better understandthe flow mchanisms that
generatedrag forcesThis isparticularly valuable for
appliations thatradically departfrom pastdesignexperience

This paperdescribes thecurrent practice usedincomputational

dragprediction for different typesof aircraft dragsourcesThe -"
examples included should pro.de a foundation or experience
base thai could prove useful ir lureapplications +y

BACKGROUND

.Jndetstansdingthevarious sores of aircraft dragbecomes

important sincethedesigner orapplications engineer must select
the propercomputational tool for thejob at hand At present,no
single method is capable of simultaneouslv treating all drag
components thataretypically of interest In addition, no single DRAG
methodis capable of treating a complete aucraft configuration INTEGRAND
with sufficient accuracy for all draganalysesthatmighi bc +I-
required In view of this. it is reasonableto expect thata number O A )
of methods%illbe implemented with theresultsbeingconbined FLOW)
(ATTACHED
using a component build up approach Toensurethatthere is no
rmsunderstanding aboutthecharacterof different drag sources,a
portion of theBackground sectionstll be setaside for
descriptions anddefinitions

Drag Sources

Viscous on skin friction drag isdenied from theflo, field

sheang stresses ina region of reducedvelocity neartheaircraft +
surface Theresulting zoneof slocity impaurent, or boundary
layer. hasbeensketchedin fig I Total pressurelosses
ariatbutedto th,s drag mechanism can be measuredin thewake
downstreama from thecomponent of interest Viscous drag can
beaffected byaltentig theboundar)laer flow characteristics
this ts usually accomplished by o.ampulanng theexternal flb.
field pressuregradients The presure environment ought also be
amenableto propagating a luar boundary layer thatis thinner DA
than aturbulent layer with an attendantreduction vGos DR
drag Also. turbulent boundary layer viscous draglevels might +
bereducedon evenapproach zero in local regions if the I()
boundary layer surfacevelocity andvelocity gradicnt are very LOSSOFSYMMETRY DUETO
sull (CF - 0). but this is strictly trueonly fo two-dimensional AFTFLOW SEPARATION
k"14124_ _ _
flows It is possible for the boundary layer velocity to be
negiuve When this happens,theresulting separated 1kw regiu, Fig. 2 Body Pressure Field With Drag Integrand

in a uniform onsetflow. The resulting syemnetmc pressure
distribution (noseto tail) is shown below the body. A third
illustration shows the pressurevectors acting on thesurface.
Below that, the integrand to be sunmed to quantify thedrag
force can be seenIn this symmetric flow case,the pressure or
form drag foree is ero because the forward and aft eotponents
exactly cancel eachother Aircraft flows of this type do not exist
for most applications. Typically, for bodyandwing shapesa
flow separaion region will develop aft, asdepicted in Fig. 2-B.
The result isthat pressuresymmety is compromised and
afterbody pressure recovery levels arewe,. ,.ed with an
attendant drag increase.Form dragbcorne more complex at
highspeeds andat lifting conditions asother drag mechanisms
interact andaffect the normal pressure field.
Lift.induced drag is denved from theproduction of lifting
forces, predominantly on thewing andtailcanard surfacesAny
surface with positive lift (including body forms) will be
characterized ontheupper surface thanon
bylower pressures
thelower surface. As a result. lower surface flow tendsto move
outboard toward the surface rip, while upper surface flow moves
inboard toward the centerline (Fig. 3). This flow mechanism ts
thesimple result of flow migrating from a high.pressure region
to a low.pressure region. At theendof the surface, thesecross-
flow velocities from the upper andlower surfaces combine with
thefrestrcam flow to form a vortical flow that is particularly
strong nearthe surface tips or outboard regions Isis well known
thatthe vortical flow character is dependent on the lifting
surface load distribotion
00
r(A
Y in 'he sensethattheycannot be broken down into simple
Fig. 3 Lifting Surface Uppor!Lower Flow Pattern with
Load Distribution
7-3 --
Wake vortical flow alters or induces flow velocities on the
lifting surface Most important, an upwash/downwash field can
be identified (Fig 4) When fully integrated, a net downwash
exists thatcombines with thefree-stream velocity. The resultant
onset flow that thelifting surface "sees" is rotated, andthe lift
vector rotateswith it The component of the lift vector facing aft
forms the induced drag force Swirling flow carries energy
downstream is the lifting surface wake.
L
L
r
"
i -
Tjw
Fig. 4 Induced UpwaslDownwash Field wilt
Rotated Uft Vector
Wave dragdevelops as a result of differences in the
compressibttly of air in subsonicandsupersonicflows A one-
dimensional isentropic flow model reveals that a streanituhe
flow moving atsubsonic speeds,
contraction will accelerate
while atsupersonic speedsthe flow wil bedecelerated The
opposite is truiefor a ssreamiiibe expansion, ie , a subsonic flow
sill slow, ,hitlea supersonic flow wili speedup in anexpanding
sucamube Airflows about aircraft wing andbody components
form streuantubes with combiations of contractions and
expansions
At high subsosie speeds(beyond M - 0 7 •0 8. depending on
theconfiguration thickness andlift level), flow expansions
might createa supersonic flow "bubble' embedded in the
subsonic flow If thebubble flow gains sufficient supersonic
speed,a flow discontinuity (or shock wave) will permit flow
parameters to return to free-strean values. Through a shock
wave. flow properties (pressure. velocity vector, density, and
temperature) changeabruptly with an accompanying loss of total
pressuredownstream (Fig 5-A) At supersonic flight speeds, a
wing or body component will exhibit an ay of shockwaves
and expansion or Mach waves (Fig 5.B) Shock wavesandthe
resultant effect.on theaircrafi wakecanextend farinto the flow
field about theaucraftTis extent is depicted usFig 6 swhere
vapor condensation about an F.14 flying at supersonic speeds
can be seenFigure 7 reveals thatshock wave flow
discoinnuites ranbe large enough to disturs a water surface
some distance from the ircraft
The dragmechanisms discussed up to this point am i undanental
elementsA number of drag sourcis, however, are derived from
wribination of fundamental dragmechanisms lnterfer,,-e
throtledependent. andtrm dragareexamples
 7-4

PTOT

M 0 75, CoS- 0 009

S OC K
p'[

M 080, C0 s5 0020

CP

M 0 86,C 0s' 0 130

Fig. 6 Extent of F-14 Shock Wave Pattern at
WAVEDEVELOPMENT
& SHOCK
(A) BUBBLE Supersonic Speeds
SPEEDS
ATSUBSONIC

// EXPA.NSION
,, Y WAVES,
WAVE
A

.05

CP0

-05
(B) COMPRESSION
(SHOCK)
&
EXPANSION(MACH)WAVESAT
SUPERSONIC
SPEEDS

Fig. 5 Sources of Wave Drag at Subsonic &

Supersonic Speeds (Ret. 16)

lInerference dragtakesmyriad forms The natureof the

interference might beof a component or flow field type. but in
all eases.a flow velocity disturbance is responsible for thedrag
force An example of a pureflow feld dstutxnce would be that
of a wing immcrsed in the slipstream of a propeller. Dynanuc
prwsure would be increased In theslipstrcam wake. In addition,
a swirling flow generting, n upwash on onesideof the hub axis
ad adownwash on the oter alters winp loading Ai veryhigh
subsonic speeds (i.e propfass), this interference effect wdl
dratmaiucally change the wing shockwavepattern It can be . M.
appreci ted byusing this example that interference drag can Fig. 7 Interactlen of Aircraft Shock Wave with
easily haveviscous, prsssUe, Ifi-indaced. andwavedrag Ocean Surface
components, this greatly complicates the prediction process
 7-5

More common examples of interference drag canbe found wi h
interfering multiple body or wing and body components. Figure
8 shows the viscous flow near a component surface where a pod
or someother body formhas tmposeda flow disturbance
composed of both fa,iable andunfavorable pressuregradients
The effect isa weakened viscous layer thatincreases the
probability of flow separation. Here, both viscous andpressure
drag levels wll boaffected. Wave andlift-induced drag
variations will occur if this type of interference exists on a lifting
surface at high speeds
Figure 8 provides another example of interference drag. Aurcraft
component junctures often presentproblems because a boundary
layer flow along onesurface, suchasa fuselage, is often poorly
conditioned to dealwith a stagnation point (zero velocity) that
might beimposed bya secondsurfac, juncture (e g. a wing or
tail surface leading edge) Atthis secor surface stagnation
point, theflow is liktly to separate if proper fairings havenot
beenimplementeJ A separationpatch is onepossibility, but
anotherpotennal phenomenon is a juncture vortex, Interference
drag levels areoften reduced byproper fairings or fillets butthe
designer must minimie the useof thesesurfaces considering th,
drag penalty associatedwith additonal wettedarea
Throtle-dependent drag isgenerated by disturbances
predominantly nearthe inlet faceandexhaustnozzles.
Considering inlets, the engine flow ratewill deterne the level
of inlet spillage. This inturn establishes the level of suction
forces on the islet face which may not benegligible for thick
inlets with largenose-radii High levels of spillage might induce
inlet flow separation. This problem is aggravated %hen design
requirements dictate very small inlet eading-edge radii In
addition, spilage flow will interfere with wing circulation if the
inlet faceis neara wing sunfe Nozzle flow fields am nore
complicated Figure 9 is a schematic sho, Iag theelements of a
typical nozzle flow Key hereisthe plume entrament region
andpotential flow separation region at theboaral trailing edge
Tl'sust variations will alter the external flow entramnment and
possibly the separated flow region At high speeds,a shock
wave may exist on the boattail region with throttle changes
caustng theshock to mgrate forward andaft Mechanisms that
alter afterbody pressurelevels are important because of the
relatively large surface vector component tn theaxial (or drag)
direction
Trm dragevolves from theneedto keep theaircraft in
eqtblirium during cruise andmaneuvering flight It should be
apparentthat a timming surface will always generatea
component of lift-induced drag,butat high-speed conditions,
wavedrag penalties might also appear For a conventional tail-
to-mm design (Fig 10-A), thetail surfacegenerates a down-
load requiring the wing to produce addinonal up-load fora given
total lift level The increased lift might result ina measurable
wavedrag increment at tcansonicconditions if the untrimmed
isolated wing wasdesigned to be optimum at the total lift level
Trimmed, thewing must now operateabovethe design lift level
For a canard-to-trm configuration (Fig 10-B),a positive load to
tmm might eliminate this penalty, butthe designer must ensure
thatthe canard downwash field doesnotimpair loading on the
main lifting surface downstream. If itdoes, the mmnung drag
might include both lift-indaced andwave drag components
Computational Prediction Problems
It was notedin the Introduction that thereare a number of
factors thatmust tt accounted for if sub-scaletesting isto
SHOCKWAVE BOUNDARY
PRESSURE LAYER

GRADIENTS J ..--- li NI A'AINMENT

JETPLUME
8OUNDARY
SEPARATED
REGION
JETEXHAUST
PROFILE

Fig. 9 Elements of Complex Nozzle/Plume Interactlon

Flow Fields

VORTICES
NE,;KL&CE

SEPASSATION
PO-NT

TAILCONFIGURATION
(A)AJFT

DIVIDING
STRSEAMLINE

STRABELET (8)CANARD
CONFIGURATION

wuiui. Fig. 10 Balance & Trim forConventilonal Aft-Tall &

Fig. 8 Examples of Component Interference
Effects Canard Configurations
7-6

provide useful dragmeasurements forperformance estimation Table I Typical Excrescence Drag

The test engineer must also monitor power input durtng powered ANTENNAS (EXTERIOR)
propulsion-type tests because drag measurement errors combine
with power input measirement errors to yield a total uncertainty I BLADE(APR.27) 10.32 IN2
in resultant drag forces Flight testing presents similar problems 2 BLADE(ANIAPX73) AS1918'ARTACAN)
44IN2
2
in thattheengineer intent on establishing vehicle drag levels I BLADE(F-111)32 IN I- 301
often haslesscontrol over flight condition variables suchas I ALO-XXX DECM 2POD (F.14)
speed,angle-of-attack, and true engine thrust level thanhe 4 BLADEPDS8 IN EACH
would in the wind-tunnel Flight condition parameter accuracy rs 2 ECMPODS(F-111) ALJWING
another important issue.Like sub- andfull-scale testing, the LIGHTS
&PROBES
determination of drag forces via computational methods presents
a number of difficulties. Soe of the more important problems 2 PILOTSTATICPROBES
are described in the paragraphs that follow 2 TOTALTEMPPROBES
1 A O-ATRANSMITTER
Recalling Fig 2-A, it canbe appreciated that drag forces are 24 STATICDISCHARGE PROBES
24BAL CNOSCLHAG PROBES
predominantly established by summing the effects of normal I NAVIGATIONLIGHT
pressure fields The nose and tail portions of the body or wing I ANTICOLLISIONLIGHT
component contribute disproportionately to drag because of
normal vector onentation. That is tosay, pressure anomalies in MISCELLANEOUS
the mid-section often register hide effect on drag, while
1 WINDSHIELD
RAINREMOVAL
disturbances forward and aft can have surprisingly large effects ACCESSDOORHINGES
But numerically, this characteristic magnifies another problem I ARRESTING
HOOK
Considering the mtegiand shown in Fig 2-A. thedrag force
could be charicterized asa relatively small paraenter computed OPENINGS
by taking thedifference between two larger paruraeters, the
integrated force dominating either end of the configuration I FUELDUMP-INC IN DECHPOD
I BlLEED
t VALVE2 IN - 4 5IN
DRAINS
There is considerable room for error in this process because the ENGINE
high gradient nose andtail regions are often compromised by 8WATER/FUEL DRAINS1,6- 51 IN DIA
modeling resolution constraints inherent in thecomputational 5 FUELCELLVENTS (FUSELXGE)
scheme employed In addition.complex physical flow 2 REFUELING SUMPDRAINS
phenomenology characterizing these regions is approximated, to 2 ECS GROUND COOLING LOUVERS
some extent, by flow simulation methods in use toda) Finally, 2 OI.BREATHERS 14HOLES @3
COCKPIT SAFETY, GUNGAS- GASPURGE
small flaws in grd orsurface modeling atthenoseortail can I AMMOVENT,i-COCKPIT EXH
generate numerical anomalies that register a s..able error in the 2 OILCOOLER, 2 ECS EXH
drag level while revealing no apparent discrepancy in lift and 2 HYDOILCOOLER SCOOPS
moment characteristics Itcan be appreciated why the 2 ENGINE &IDGOILCOOLER
developers of computational nethods rarely describe the I EPUINTAKE &EXHLOUVER
correlation of computational drag predictions with test data I APUINTAKE s EXH LOUVER
2 BLEEDAIRHEATEXCHANGER
--- ----- I,

Another problem associated with computational drag prediction

deals withthe extraordinary differences in scale thai characterize
aircraft components Table I summarizes whatis often identified
as elcmants of a configuration's excrescence drag These
numerous small vents, drains, pobes and antennas %ould
require computational modeling resolution oeders-of-tmagntaue
smaller than that currently in practice tday Simultanouisly
modelng the global and detailed elements of complete aircraft
would beimptactical given current computer technolog) and
charging algorithms Compeunding this issue is the fact that all
rmco physical phenomenon responsible fordrag are notfully
understood In view of this and the point made earlier (that no
single computational method is currendy capable of treaning all
drag components for a complete configuration) it becoties
apparent why the applications engincer is often able topredict
drag increments of decrements using computational methods,
but the determination of absolute drag levels is not possible
This probleni of scale and current computing hardware
limitations was underscored by NASA Aims researchers (Ref
12) who computed the smallest eddies found in a turbulent
channel flow ata Reynolds number of 10.000 using ANavier
Stokes formulation Fifty billion gad points %tcrrequired for an
analysis that reached a steady state after2(0 une steps This
can be compared to a typical Reynolds-Averagd Navicr-Stokes
analysis currently applied for aircraft appltcaonu where thegrad
system point count might range between ,000and 300.00
points The time step count might be 5W to 100
Aircraft Deelopns'nt
Process & Computational Method
T)prs
The aircraft development process (Fig II) involves a sequence
of steps or design phases that is initiated by a customer
specification for mission requirements and point design goals In
Conceptual Design, the configuration is"roughed out" using
relatively simple tools and techniques The emphasis here is
usually on rapid tz-n-around Ilandbok methods, experience
bases, and thesimplest analysis methods are typically brought to
bear FarPreliminary Design, the engineering team must firm up
the aircraft external contours This stage requires both wind-
tunnel testing and computationl flow simulations aseades in the
opoimization process. The computations and sub-scale testing
(both simulations) attempt to reproduce what will eventually
happen in flight The objective is to mino izedesign risk
because anomalies idenutfied during a flight test program are
often quite cxpensive to resolve The next stage, Detailed
Design, ischaracterized by the engineering team packing the
aircraft interior spaces with actuatoi, h)draulics, crew station,
propulsots, etc In the final stage, one or two aircraft are
manufactured for flight esaluaoons At this point in time,
computational flow methods can play an important role in
resolving flight test anomalies because it isoften impractical to
re enter the winrd-tunnel on sety short nooce
The engineers task of selecting the proper method for a
part.ula r stage of development and a specfi design objcuve
is exaaoirdinarty complex lie must haveanunderstavding of
 7-7

PART 1: DRAG ANALYSIS METHODS

MDISCUSSION - DRAG ANALYSIS METHODS
_____ An engieering perspectve of computauonal drag
prediction
CONCETUALDESIGN methods is now described with an attempt to identify the earliest
(WEIGiITiNTEGRATED known progress in the field andtransition to techniques usedon
SIZING' aircraft projects This composition is not intended to represent
available, nor is it intended to
D
WDOW E PW COMPUTATIONAL all
represent the vey currently
of themethods bestor opimum techniques that oight b
SM TSIMULATIONS implenr ntedInstead,the methods are,for themost pan. those
with whit h the author hashadsomeproject-type experience and
CA/CM DETAILED &cnpoiesm
DESIGN nih noapiaiiy
CMANUFACTURING & canprovide some isight intoapphcabihty.
MCOMPUTATIONAL
Drag Prediction Pioneers -
Drag Equations
TESTING--
FLIGHT FLOW [
-SIMULATIONS Many well-known investigators, going asfar backas Newton
(1642-1727). have madecontribuions to knowledge that is
~TION fondational to curr'entdragprediction tecl'niqucs (Ref 13)
Two individuals who arcparticularly noteworthy for engineering
applications are Smeaton and Oswald
FIg. 11 Aircraft Development ProcessaplctosremeisndOwd
t
ohn Snicaton wasan English c':perimentalist whosework
thephysical flow that isto besimulated inaddition to focused on improving the efficieny of windmill andwaterwheel
appreciasng thestrengths andweaknesses of thecandidate bladesHis techniqueinvolvedrotrg tess specimens at theend
methodsThe bestcategory (seeTable 2)isidentifird andthen of a 6-foot armandmeasuring theresultant forces For a flat
thepropercode within that category mustbe properly plate oriented perpendicular to the onsetflow, Smeaton s 1759
implemnted Experinendirecaics thattheslection of a more testing resultedin thefollowing formula
sophisticated code within a category or theselection of a code in 2
a higher category maynotimprove theflow simulation obtained P.00049 V S (I)
Trhiscanbeatirbeted to algort'hm fortulation characteristics
andmodeling constraints Caution is necessary to ensurethat where"P"wasthe plate force. "V"was theairspeedin nuiles per
prediction accidents do not occur As codesbecomemore hour. "S"wasthe plate surface aea in squarefeet,andthe factor
complex, theprobability of having a prediction accident (0 0049) cameto ho knownas "Smeatonis Co fficient" is later
increasesandthetrouble free "usage range'typically &=ases literature references. With a simple cigonometnic relation, both
Computer resource requirements might alsobea factor in the lift anddrift (theoriginal termnnology for drag useduntil theend
methodselection piecessTable2 illustuites sevenlevelsof of the19thcentury)ould be computed for glider wingsan
analysis complexity andexpenseRelatve computng costs propeller blades
betweenthetop andbottom entries might range bcten I and s
14,000 IIP'-T2P con ina 0< a< 10deg
Iv sm2c, (2)
2
Dl -2P t~n 2a O<e <10deg (3)
(DRA ) I smn i
Table 2 Computational Method Formulation Types

CATEGORY FORMULATION
TYPE I CHARACTERISTICS s work is imporiant sinceit marks the initial effori to
Smeaton
I NEWTONIANPRESSURE"POINr PRESSURE actually compute drag forces Also, historically, we find the firsi
EQUATION LAW useof an empirical factor into which all te world's uncertainties
2 LAPLACE'S
EOUATI LIN/EAR andunknowns coul be grould, an approach thatisstill in
practice today
3 TRANSONIC
SMALL NONLINEAR
PERTURBATION (PIAUARBC) Ldiienthars work with gliders tookadvantage of Smeaton s
EOUATION Formula. bit ilienthal believed thatSnaton'sCoefficient
shouldhaveavalue of 0 0055 The Wright brothers werea bit
4 TRANSONICSAMEASABOVEWTH
EXTENDED moremeticulous in their work theydeduced aSmeaton
SWEPTSHOCK
SMALLPERTURBATION WAVE Coefficient of 0 0033 from wind-tunnel testing andglider
EQUATION MODELING flights. This value wasusedfor designing the Wright fyer

FULLPOTENTIAL NON-LINEAL wing, canard, andpropeller blades It isnow well known that the
EQUATION NONPLANAR8C drag on a flat plateoriented normal the flow will d--rd on the
REQUIRES
(TYPICALLY Reynolds number At high speeds. Eiffel conclud-that CD -
CONFORMALGRID) 128 wascorrect, andusing thefelation
6 EULERSEOUAT*NS ALLABOVE PLUS
(NO
VORTICITY D-q Cd S (4)
POTENTIALFLOW
ASSUMPTION) a moe exact coefficient of 0 00327 is obtained, underscoring the
WVrightsskil
HAVIER-STOKES COMPLETE
7
EQUATIONS REPRESENTATION OF Coefficient varied
Over a period of 150yewts.Smeaton's
q REYNOLDS
AVERAGEPHYSICALFLOW
NS INCLUDINGVISCOSITY between 0 00550 and0 00327 - a rang-that nughtsem large.
NS
PARABOLIZED &TURBULENCE butin somecomplex moders applications, variations on this
Ie el can still ocrur whentheparameterof interestis drag
7-S
A similar evolution for the prediction of induced drag can be
sketched noting theconnibuton of both Lanchester andPrandl
that the engineering
But it is most important to recognize
prediction of induced drag wasgreatly simplified byNACA
engineer W. Bailey Oswald Focusing his work on providing a
meansto estimate atrcraft performance in thelate 1929rs,
Oswald (Ref 14) established thedrag polar relation that is used
to this
day
CD- Cti, + (/ AR e) (5)
This "airplane efficiencey
factor" (e)apphied is
toinduceddragts
drag
comparable to Smeatons Coefficient for pressure
These early pressure andlift-induced dragrelatons might be
complemented with a cimpacable conmbuticnfor wave drag
To thatend. a useful conceptual rele:on developed byR T.
Jones(Ref 15)s'
2 2
DRAG qSC M I) L
= +
qn0b 2nq X2t
2
SVol
(6)
where 'X arid "X2"are length scales calculated using the
supersonic arearule This supersonic reinon establishesthe
contribution ofwavedrag dueto volume andwave dragdueto
lift consistent with friction andlift-induel components As
such. it allows thedesigner to esLablistthereiatnimportaunc
of various paramneters
Experimental Experience Base& landbook Methods
A keyto proper application of conpxtatonal rnethos for drag
prediction problems is theprojec, engineers ability to recognize
thefluid mechanical features characterizing thetaskat hand To
thisend. it is advantageous to gainsomeexperiencewith "real
world' aircraft ptoJoit problemasThis basisaccrues,to some
extent. in everyorganization astimegoes on But the
applications engir"r can enhanceinterual or organization
specific experiences with thoseof available reports and
handbooks
dloere's fluid Dbyamic Diag hook(Ref 16 isa compendme
donated byexperimen'.aly detetrotid dragsourcis thatcove¢r
as ,Atraordinary rangeof applications Theemp.ncism found in
.hissourcecanplayan important role in an project application
becausesomedragsourcescontrbutingto Do,transonic drag
rise, andinterference drag defy prediction nypurely
computational means
Another sourne thatproves valuable istheUSAF Stability &
Control Datcom (Ref 17) This compendium summarizes
prediction methods ratherthan testresults While not
specifically createdfor dragprediction, thevolume doesidenify
hanbook-yp estimating techniques thatwould beapplicable in
the conceptual design phaseof many aircraft development
projects As anexample, therelation below illustrates the
technique usedto estimate wing CDo
Co - CF [I - L(s-c) I00wo]
(7)
1WS
where"CF"istheturbulent flat-plate skin fnction coefficient,
"L" isthe airfoil location for maximum thickness, "tic" is the
wing section thickness ratio, "F"isa lifting surface correction
factor (table look-up), and"S' .epresents surface
areas
Similar expressions canbeusedto build up drag t~umatcs for
bodies,wing-body combinations, andwing-body-tail
configurations with power effects andcontrol surface
deflections The value of thesehandbook techniques is
comparabl. to mathemaucal estimatng techniques that are
applied when using a desk calculator. It is useful to have some
approximation of the
Ipeatgmore parameter
complex orautomated pick out errors
in order to schemes in
i
Inthepreceding paragraphs,
theimportance of anempirical and
handbook prediction experience basehasbeenstressedA
sirila. situation e-tsts for computuons inthatthere sa need-4
establish a computAtional drag prediction experience base With
this in hand.anengineer will know whento trast the
computational tools for absolute drag predictions, when
incremental dragpredicuris should be used. andwhen to select
alternate meansThe subsection%that follow illustrate elements
of a computational drag prediction experience base
Skin Friction & Pressure Drag
Fncton drag is computed bya number of cotnputanonal
methodsbut lit i mportant thatbasicformulas are: in handto put
computations in properperspectiveIn the USA. theKattun-
Schoenhere formula (Ref 18)has(en approved foruse by
NASA, the Navy, andthe Air Forcebasedon agreementwith
test results. The averageincompressible turbulent skin friction
coefficient relation is.
0242 - IM logi0 (CFi Res) (8)
Results using this formula are besttabulated for application
reference,andLhishasbeer donein Table 3.In Europe. the
expresslon (Ref 19) hasgainedmore
Prandd-Schlichtiung
accptuc Thit relation is
CFi 04S
0
(logtoRes )-
2I (9)
Comnprexstble friction coefficients canbegenerated
from the
incompressible Karian-Schocnherr coefficients byusiig the
n.cthod of Ref 20coupled with thechartsfound s Ref 21
F'gur 12 is a graph that is convenient for project use
One lirmittion of theserelations isthatais notpossible to
perform configutition-specific prediction taskswherethe
viscous drag level depends on detailed surface shaping Tbis is
wherecomputational methods can complement thedrag
prediction p.ocess
Eppkes method (Ref 22) can byusedto design andanalyze
two dimenional airfoil shapeswhen conpressibilty effects are
small This formulation is vell-suited to applications
characterized bymixed laminar andtuiiulent flow An airfoil
section can besynthesized using Eppler's conforial mapping
procedure by specifying regional pressuredistribution
characterisncs. The resultant shape canthen beanalyzed with
Epplees distrbuted surface singulaity scheme sinceit is
coupled with anintgrial montentu/ienegy equation boundary
la)er ixd But aie'tdot designed using Epplers metholwill
only beas good asihe method 5abihty to predict dragfoes It
is herethatexisting works in theliterature do not provide
can be
sufficient information To fill this void.Epplef s ,method
applied to establish acomputational prediction experience base
using airfoil catalogs sucn asRefs23and24 Icanbeseen that
 7-9

Table 3 Karman-Schoenherr
Average Turbulent Friction Coefficients'
(Incompressible; M = 0, Insulated Case, Smooth Flat Plate)

REYNOLDS
NUMBER 00 010 020 030 040 050 060 070 080 090 100

105 xl 7179 7022 6883 6758 6645 6843 6449 6362 6282 6207 6137
2 6137 6072 6011 5953 5899 5847 5798 5751 5706 5664 5623
3 5623 5584 5547 5511 5477 5444 S412 5381 5351 5322 5294
4 5294 5267 5241 5216 5191 5167 5144 5122 5100 5078 5057
5 5057 5037 5017 4998 4979 4961 4943 4925 4908 4891 4875
6 4875 4859 4343 4827 4812 4797 4783 4768 4754 4741 4727
7 4727 4714 4.701 4688 4676 4663 4651 4639 4628 4616 4605
8 4605 4594 4582 4572 4561 4550 4540 4530 4520 4510 4500
9 4500 4490 4 481 4472 4462 4453 4444 4435 4427 4418 4409
6
10 x1 4409 4330 4258 4194 4136 4083 4035 3990 3948 3909 3872
2 3872 3838 3806 3775 3746 3719 3693 3 C-8 3 644 3622 3600
3 3600 3579 3559 3540 3521 3503 3486 34:0 3453 3438 3423
4 3423 3408 3394 3380 3367 3354 3341 3329 3317 3305 3294
6 3294 3283 3272 3261 3251 3241 3231 3221 3212 3302 3193
6 3193 3184 3176 3167 3 159 3151 3143 3135 3127 3119 3112
7 3.112 3104 3097 3090 3 083 3076 3070 3063 3056 3050 3 044
8 3044 3037 3031 3025 3019 3013 3008 3002 2996 2991 1985
9 2985 2900 2974 2969 2964 2959 2954 2949 2944 2939 2934
107 xl 2534 2689 2840 2813 2780 2749 2721 2696 2672 2649 2628
2 2629 2609 2589 2572 2555 2539 2 524 2509 2496 2482 2470
3 2470 2457 2446 2434 P 423 2413 2403 2393 2383 2374 2365
4 2365 2357 2348 2340 2332 2324 2317 2310 2302 2295 2289
5 2289 2282 2276 2269 2263 2257 2251 2245 2240 2234 2239
6 2229 2223 2218 2213 2208 2203 2'98 2193 2189 2194 2180
7 2150 2175 2171 2166 2162 2158 2154 21 ) 2146 2142 2138
8 2138 2135 2131 2127 2124 2120 2116 2113 2110 21C6 2 103
9 2103 2100 2096 2093 2090 2087 2084 2081 2078 2075 2072
108 xl 2072 2045 2020 1998 1977 1959 1941 1925 1011 1897 1884
2 1884 1871 1860 1848 1838 1828 1819 1810 1601 I 72 1784
3 1784 1777 1769 1762 1 755 1749 1742 1736 1 730 1724 1719
4 1719 1713 1708 1703 1698 1693 1658 1683 1679 1674 1670
5 1670 1666 1662 1658 1654 1650 1646 1642 1639 1635 1632
6 1632 1628 1625 1622 1618 1615 1612 16W0 1606 1603 1600
7 1600 1598 1595 1 592 1 589 1586 1584 1 581 1579 1 576 1574
8 1574 1571 1565 1967 1 564 1562 1560 1 558 1555 1553 1 551
9 1551 1549 1547 1 545 1543 1 91 1539 1 537 1535 153 1531
109 x 1 1531 1513 1497 1482 1469 1457 1446 1435 1426 1416 1408
2 1408 1400 1392 1385 1378 1371 1365 1359 1353 1348 1342
3 1342 1337 1332 1328 1323 1319 1314 1310 1306 1302 1 299
4 1299 1295 1291 1288 1285 1281 1278 1275 1272 1269 1266
5 12 12 1260 1258 255 1252 1250 1247 1245 1242 1240
6 1240 1238 1236 1233 1231 1229 1227 1225 1223 1221 1219
7 1219 217 1215 1213 1212 1210 1208 1206 1204 1203 1201
8 1201 1 199 1 198 1 196 1 195 1193 1 192 1 190 1 189 1187 1 186
9 1186 1184 1183 1 181 1 180 11 179 1177 '176 1175 1_173 1172
0
101 k 1172 1168 1149 1139 1130 122
1 114 1107 100 1 094 18
Mult 'yTasaldVatiues by 10.3 T0O a5C F

ainoi Lhicki.css in thss colkcuon will vary bctwren 6% and
24%chord Leading edgeradius rangeis 0 2% to over 6%
rhord Flap leniths of 17%to 30% chord are piesernt with up to
10degreesdeflccuon angle The Reynolds number rangeiv 0 7
to miliotn Laminar flow extent vanesbetwen 0% and6D%
chord
Consider a problemn involving an aicraft component sout,
vertical tad, or an~cnnabladefor which a syneem, low drag
airfoil must bed.sige The Figures that follow illustrate a
potion of the aiornnv.coed eexernce bas thai wouldprove
useful forthis type of applic.ion In all cases to bede ubetd,
the results weregenerated using Focler (reetranisiton option
This allows the transtion po- bersru lan"unararid',buleni
flow to bedeteesined as pin of the soluv>, ptoces Ft
example. uncreasng inciden e or Reynolds n,-mber will vause
the ranstion point to moor forward on bleairfoil with an
aucilnt increase in do, The transition point is "f-,"
analytically is the sensethut it need not be known or fixed a
pno.
Figure 13shows compmted/expenrental comparisons for
NACA 65 seriesaurfoils Airfoils tith 6%, 15%.and21%
thickness ae included Here,the aufoil typets fixed andthe
cnomputatonal method must predict thelanuuar turbulent drag
r'nditng Thesecomparisons indcaat thatthe meshedis capable
of predicting drag polar break point as thicknesk iclteases.
Thee is soni error noed i tinimu Irtunar drag levels for
lowReynolds numbers,this is aggravated by inreases in
thickness In view of this. computed results for a n-w airfoil
within this rangewouidhaveto beproperly adjusted io a.otni
for observed simulation trnng discrepancies
 7-10

O0005. T . ~ - r

05
t 0004

01110003
'o* is
Fig.12
Krme.SconerCmresbeAeaeSl"Fito oefcetTe

Fiue1eit eodsrisTi ie ifi hcnssi ope utpesrsnflwmxn ixesnee o

IaFtariih
iedrg1b rpign cnheientifC or
mrsileAeaeSi Fito ofiiedt The

aigreil dicthascond th i es hi te a ir i thciguri cmpex m6ilhte tpe fof ra gprestineee

acc r h
fixedand
y.p ishe
cange
seies NAC 4-Diii g 66 can ueiedarfi fosmulti
wit pleniflaplcications
beo neeSvrairfoil
geicue hs fye eturins fapdlton havitfecs etnd
I 0
ie da b tideni eideve
vdegre rmeto
bee includedion
of i STlustarfn thicknesnoe
i aithus prderstrte hightlito resltwiloplr'st mo theelmnga
dit
30%ntey
chor flapdefl ete n oladegr Thew seasd atolis la sowed casaetler laif t l scan
b rsse
onsui and.
sim ginb getem h ength is
qut0goSm ichrepasty sin cothe vfoumge tot availatouti-ceenhghlf
but
fatgurestdturbulen flow frak-orn
a b5% isontid fpAgremn in ssvrl iie nefrnefe idtne aaa
irn aefo mas llureioknes aitewid nc wher flaur ver highli ghvts difiuty odrgh ile ctianauy ta
~~~~~~~~~~
that~ mtos sdlngacies
are ~a Thi imar r mte enti abfilt tablishio A
expeteciptsoa
ca vrtcl t al plcaininesfl it ipl lp comee inulat7on14 esection biase Dlrfaple 4

beharactenas fovraanfoewlyfdevelopedfairfoillmightnbeha mplentenedonerso compu

deter Sltions'tkeoit3
cbteencedor copuionalh simuatifo lias and pckific minuidesii ihlf eutwieEpesnchdpeit h
aihrfoilp docases Onl hnd de canewThshend rois flpsoecaetlwrlitevsThsoagons eu.
perma butte flcored aendt evaluateodiTh a setion Intsoe vplmidtas conipreb effecuti-cncnt begi-tr
famuetiy e fo o a2%cor lpAgemn Eppl
etos and
sevensl
lmiehds inotih-e ppiabl Ounel aaa
hinelig:gap nn otetia fow heomea
b casig my coutsaionta o thaoaprotiedr ratisaaby el fr ot
meith o peaytoaueinth' thedelig
Epthat ariesnohds numbeirs ahn rissoc airfil gasestcabiharn
canali e. ouin ciieol ts o or yrng~t iscusationvsi nterions iase ta fD aadCe
pitesecmpues. oudeeapaetso 26~e
and27)ce
=This atvnalss proachi is
andpuderg
anynewy deelopd
charcterstis fo ufoilouconseidperbtment xpesnsiv
ompesletont tha
metod
Somedsnpectdfo
cmght drgpitions orndra
remulire descric
iesofrbusmeppiao uiatadtonlfft

reducngsrfac oe
optrarauon
mla-eemen airoilsthat and oa tpobl ads pro mgnituempaly er for with
higsylito upplinbonh tpe smethd is
wouldbeuthode frore w
thanoplx 3nDumbea. neilao adoi "stes
mehdisarie
gu-sine. ai visosmoelig sod tren tangl elmnt dscus
bysedoninvsthusWave itragsctions sta fDi n ie
airol Soptes. eRefs howver doesincludeddeigppochi26e&M)
 16NACA 650066 NACA66O
1 012

12 1 11 .-

08
______
_____ 8____

04~~~ RF2) PPLER,

=3TS 04TEST (REF 23) OEPPLER
ID Re E0x 106 ---
0 0
6
Re .90e10
R.0 0
00 00

16
NACA£i
012
1
NAA Is~.

12 -12.'

*u 00 004

00' _ _0

NACA F4'021 ACAOOI2

00~m 00

00 000 0006 0012 0016 F004 ~ 0004 0008 01" 0016

CD)DRAG COEFFICIE.IT CD)-DA COFIIN

Fi 42DAirfoil Drag Correlation Laminar Flow

Fig 13 2.0 Airfoil Drag Correlation-Thickness Effects Extent Effects
 FX 67-F-141
16 F WITH30 OWLER FLAP

NOTEREYNOLDOS
NUMBER
VARIABLE -

CLLFT
COFIINT
0

O TEST(REF
24 EtER,
04 0

FI~o 0.0-l

TET(E4) ANALYSIS
6
05 0i 371 - STEVENS
(EXTENDED)
16~~ I EPPLER(STOWED)
.X7

10

12 ~0 L~ , 002 003 0064

U5tW. CODRAGCOEFFICIENT
- Fig. 16 Eppler & Stevens Method Prediction of
- AirfoilFowler Flap (Extended & Slowed)
808 Drag Polara

04 10 R-0
Flat.0#. 10, Lift-tndusced D~rag

0Re . 20 - 10' -- Asnotedin sheBtackgrouind sectin. lift induced dragregistes

00 on the aircraft surfaceasa form of pressuredrag Computational
msethsodscassintegrate compoted rnormsal pressuressopredict lift-
insduceddrag.but in nsuflyapplicuasoswhereabsolutedrag
levels are ir,;*ncant, nnsatisfactory results areobtined Thssis
the casebecauselifling surfaceleadssgedgesuctiosn forces(a
component of lIfi-inducceddrag) ame resolved soa degreethat
depends on thlecomputationat method'spanlleor gVd resolution
16 As mssodlsog elemsentor gnd denity is increased.the lift
F. L V 52 K26 snduced drag tevetwill decreaseasymptotically approaching she
exactortrsietevelthatwouildbeachiteved with infinste
(Sketch A) Inoa project application. pressure
resolutsons
12 integration resultsroustbeusedcautiously wishsheengineer
FULLYTURBULENT
FLO ensurng shutshecompuseddifference betweenIwo
configuratuons is aerinjynaric, socharacterandnot numerical

0B IS A isosereliable approach (Ref 29)to computing liftinsduced

dragfor wing-donuitted configuraions is thatproposed by
I ) *0 Glaucn (Ref 30) It involves integrasig theload(or wake)

04 - Ithe circulation wosild beequivalent soshespanload

given by
00 Reo.07.106
) I F&VDea. U -C,(10)
00 0004 0000 0012 0016 Usingsthe notation of Ashley asd Landahs(Ref 31).the litfs&W
CDDRAG
COEFFICIENT indaced drag
canbewritsen

Fig. 15 2-D Foil Dreg Correlation-Tab Dellection. L -PU'. r(y)dy

Length Effecta 452 Il
 7-13-

then

2
Me (19)

a A~icBy expanding the full aircraft loaddistribution out to 0 = 2n:

(Sketch B). the distribution can be Fourier analyzed to solve for
the coefficients The resulting prediction method proves vety
fast requiring only seconds on common personal computers

0 20 40 60 r
CHORD
WISE PANEL
COUJNT
(EVENSPACING) 6on ( ZY
Sketch A Effect of Chordwlse Panel Dennity on
Computed L't-nduced Drag Level

,-(YOE dyidy
~v'u~
Di so dyt (y-yi) (2

Sketch B 0 -yRelation for Fourier Analysis

and the circulation ts represented bya Fourier sineseries

Atecrft configuration spanise load distributions cso vary

considerably depending on the generalarrangemein and flight
I - U~h E A. tn n0G conditions A numberof example cases for bosh symmetric and
a i (13) unsynuttec loadings have been computed using the Fourier
Ithis yield-, analysts previously described These cases illustrate the typical
range of lift-induced drag 'efficiency" factors that might be
encountered during project applications
2
LAiFigure
l~ P ~. b 17 illustrates eight cases of symetriseacwing/aircraft
(l4) loadings and. as such, only half of the loading is displayed All
cases represent a commron lift level at CL I10 Note that the
slope of the loading distributionais "0' at the centerline or
ol 12h2 syri-uy M!pIn (is I,idSn n Wv,a. eityic 103d
Di -a~AI(IS)
~j~- distriution results in inimumt lift induced drag This load is
seen in Fig 17-A along with the compiled V factor of 1 0
Elliptic loading is miosteasily attained with ra isolated wing
and in coefficient form arrangement, since body Orfuselage components are very
inefficient in generating lifi This causes a deficit or depression
in the loading curve at zhe body locati In mny aircraft design
q L 2 I A, applications, including fighats and transports. aerodynamtcists
'ps 2 S attempt to achieve elliptic loading In somecapplications.
2pl (16) howevee, the resulting combination of induced, wave, and
frictton/pprtssure drag sources may not represent an optimum.
although the conventional lift induced or vorten drag has been
C,~- D AZSVEA2. immnized Anober load distribution is that generated by nezz-
1puisconstant section properties (Fig 17-ll)on atispenoidul planform
2 (17) isolated wing For this lo":iwg. drag creep (that might be
generated bysomec local airfoil sections developing wave drag
prior to others) is nmmired Allwing airfoil sections approach
ro compiute a spanload efficiency factor "c on thebasis of drag divergence stmultaneoasly For this example. e' drops to
0976
Loading on a fuselage is largely the result of wing carry-over
Cq (Fig 17-C) Often little can bedone to compensate for the load
IARCIs deficit that will =ost) bedetermined by the percentage of the
IlM wing span blanketed bythe fuselage surface Figure 17D shows
7-14

16 - E

ELIPTIAL FUSELAGE& WING MOUNTED

WING)
12 -P{(ISOLATED EGINE/POD INTERFERENCE

08"
00 ------

04 - = - - e=0.921

TRAPEZOIDALWING FUSELAGE&WING MOUNTED

CONSTANTSECTION PYLON INTERFERENCE
PROPERTIES - - --

04

0 0'.!

16--
C FUSELAGE
SWINGMOINTED
FUSELAGEINTERFERENCE INTERFERENCE
ENGINE/PYLON

04 - -
-
J-/
12

EXECUTIVETRANSPORT * ii
WITH FUSELAGE WINGFUSELAGEWITH
MOUNTEDNACELLE HIGH LIFTSYSTEM DEPLOYED
INTERFERENCE
04 1

e-0 92 a = 0549~

0 02 04 06 08 10 0 02 04 06 06 10

SPANPOSITION --

With Lift-Induced Drag Efficiency Factor

Fig. 17 Examples of Aircraft Symmetric Loading Distributions

the loading that rmght exist on many executive ransports
(bsiness jets) where nacelles are mounted aft on the fuselage
vta a short pylon The nacelle/pylon combination inhibits wing
circulanon near the wing-fuselage juncture In this case. e"
might drop to a level of 0 925
Engines are often mounted in or about the wing curface using
pylons For embedded engines or pods, an effect similar to that
for the fuselage can be identified Pylon surfaces are ditferent
There is typically an "end-plating" effect that increases loading
inboard of the pylon station and reduces loading outboard This
is the case because the inboard portion behaves more two-
dimensional in character %hile the outboard segment functions
as a lower aspect ratio wing segment Figures 17-E/F/G illustrate
these possibilities. The worst case is for wing loading featiring
fuselage, pylon, and engine nacelle interference
Perhaps the largest influence on wing loading dsrimbution will
occur when effective high lift system! are deployed for landing
The spanload efficiency factor can be extraorinarly low, but.
fortunately, there is little concern about drag forces during this
brief segment of any flight
Unsymrincric load distrbutions are generated in sideslip and
when control surfaces are deflected to roll the aircraft Figure
1b A illustrates the type of load distribution thatcan xist for
any swept-wing aircraft in sideslip Asymmetry is created oy
variations in liftng efficiency bctwecn two wing haives that now
havedifferent sweep angles In this example, the starboard wing
effective swep is greati than the physical sweep angle, while
that for the port wing is less The rculting degradation in 'c'
could be subtle (0 975)
Fighter asymnmunc loadings can be quite severe because a
premium is placed on roll effcciti, encss in air to-air combat
Lifrindaed drag increases as the roll maneuser is niated
Many aircraft designs use ailerons for rollcontrol While the
rolling moment can be very large with control surfaces
positioned near the wing tips, the resultant reduced drag penalty
can be high for the same reason (Fig 18 B) In other words, it is
apparent from these example cases that the lift induced drag
level is affected to a lunger extent when a loading anomaly exists
at the wing tp than when it is positioned inboard
Another form of roll control can be derived bydifferential tad
deflection Figure 18 C shows the combined lifting surface load
distrbution that ought result for th.s type of asymmetric
configuraton Figure 18.D is a stular plot illustrating use of
wing mounted spoiler deflections to get-crate ichllaigm ments
It should be tecognized that the cases highlighted in Fig 17 And
b8aren, specific to any particular aircrafi The true deiAled
loadings for an airraft applicaticin will be a fNrnun of the
coufiguranons geometry and design (ft Ie.l Threucgencnc
examples, however, should prove raefl fvi cit.bhshtng trends
linked to wing loading
Transonic &Supersonic Wase Drag
Wave drag losses aregener'ated by flowaboxttheasraft
passing through shock waves As noted in the Background
secoon, shock wanes can form at subsonic speeds if wing or
fuselage surfaces accelerate the free-stream flow to sufficiently
lungesupersonic velocities. Mixed flow regions featuring an
embedded supersonic flow region within a subsomc external
flow (separated by a shock wave at the aft boundary) are
classified as =r.nsoi Transonic flows al.o exist at low
supersonic speeds when small subsonic flow regions are
embedded in an external supersonic flow le .at the nose of a
f.selage or leading edge of a wing %here a stagnatiuon point
generates the reduced velocity 'island') Inall high speed cases,
7-15
whether transonic or supersonic, there is an incentive to achieve
shock wave surfaces that are oblique to the flow direction This
mintrmzes wave drag losses because the largest drag penalties
are generated by flow through normal shock waves
Many computational methods have been developed for high-
speed aircraft applicanons, particularly at tuansoni- speeds But
the character of complex three-dimensional mixed
(subsonic/supersonic) flows presents a c ansiderable challenge
for algorithm developers At present, ccmputanonally predicted
transport cruise drag level accuracy might bc on the order of 10-
30 counts At the upper end of this range, the project
requirement might demand errors that are an order-of-magnitude
less Fighter applicatioius reveal larger prediction discrepancies
den'ed from a higher level of three-dimensionality and the
complexities linked to naxed(attached, separated. vortical)
flows Computational drag prediction discrepancies greater than
100 counts are possible
Three-dimensional computational methods have, however,
demonstrated an abrl ty to predict surface shock wave patterns
This allow s the designer to develop shapes that generate weak
oblique shock waves. But perhaps more important, it provides a
basis for applying simpler, less expensive iwo-dimensional
conputatonal methods in a drag build-up process with potential
for higher predction accuracies Figure 19 provides examples of
transonic shock wave Positioning for three-dimensional
configuranons
Simple S.eep Theory (Ref. 32) establishes a means for relating
two dimensional airfoil characteristics to three dimensional
wing performance Similarly, Sweep Thory can be used to
translate wing pcrformance requirements into a set of
specifications suitable for two-dmensional airfoil design The
cosine relations linking two and three-dimensional parameters
are listed below
M2 D - M3.D x cos Aeff (20)
2
CL2.D - CL3.D/nOs Aeff (21)
/c2 D - t3-D/os Aeff (22)
CP2.D - CP 3 D /coC2 Aeff (23)
3
CD2.D - CD3-D /cs ACff (24)
The proper sweep angle must be identified to implement these
relations Ior an infinite sheared wing panel (Fig 20 A), there as
only one possibility the panel sceep angle This represents the
original embodiment of Sweep Theory Consideng a finite
upered wing planfom (Fig 20-B). tw dunensiona! simulations
of three-dimensional wing pressure fieldnat subsonic speeds
reveal that the quarter.chord sweep angle serves ,ell as an
'effective" sweep angle forthe rioe formulas hsed above The
most complicated situation exists for tansonic conditions where
shock waxes ar present on the wing suthace Engusenng
studies (Ref 32)performed daring the IhMAT (Ilighly
,Maneuverable Aircraft Technology) Program revealed that the
local sweep angle of the shock wave provided the best effective
sweep angle for Sweep Theory conversions
This definition of effective sweep at transonic conditions may at
frst bedifficult to undcrstind, however. it rught be made more
apparent by consulering an example Figure 21 shows a set of
wing pressuire disrsibutions extracted from the nud section of an
aspect ratio 5 8,40 degree swept back wing with a taper ratio of
0 4 Thesymbols represent wind tunnel test measurements The
solid line comparisons are generated using a transonc icto-
dimensional airfoil analysts mod"(Ref 331 with Mach and lift
7-16

--
0
08-
~...
-.

1
~.....1

WiNGi
LOADING
DF RETRIhALAILO FOR
CC -6,
o
ROLL CONTROL. a 0.741
04-

1222
ROLOTO a 079
047 1

N
DEfLECTO
WINGSPOILER
FORtA=L CONTROLa. 0. 22

-08 -06 04 -02 0 02 04 06 08 10

Fig 18 Examples of Aircraft Unsymmetric Loading Distributions with Liftinduced Drag EfflcilerJey FsCor
 7-17

Fig, 19 Shock Wave Unsweep Regions

conditions specified using equations 20 and 21 The extracted

a,rfoil shapeis scaledusing equation 22. taking soloaccount the
gcometric local sweephnes of the taperedwing (Ref 32)
Simulation agreenctitis excellent But to achieve this
agreement, the variability in effective sv cep with local flow
conditions must be accounted for Table 4 illustrates this fact b)
listing the wing shockwave position. sweep angle. and the
derived 'effective" two-dimensional condtions usedfor anal)sis
(A) eases Note that as the wing shock wavestrngthens with
SHEARED
INFINITE PANEL increasing free-streamMach number n&dmoves aft, the
(ALLSPEEDS) effective swCep angl usedin equations 20-24 decreases
/Agreement cannotbeobtaned unlessthis variation in effective
sweepwith flow condition is taken into account

An aifod is now selectedto establsh wing drag prediction

/ potential using this build-up approach Reference34 provides
data for the RAE 2822airfoil The transonic design pressure
distribution isseenin Fig 22 ITsgenerate
adragrie curve.
,ot effot is requited Data thatis not all atthe sam lift level
(B) t.ust
33) beadjusted Thn can bedone using Kom's relation (Ref
TAPERED
FINITE WING
(SUBSONIC
SPEEDS)

MCOt/c K
M (25)

Dr David Kom of NYLUsCourta Institute determined thathe

/ could design transonic aufols with parametersthatconsistently
sumsed tocertain values depending on theIeel of technology
(or aft loading). The design engineer can use Korn's relation to
establish approximate tradesbetween the airfoil Mach number,
(C) thickness. anddesign lift level 'K" levels for conventional
FINITETAPERED WING aurfols arenear0.87 while 'K' for highly aft-loaded
(TRANSONIC SPEEDS) supcrcnocal sections can bena 0 95. Figure 23 shows an
eerimental drag rise curve along with thecurve thatresults
Fig. 20 Effective Sweep Basis for Different %henpoints am adjusted to cosaion CL - 074 A design
Applications point for this section(at niximum MLAD)occur near M - 0 7
7-18

000 EXPERIMENT3DA-40, X.04

- 2-0 ANALYSIS WITHSWEEP-i
(KORN-GARABEDIAN) APERTHEORY
0

M.-070 00M0

(A)
00

• 00 M.00

0 -- I- 0-

0
00 M .0 so M.-0 90
6(E)

Fig. 21 Wing (3-D) Pressure Distribution Correlation using 2-D Airfoil Analysis &Sweep-Taper Thory

Table 4 Wing Effective Macn 12

Number for 2.D Analysis
SLOCAL ILOCAL FREE0 200 EOUIV

K,~~
CHORD SWEEP TREAMNORMALSIMPLE -00
A02-D0AALYSIS
MACH MACH MSWEP
&
FIG I REDUCTIONLC M, MI THEORY

21A
!,
25% 37 42" 0 70
N

0 556
MN

0 .1
Cp )
8. 0 0

21 0 2 5%
3 7 42 0 80 0 635
0 63 5
.!D 70% .... 32,30- 086 0727 0683 0
04
21-E 70% 132 3V 090 0761 0715

121F 1 85% 13045- 095 0819 0 754

Fig. 22 RAE 2822 Airoil Pressure Distribution at

°
M- = 0.725, a = 2.9

The resuleng "K"vluc is 0 89 Test da at S- 0 723 is closest

to this point and there is no indication of atpprcmbl: rq, w
separa Nuon
despite a reaunbly sotg shock wae The shocik
wave is postoned at 55% chord A compendium of
codelexpenment comparisons found in Ref 35 rc',cals that
(consukcrig a large number of iltffer"rnt Computational rncthod ,j
two-dimensionl computtonal drag pircdlictors vary by
2pproximately 5% At the rno extrtnrc M-0 74 caw a 25%
variation be~tweenmethods can be identified Shock wave
posoon vaned by a much a 5% chord fo .II0 72 whil the
location spread for M-0.74 was about 101, chord
"lTb,tmhnbqjc for i~nilating two.dimn'osions! drag andishock
w~zc location dlSCpv, s into tuc- znenssorl wing
para, etterscan be tiustrated b, considering two '%rag
 7-19 f-

0 5

002
TEST POINTS

CO0 0 1 0

0 6 si " AR..8 AR .3
06 07 08
M X-042 X-02
4
LLE- SLE

Fig. 24 Transport & Fighter

Wing Planforms
ADJUSTED
POINTS AVERAGE
#CODE COSRELATION
20%
toa purely three-dirs'-monal approach The exercise shows that
CO AVEPAGE both dragprediction accuracy andshock wave prediction
00i CODE
CORRELATION accurat y are equally Important to properly determine transonic
,avedrag levels It should also beapparent why fighter wing
prediction errors canbeconsiderably greater than thosefor
transpot wings, eveninapplications whereseparatedor vortical
flo is notpresent.
00 .I
..
06 07 08 Prediction discrepancies identified in thepreceding paragraphs
I6 M represent anaverage that might beobtained byselecting a
Fig. 23 RAE-2822 Airfoil Drag Divergence Curve Data computational analysis atrandom andapplying computed results
&Adjusted Data (CL=0.74) directly These discrepancies can beconsiderably reduced by
selecting amethod that performs better thanothersor onethat is
mo accurate for theparticular application it handA
planforins onefor atransport andasecond for afighter (Fig Computational Airfoil Cataog can provide die flow simulation
24)Panform parameters arelisted below expencce baseneeded byproject apphcations engineers This
type of catalog %oldhighlight thestrengths andweaknesses of
Trnn t"Wine Fighter Wingmany computatioanal tools andprovide sufficient test-venfication
cases toestablish correction fActors for awide range of aafol
AR - 8 AR - 3 types anddesign conditons
3.-04 3.-02 Onerelatively new techniqu that shows promise for reducing
ALE - 25deg ALE -40 deg both airfoil drag prediction error andshock location error levels
isthatof Drela ad Giles (Refs 26 & 27) The Drela andGiles
Usingthe RAE 2822airfoil (with shock position at55% chord). airfoil analysis/dcsitgn code is not like othersin that its
theeffective sweep angle attransonic codition, forboth wing formulation includes an Euler soluton for theouter flow region
planforsms is 19degreesThus, for a wing design Much number thatis coupled with a two-equation integral boundary layer
of077. RAEda,at M -725(Eq 20) canbe usedThetwo- schemeThe setofequaonss solvedby aglobalNewton
dimensional section generates107counts (Cd 0 0107) of drag iterative process Comparison casesrevealthatthe
atC - 0 74 This translates in a 4 1/2count error band t lamarltubulent
a, boundary layer technique works well for
friion/pressur/wave drag on the transport win& using a stri'g Interaction casespotentially unmnng "adjustments
projected 5% spreadin prediction accuracy andEq 24 The thatmight beappliedat higha Mach numbers wheredrag
same4-1/2 count error bandwould hold for the fighter wing prediction discrepancies aretypically 25%
assuming thatthedesign iftcoefficients ae identical Now. at
cante usagued that a 5% chord discrepancy in shock wave From Ref 35,itshould beapparentOt Navier Stokes solvers
location extsl. Considering the uanspon wing, a shock wave haveyet to demonstrate superority over more conventional
position at60% chord results in a h gser normal Matchnumbei schemes (i c.. Drefa's method) for drag prediction This is the
tAeff - 187 deg.), about0 73.Airfoil drag level rises to 125 casedespite tN . ,i that Navier Stokes methoomight require
counts, this effectively registers as a 6-count rune for ttre to orders-of magnitude morecomputing resources than current
tansport wing. The fighter wing effective sweep for a 60% coupled methods.
chrd shock location is 17 degrees.The resultng two.
dimensiotal Ma.h number u 0 736 From Fig 23. theairfoil Wave drag prediction at supersonicspeeds often presentsa
drag level rises to 15?counts yielding a wing drag level errorof simpler taskthanthat attransoeac speedsbecauseof the
34 counts - sincenow at the higher effocuve Mach number,a applicability of supersnic. linear theory andthesupersonicarea
25% prediction error applics ruleconcept (Refs 36 and37) 1her are a few assumptions
Oneis that flow disturbances propagate outward along Mach
Ernor generated by this buiddup processusing both two- and lnes andther is no dissipation with increasing distance
hiee-dinensiooal techniques coupled via Sweep Theox),
t wa Another is disturbances area furction only of thecross scionl
result in errorsthat areconsiderably snaller thanthoseattributed areadistribution, i . the "flow mitferfeuce" between
i 7-20

due to relative positoning is not modeled. Finally,

components (

it is asumed that configuration wave drag canbepredicted by MACH ANGLE CUTTING

(A) PLANES
coroputattons performed for an equivalent body-of-revolution

Reference 38 provides von Karman's equation for the wave drag

of a smooth, pointed body-of-revolution

Co . f6 da 1:121n(x.)dx d',
2 2
0 d d (26)

An equivalent body-of-revolution for an aircraft configuration is

generated by selecting a number of longitudinal statons between i
the configuration nose and tail. At each station. curting planes
inclined at an angle.

u -$mi (I/N) (27) (B)GRAPHIC PROCEDURE

relative tothe x-axis(see Fig 25-A) generate a planar area value

that isassociated with the s'ation " location This can bedone
graphically asshown in Fig. 25-B. or the procedure mght be
automated foruse on digital computers. This catting process is
performed repeatedly for a number of roll angles, asdepicted in
Fig 25-C An effective drag for the equivalent body.of- STATIO
revolution at each roll angle is computed and these salues are 0 10 2030 i050 60 70
then Integrated to arrve at the total configuration wave drag
coefficient, This procedure, combined with von Kaman's
relation 1Eq 26). was automated by Boeing engineers and
documented with sample cases by Hams (Ref 39) The resulting LINESON REOUIRED
PROJECTEDCROSS
computer program hasexperienced application throughout the TRANSPAENT ATSTATION
SECTION 40
.ircrafi industrysince itsinception in 1966 PAPER 3 3

The Fr Field Wave Drag Program is very simplistic by any 5

stAard Butthe flexibility and complexity potential forso 5.
modeling realistic aircraft shapes isentraordinary and its
applicability range is quite large Predictions forshapes that
appear to exceed the bounds of linear theory are often useful for
engineering purposes

Modeling flexibiliv, is Illustrated in Fig 26 This modelof t.x

NavyiGrumman P-14Tomcat wasgenerated tn the late 1960s
(Ref 40) The aircraft ismodeled using a set of Aing and body
type components Figure 27 shows how design engineer,, CUTTINGPLANE ROTATION FOP ONE ROLL ANGLE
(C)
optimized placement of the various coenponeni to ratch as
close as possible the optimum supersonic bldy areadistbution
This -as achieved despite a number of cinstraints that included
overall fiseness rano. nozzle exit area. and placement of internal
elements Application of this technique is the primary reason for
the F- 14being positioned in what is often called the i"ird
Generation of Supersorc Aureaft" (Rcf8. and Fig, 28). Itis
simply too expensive and there is insufficient time to perform
the wave drag mintnrzauon process with this degree of
integranon by expenimenation alone

One facet of drag analysis thatshould be noted at this point is

numerical opurization While the cngier cansequentially
establish a shape modificaaon via a darect compuuonal
analysis forevaiuation. modifiation and re-evaluation. etc.
there is considerable Incentive to pcrform shapeopurruzaon
using the speed of modern digital computers In oiler words take
the engineer out of the loop and speed up the process Another
approach mght involve the use of imversnemethods These
techniques synthe ic a shape based on specified flow
characteristcs such as velocity or pressure fields A useful
perspective on optamizatin methods can be found in Ref. 41
Tbe methods just described can provide valuable guidancc on
ancraft design projents. butthere are nIsuitonsthat should be
recognized First. assnung that low-drag pressur/veloc-ty
,
Fig. 25 Generation of Equivalent Body-ol-Revolution
for Supersoic Area Rule (Refs 17 and 39)
fields are properly specified. itis well known that an inverse
method as simply no(as robust asita direct method counterpart
In view of this, during a project application, an engineer
sequentially performing direct analyses with modifications will
usually be able to surpasa the result generated by another
engineer deugning by inverse methodology One way to
circumvent this Im ation is described in Ref 42 Here, a type of
 7-21

Fig. 26 F.14 Harris Wave Drag Program Model (Body & Wing Elements)

'modified duect' approach is described thatis in essenmean design applications and. assuch.requires lesscomputing
inversetechnique The key to this approach. how ver, is thatit resourcesthan a methodsetup to treatgeneral optimizanon
retains thestrengths of die parentdirect method problems

Numerical opmization, in theclassical sense,is constrained by

a numberof factors First.the optimization schene is
extrordinarily expensive to implement due to the Lrge number
of analysesthatarcneeded to establish appropriate trending ACTUAL
Second.rcasonableness criteria aretypically notapplicable ard MOEAL . A
asa result some lengthy computational opunueanon processes
convtge toan unrealistic or tmpractical shape.Finaly . the
pacnt analyucal method s dragprediction fidelity is often
impaired 'ls results in theopumizer procesaunt deficient
performiansce
informatison
with theoutcome beingadesign
shape
thatis suspect Reference 43 describes an approach to ionking
&-ound theseproblems In this scherme, aCONMIN optimizcr
(Ref 44) is coupled with design variables thatare mnrated 4
using conventiotal inverse:techniqu-s andob)ctive funtons
thatare "aerodynamics specific Theresulting numeruial *an 27
n-n O
optimizations
prixess asessentially tuned
toh;LAlc acrvdjmnurna Fig. 27 F-14 Optimized Normal Area Distribution
-7-22

4..2 24 027 GENERATIONS SYM AIRCRAFT SYM AIRCRAFT

I 33OF
0_ 0 I XF4-1 A 14F-102A
) 300 25 26 SUPERSONIC I2 XF-91 1I5 RAS5C
00 AIRCRAFT 3 XF.100A I16 F-105D
3 ry 4 XFY-1 17 F-SA
A5 19 FIRST 6 X-3 19 F-106A
2 7 F-100D X 20 F-14A
1 13 1 s SECOND 8 F-4E I21 F-I111A
a SEARSHAACK 13A TID9F81.-3 22 LFAX-4
I )MINIMUIM
DRAGISFA 2LR-
BODY I1F-81D 0 24 F-ISA
12 MIRAGE3G 25 F-I6
C ______________________13 B-58 I26 YF-17
06 7 8 9 10 11I 13AB-S8vPOD 27 F-I8
FINENESS
RATIO 1/d

FIg. 28 Supersonic Wave Drag Trending (Ref. 8)

Throtle-Dtpendent Drag results (afor of suepsiin The Firstite/IlaCelle modelas

characterired by an openor flow-through dUCt.The second
Aircrafi throttle settingwill affect bothltheinlet spillage level model'sduct is closed A Ibid msodelisidentical t0 the first. but
andthreexhaustnozzlepressurerato Theifleractios of the theangle of-attack is srt 1090 degreesThe following relation
spillage flow on ile surfaces(Ref 45) andarnyneighboring is usedto compute the local surfacevelocities
aircraft coriponents will generte a resultant dragor thrustforce
Similarly, exhaustplume interaction variations might raiseor
lower aircraft draglevels,depending on iheparsicular V. V2 ( 1
configuranonarrngemnt andflow charcteristics The - T-Cii
compleuty of flous associated with this dragsourceguarantres V V V2 OE
thatos manyprojects the first throttle-depeodeut dragestimates
until poweredsub-scaletitng is completed
[~ JO*V
will not bein hansd
Ilowever. two exameples are included hereto illuinratebo. (28)
computational methodscan provide usefulinformation prior to v1 , V'
testing Vu os a
Inlet/uacelle surfacescan bemodeledustng a variety of T. V2
subSonic.transonic, andsupersoniccon',cutional methods VO- j0
Theexample is Fig 29uses thesubsonic 'source" meil-ed of
Ref 46 Theappropriate surface singularity panelmodelLan lie Local selociniesare convened to pressuredistributions that arc
identified A clever schemeoutlined in Ref 47 Canbeused to integrated toobtaindrag forcesFigure 30 revealstho this
generateflow solut:ous for an)incideniceangleandanyinlet simple schemeLan provide accuratepressurefield detAIlsover a
flow rote bycomputing three inlt solutions andcombining dhe largerangeof shaiprsincidence angles,anidflow rates A

7=_ + & + Z ZI

Fig. 29 Opets/Closod Models for NACA Inlet Casen

 7-23

NACA1-50-100 NACA1-70030
E55'60 ANALYSIS EXPElS ANALYSIS
000 ViN.- -090 000 VVW.0554 -
000 VVV' .068 - 000 V4VV-0 3 -------
AAA
000
ViN. -044
Vw "020 ....
A" V4VV
V V 032
- 0 21

24
-02' I-.58 06 - ---

-02- ,d -- 06_

06 0X.O6

04- cp O 2 0 c 1 02
-0 4
02
0 02 04 06 08 10o 0

NACAIO-050 0 -

EXPElSJ YLS0
000 V" 096 -0
00M VN. 054 -----
A" VV-.030 0 03 04 06 08 10
00 VViN. 019
V'08- M1 64201291.
0A 02 X .8-
x.8

08 Fig. 30 Inlet Top Centerllne Pressure Distribution

-04- CorreOldtions (coni'd)

022- 1 Z_ typical relaton beteen Inlet flow ralte andcompuled drag levels
CP 0 Vs provfdea nFig31 As Inlet leading edge radii decrease, the
poteri tni-for flow separation drag penaltes increases In
addition. aero-propulson bookkeeping rtequires that"additve
drag (a furtonof inlet streartube geonetry) betncudd to
obtain total spillage drag levels When all of these components
-o8 aiecsombined, thetrend shown in Fig 31 may bereversed,Ie,
spillage dragnmy torease with any reduction flow
inlet mass
08 - ratio
-04 - t
,__- A keyfeatureof this approach and the example just descnhed is
"0 in generating the
that computational modeling is not adtered

.-C, 10numerteal
- T resitts In this %aly,the resultant drag levels are
certain to bedenved from configuraton geometry andflow
h conditions, andnot from nunenca] discrepancies thatmight
02 surface when thediscretized model is altered

0 02 04 06 08 to Afteibodydragle.els.asapercentageofthetotal, canbequite
x't.-8
ct large forfighter aucraft (Ref 48) at certain conditions This
W16,126012 level rmght behalf .,ie total aircraft drag level (Fig 32)
2E0hs2
US __ auisiplume interacUons. an important Component of thetotal
Fig. 30 Inlet Top Centerlne Pressure af erbody drag, canbecomputed with patched solutions (Fig
Distribution Correlations 33)Two computer programs (onefor transonic speeds andone
for supersonic speeds) havebeer, developed to provide this ty)p
 7-24

SDRAG , NOTE'NOFLOW TRecirculaung •FE

SEPARATION separat in an Flow - Controlregions)
reattachmaenlt volume analysis with t
ORADDITIVE
DRAG Supersonic Exhaust Plume -Salas fimte difference
marhng scheme
Plume Entrainment - Mixing profile to yield equivalent
- displacement thickness

Figure 34 showsa typical stmulaton result for two boattal

surfaces (Ref. 52) at supersonic speedsThe drag reduction
trend thatoccurs with increasing nozzle pressureratio is
0redicted well
02 04 06 08 1.0
Vfv INLETFLOW RATE Interference Drag
SI FInterference drag sourcesarecomplex andlarge in number In
__ __,,__ _ _ _ _ _ some casescomputational methods can predict flow qualitic%
Fig. 31 Effect of Inlet Spillage on Inlet LIp Drag thatwill aid in the drig minimization process In other cases.
the methods can predict useful drag force information

Oneexample of an interference drag sourcethat hasdefied

IERCN
nI flows. The lirmtanon appearsto beassociated with the inability

PERCENT of three-dimensional viscous flow predictors to perform well

Co whentheflow tn highly three-dimensional As a result, juncture
t00 fllets riught best be optimized with guidelines applied during
sub. or full-scale testing Reference53 provides both design
guidelines andliterature referencesthat could prove useful in
shaping fillets

,It should berecognized that computational methods canprovide

useful flow angularity andgradient information (seeFig 35 and
Refs 54 and55) thatwill helpthedesigner conceive a shapethat
Fig. 32 Fighter Afterbody Drag Levels at is quite good forthe first seriesof experiments Testing
Subsonic Speeds, CL = 0 requirements, andtherefore cost,can be ummirzed

A greaterlevel of application successis associated with

simulating both propeller androtor slipstream interactons The
tLAG iNVISC PLUME former is important becauseof interest in highspeed,high-
ENTRAINMENT
EMBEDDED SKELETON efficiency propellers (prop-fans or unducted fans)andthe latier
BOUNDARY SHOCK FULLYDEVELOPED isnaturally inked to aircraft concepts like the V-22
LAYER SEPARATO MIXINGREGION
STREAML.
4N E Figure 36 showsa propfan tractor arrangement thatmight exist
inthefuture In order to matmie the benefit of the total
TRANSON propfan concept, propeller slipstream andnacelleinterference
< I II- ".. must be mnimnuzed The slipstream flow is charactenned bya
4R1 swirling motion wilh discreet vorticity sheets emratiag from
S T R I bladetrading edge. Immersedconfiguration components
SMOOTHED
REGION experience increments in Miachnumber andflow dynamic
pressureAt high trasonic speeds.slipstream swirl effects will
be dominant Figure 37 reveals a testsetupincorporating a

i ~'-- ,,,..AYSIS CONFIG TEST

SUPERSONIC ,--- 8

SMOOTHED
REGION 010 -

M- 220
M
Fig. 33 Boattall Analysis Method C NUMBER1659 X t0
REYNOLDS
Computational Regions 00

of prediction acrossthe subsonic, Irsisonic. andsupersonic - - 7 - - *

speedregies (Ref . 4, 50, and51) Both methodsiteratively 0
solve forfiveseparateflowfieldregtois foundin Fig 33 The 0 5 to Is 20 25 30
flow regiOtnS Are. NOZZLE PRESSURE RATIOP;, i
* External Inviscid Flow - Mapped region. conventional I,--.,
SLOR with rotated difference schemn Fig. 34 Correlation of Nozzle Pressure Ratio Effects
* Boundary Layer- Greens integral method for 6 * on Afterbody Drag Levels
 7-25

VELOCITY
SURFACE
UPPER propeller slipstream simulator positioned upstreamof a
VELOCITY
SURFACE
LOWER
.... supercritical wing transport model. Wing section boundary
conditions weremodified via "twist" angles to representthe
ipropelles seven-degree swirl velocity That is to say. wing
sections betweenthe propeller centerline andthe inboard radivs
line weremodified to havesevendegreesmore incidence
------- representing swirl upwash.while wing sections betweenthe
TOPVIEWOPWING propeller centerline andthe outboard radius line werealtered to
havesevendegreeslessincidence representing swirl downwash
For reversepropeller rotaton. theupwash/downwash boundary
conditions areinterchanged Clockwise andcounter-clockwise
slipstream effects on thewing pressure field arccorrelated un
WING Fig 38 using a transonic small disturbance method(Ref 56and
- 57) Note thatpressurefield details arepredicted very well
despite the wing's complex double shock wavesys.em

NBCARD
SIDE The wing pressure distributions found usFig 38 can be
OFSTRUT integrated to generatespanwise load dsmbutions asvel as lift
anddrag coefficients (seeFig 39) Loading plots reveal that the
(A)CALCULATEDSURFACE FLOWPATTERN
NEAR slipstream interaction will affect the hft-iduced draglevels, the
NACELLESTRUTWINGINTERSECTION,
BOEING747 alteredshockpattern suggests thatthe wave drag is similarly
DEVELOPMENT MODEL altered The lift level is predicted well asmight beexpected
2 (good pressuresimulaton). butthecomputational Orag
0 increment is greaterthanthat measuredduring theexpenment
DISTANCE
UPSTREAM
ALONG
BODY This appearsto be an improvement over incompressible theory
but draglevels measuredin this particular experiment are
hi suspectbecause of thepropeller slipstream simulator hardware
mounted upstream from the wing surface
WITHU A
FAIRING Rotor slipstream interactions aremore prevalent at subsonic
Dconditions thantransomc condiotn While little successhas
BOUNDARY
LAYER
SEPARATION accrued in modeling thecomplex flow separation patIerns about
THEORY -. helicopter fuselage shapes,
someadvances havebeenmadein
6 EXPERIMENT simulating rotor download effects on winged vehicles (Ref 5S)
JUNCTURE
WINGBODY
(I) Figure 40depicts this problem. It isknown that the"download"
or veritcal drag force penalty attribuutble toXV. 15rotor
downash impinging on the wing surface vanes between 5%
35 Component Interference Effects (Refs54 & 55)
Fig. and 15% of the vehicles totd gross weight Itbecomes
impoetant to refine configuration components to minunre the
download magnitude Unlihkemost aircraft prediction
applications, this caseinvolves dragcoefficient levels that are
very high (on theorder of I 0)

e plots in Fig 41dlustrate thatwing section drag uscross-

flow vanes with te flapdeflection angle The agreement
between testdam andthe computonal model is compromised
bya shift unabsolutedraglevel If thecurves ar normalized .y
the0-deflection dragvalues, it can beseenthatproper uend: ar
,nredieted This trending was obtained using an unsteady panel
model (Ref 59)coupled with a free strearire representation of
theseparatedwake Useful design information can beexuacted
eventhough absolute drag levels predicted are in error The
speed with which computational models can be generated.
coupled with relatively low cost of analysis, pemuts a large
_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ number of shapebonentation combinations to beexamined. In
Fig. 36 Proptan Tractor Arrangement this environnent. out of.the.ordinary solutions can surface that
mght not naturally evolve for testing basedon pastexperience.
The wing section download poblem isa good example inthat
thenummum drag or download doesnot occur at90 degreesof
flap deflection, which would bethe intuitive cboice basedon
minimum areapresentedto the flow
PROPELLER Engine nacelle interference phenomenon canexhibit a degreeof
SUPSTREAM complexity that defies treatment with current
computational
SIMULATOR Thiinopartis theresult of whit might becalled 'hard
miethiods
boundary" iteractions that impact lift-induced. wave, and
pressuredrag levels, But inaddton, the nacellc iet &M
exhaust components add a dege of Dependent" drag
dThrottie
de nibd u a preceding sub-section An example is now
m, ., described that can beused to dlustrate boh of theseeffects and
Fig. 37 Propfan Slipstream
Simulator themanneruswhich they interact
7-26

.0
0 08

0
Ci *o.o . 0 V

V ~
04,03 "0 it'-0
080

121

L~r,.N AAYSIS
EXPERIMENT (RE 56)
o000 SWIRL.7' XX
660 SWIRL.7 - _

Fig. 38 Wing Pressure Distribution Correlation Illustrating Propfan Slipstream Interfence Effects
(M =O.8 ca300g)

EXPERIMENT
PT
7' .1075 ANALYSIS
P7,pT -150

000 SWIRL.r -
*00 SWIRL-7' PROPELLER
SI.IPSTRE'
W
SIMULATOR .
08 0
0 V"'00

06 0IF
(INCREM NT,

CCj 0 4 - L 0 6LDEG 12
SWIRL,
T.C0
*0
IANALYSIS
02 DRA 10 EXPERIMENT

0 02 04 06 06 500 NCTH4EORY
SWIRLDEG
lk

Fig. 39 Proptan Interference Effects - Wing Sponioad, Lit, & Drag Increments (M- 0.8 a =3 Deg)

rigiur 42shows supenmposed computed wing section upper butapieceis still missing In thethird comparison (Fig 42). the
surface pressure ditributionis for an esocunivejet attransonic tue inlt rass flow ratio (0661ismodeled byspecifying
conditions Auirnsons smldistbancetheryanalysts (Ref appropriate valuesof the 'low field potental atgrid points
60)is usedOntheleft.a wing-fuselage calculation reveals a representing she inlt face Now atcanbeteenthatagreemniet
strongvsockwave running alongshelength of thewirg from the with testdatabasinproved considerably The flow. now
fuselage juncture iothe wing sipJuNtbelow this irc. charactered bymsorenegative pressures,
doesnotstow down
dosensional Image, awing roottection cutisshownd4ong with asmnuch in front of theinlet face.with lessspillage modeled.
ihe
expentmental pressure datcorreluoion Thluirepresentsia flow acceleration or pressare spike astheinketlip is redaced
'nacelle-oft easeNest, acompartuo withthenacelle surface Simulation agreement is diraacadly improved.
preseni canbeidentified Thenacelleismodeled asaclosed!
surface in thecomputatiornsl method.Inotherwords. thenacelle Asnoted before. absolute drag Ichc predicied byathree.
isaclosed formi aswould be ppropriate for afuel uuikor dimensional computational method will not yteld dragaccuracy
avionics pod Note thaitheengine surface deceleratestheflow ievels suitablefor project applications, liut theinformaution
in front of thenacelle andaccelerates theflow just below fte shown in ig 42canbyfoundational for cte application of
nacelle inlet lip foenung a pressure spike. Wing pressure simpler iodrilsia methods thatmight bebrought to bear
corrlastions confirm this type of character butthelevel of usingsuperpossition principles asparsof abuild upprocess7the
agreemtet isnotiasgoodasthatfor thenacelleff case This basicideas for this approach %we described in the Trntionic,
suggests thatpart of thcnacelle itterfererce effeci is msodeled andSup'ersonic WaveDrag'tub-section
 7-27

A 0

SLPTREAM- 0O
BOUNDARY , -,A DRAG
A COEFFICIENT 0 EXPERIMENT

Ai.J / A PANELCALCULATION
I I /'( SEPARATION
FIXEDAT
FLAPSHOULDER

CROSSSECTIONTHROUGH 0* 30* 0 90,

WINGSTATION FLAPDEFLECTIONANGLE
10 A (ABSOLUTE)

I\
9

DRAG
BF COEFFICIET 05

0 EXPERIME4T
CODE
A PANEL
SECTION
A.A 0 -.- - ,,,
30'
v0 60. 90'
FLAPDEFLECTION
ANGLE
Fig. 40 Rotor Download Schematic (Ref. 58) B(NORMALIZED)

Fig. 41 MeasuredlCalculated Drag vs Flap Deflection

Angle (Ref. 58)

.2,

CP
-06

,o

W.UGFUSCLAGE NACELLE
WING FUSELAGE
o I MFR.066

I2 NACELLE
OFF NACELLE
ON NACELLE
ON
48 INLETSPILLAGE
EFFECTMFA.B0E6
,04 0 0

Cp 0 CP00 . 0)

04

08-

Fig 42 Superimposed Computed Pressure Distributions & Wing Root Pressure Correlation for
G-Ill Configuration (M= 0 85, a . Deg)
7-28

In the following paragraphs, another interference drag source is
highlighted. This sourceis closely relatedto Throttle-
Dependent Drag, but thecomplexities of aircraft afterbody
shapesrequirean additional level of modeling sophistication
beyond what is described in thatsub-secxon The category to be
examined now might be called "Integrated Afterbody Effects"
andit can be thought of asan elementof interference drag
Theboattail analysis described in theThrottle-Dependent Drag
section hasbeenimplemented to treat a number of simple nozzle
shapes Figures 43 and44 show r-sonic, drag prediction results
for two boattaslgeometries Applications engineerscanextend
the useof theseaxi-symnsemc body computational methods by
implementing the equivalent body-of-revolution technique
described in Ref. 61 This approach requires that various
afterbody components (e g, multiple nozzles, inter-fairings,
sponsons, horizontal andverticaltailsurfaces,andfatrings) be
combined into a single shapewith anequivalent total area
distrbuson A prediction generated using this technique can be
seninFig 45 Dragrisecharacteristicsforaresearcha.rcraft
model havebeenpredicted well considering the afterbody
complexity But this engineering approach is far from fool-
proof as a secondcomparison casereveals in Fig 46 Here, test
results suggestthat a drag-producing flow separation region
mght exist at low speeds.While this experimental trending is
unusual,andmay in fact be in error, this casecan be usedasan
example to point out that the simplistic engineering method
involving an unrefined equivalent body-of-revolution may not
be suitable for all project apphcatons
Someof theshortcomings just described can be overconse by
integrating a boattal analysis method, anequivalent body-of-
revolution concept, andcorrection factors developed from test
databasesFigures 47A andB presenta schematic illustratig
this approach.Semi-empmcal corrections can be developed to
accountfor a number of aircraft features suchas empennage.
inter-fatrings, enginespacing, booms, basedrag.andlifting
surfaces.Figures 48 through 53 show examples of correction
factors, configurations, models, andcorrelations that make up
theappliedexperiencebase A sample analysis for an F-14
afterbody using this system(Ref 62) can befound in Fig 54

o EXPERIMENT AFTERBODYISTING
ANALYSIS
SUBSONICTRANSONIC Trim Drag
-. SUPERSONIC
Over thepastten years,NASA hasdeveloped a computer
BOATTAIL
GSOMETRY program specifically for optimtzing multtple lifung surface.
012 multi-control surfacearrangements (Ref. 63) While many
0 0 TERM 1578 methods aght be usedto mninnze mm drag, this linearized
0 - " 0 lifting surfaceformulation isunique in thatthe solution is
0 08 - t 765 025 obtained byan itemraon processasopposedto the simultaneous
o-. equation solution processcharacterinzng other methods A
006 - special implementation of leading edgesingularity parameters
makes it possible to rare accurately predict leading edgethrust
004- levels (Rcf 64) Computational tme savings associated with
this approach areimportant in view of the large number of
002 L surf ire deflection combinatios that must be ins estigaired to
0 07 effectively minimize configuration nim drag,
0o , 0 0n 09 t0 i2 14 t6 t8 20 2 2
MACHNUMBER Perhaps
oneof themost imortant features
of this methodasnot
Fig. 43 Prediction of TrI-Sonic Drag Characteristlic so much the factors thatchaacternzeit but rather theextersive
of Boattall-Sling Conflguratlons (Case No.1) experiencebasecompleted bythe method's developers This
provides theapplicatons engineer with critical inforiation
neededto assess themethods ulity. An example configuration
EXPERIMENTAL DATA hasbeenmodeled is Fig 55 One useful featureof the
conputanonal nethod is thatautomatic panelmodel generation
3ACBOATTAIL COOE is provided An input stick figure" (Fig 55-A) is thebasisfor
- -- PRESZit978) thecomputer model (rig 55-B) The control effectors appearto
NASACA3020 be larger thanwhat might be expected from the inout nsodel
boeaise eachflap-type control surfaceelementrve.iecs a
deflection anglrboundary condition, butelements acrossthe
BOATTAILG OMETRY hisgelise haveapropnately reducedbound.y condition angles
All AreshadoO, however, giving the impression thatthe deflected
10 surfacesmodeled are larger thanthe physical cointeparts
08 05 A total suctionpararter "Ss' is usedas a measure of howvell

the configurations drag polar marchesieidealgivenby"e'

CD 9 10 (Eq 5) The Ss relation s
06

04 CL TN'4CdCtL I-ACD

02 CLTACti/CL4- C/KAR (29)

0 .2 4 5 t,0o 2 14 InFig 56.swil varybetseu,'O andAl n Ssvalueof'l"

- MACHNO an idealdragpolar-hile0 represents
represents thezero
Fig. 44 Prodlcilon of Tri-Sonlc Drag Characteristics suction polar wheredrag is simply the lift vector component
in
of Boattall-Stlng Configuration (Case NO.2) the downstrea direction
 7-29

EQUIVALENT
BODYOF REVOLUTION(EBR)
TAILSOFF)
(HORIZONTALNVERTICAL

BODYOFREVOLUTION
EQUIVALENT (EBR)
TAILSOFF
(HORIZONTALVERTICAL 03

05 01
RD 03 0 02 06 10 14 10
01 LID
0 4 0' '2U2 1.6 2.0 24 28
A AFTERBODY DRAG-TESTDATA
0020 0 AFTERBODY DRAGMINUS
00 EMPENNAGE
8 A AFTERBODYDRAG-TESTDATA 0 016 - EOR AFTERBODY ANALYSIS
. 0016" * AFTERBODYDRAG
z/ MINUS
-EMPENNAGE z
0012 EBR AFTERBOQYANALYSIS U 0012 A
002 - lA 0008

O00

* 0 4i,.-,0 =
06 07 08 09 1B 11 12 (1 ____________
1.JZom MACHNUMBER 00 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Fig. 45 Equivalent Body Approach Simulating , MACHNUMBER
Research Model Afterbody Drag Fig. 46 Equivalent Body Approach Simulating F-18
Research Model Afterbody Drag

INPUTS
1GEOMETRICAL

MB MB MB

FLOWFIELD NOTE
MACHNO PROPERTIES M8 METRICBREAK

M.0 REY1POO NO
pcDV FRICTV4
OORA OUTPUT)

DEL

3 THETA NO IUSMACH NO

06
0 ~( ~ PSNOZZLE.
MACH NOZZLEEXIT

Fig. 47-A Equivalent Body of Revolution Methodology Using GAC-BOAT Code

 GA-OTIPTPARAMETERS
AXIOR2-D
GEOMETRY
...... M. CROSS.
NOZZLEINPUTPARAMETERS Ro SECTIONAL
FLW AREA
FLOW EOMCN s* DISTRIBUTION
T,. AS CO-V
A2 SERN
aETC... I" GAC.BOAT _ .SEMI-EMPIRICAL
PROGRAM 3 D CORRECTIONS
-----------------------------
4- EXITPARAMETERS
o -PS
NOZZLE ,*MACHNO
OUTPUT
NAIPPROGRAM
LOSSES 1
MIXING _
GE NOZZLET
NOZZLE COEFFICIENTS
IUS
MODULE -
LEAKAGES PERFORMANCE -a- COMPAEN
NOZZLE
CALCULATIONS WEIGHTS DA
*
- / DELTAS

FUNCTION
NOZZLE
iRLUST
VECTORING o NOZZLE C0 C0
THRUSTREVERSING *WEIGHTS

GACBOAT 3 D CORRECTIONS
SEMIEMPIRICAL
PPOGRAM TESTDATA

CO %CD
SOLUTION
ANALYTIC

NOZZLE
EXITPARAMETERS
Cot ACHNO
*PS

MACN
MAC

F.4....e.... zeAfebd Isald elrronePedcinPiga

 K 7-31

*0SID-229 V SID-165 EBRMODEL LI

BOOMAREA

BOOMCORRELATION

MACHNUMBER [,C B OEL C F

Fg48ERB/Spacing Effects - Cruise Nozzle

Fig. 51 Boom Methodology

US/D.13 a SO-2 29
OSID-11 X 5/0215 0 15 -

0SID. 229 v 5/D .2 29

05/D.215 1-5/0.215

...........

00 0 + a00

0 -0

0 (L ILZ Z2R
0NP
BO O NFI9
02
05 1 1.5 2 25 Fig. 52 Boom Correlation -Cruise Nozzle
NUMBER
MACH
Fig. 49 ERBIpacing Effects - Maximum AID Nozzle

015S
TEST
GAD SERIES SERIES
TEST
FLUIDYNE
GFAXI COWJFGA

FiiCONFGF '. MB

0 2 3 4

Fig 50 Boom Configurations Fig. 53 Boom Correlation - Maximum A/B Nozzle

7-32

NOW. E CID C 2AR

! /'1
<& MEASURED
'AFiBODY
L---
y-
12THSCAL.E METRICPRESS
FUSC EMP DNOZ

INTEG
-r-J...... 7
C A

-C -C *C 0 FRICTION
&C CALC . Ss.0
S
0 0
C'AFT-ODy ESR DEMp DINTER-
LEVEL
11 ACTIVE
C -ESR DRAGOFCOMPLETE
R AFTER80,Y AREADISTRI

Ii I (LEVEL
d
DRAG -, -I ' IIIII I -~l Co, LItWO EDU
0 D AGCOEFFENT
jl.
COEFFICIENT /J4UER IF 1 v'OCOOAC~TC7t
COEFFICIENT E
Fig. 56 Ss Parameter Definition

04 08 12 16 20 24
MACHNO
Fig. 54 F14 Afterbody Drag Prediction - Maximum
A/B Nozzle

(A)INPUT-STICKMODEL-

(B) DtSCRETtZEDPANELMODEL

Fig. 55 Trim Optimization Code Modeling

By combining theInformiion in all of the plots.an optimum

Figure 57 showsaiypsl.d setof computed resultsfor Awing
body canard configuration Thre surfaces (wing leading and
'aling edge flaps andthe canard)can be deflected ix setto
mitxtttize drag acrossa rangeof tf. covering both cruiseand
maneuveing conditions The control surfacedeflections, S$
parameter, andconfiguraton pitchtng ntiment are all irapped
(F g 57) andshow the varatitons that ocir with different total
lift levels At eachof five hft values, threeplots cover canard
deflctoxofn,tO. IOan 20degres Eachplot identfites th
performancelevel possible ,ith %anous combinatuion uf wing
lding and railing edgeflap deflecoons
defleclon scheduleconsistent with trnmng theconfiguration
canbecoistricted (Fit 58) It tan beseen thaita more ideal
polar can be generated if theconfiguation doesnot have to be
timed Theseidealdeflection combtniions lead to a
conposlite di.g polar Tihs picess is very tuneconsumintg and
expeisnise if a complete surfacedlhlcoiVoonentatun matnrxis
performed in thewind tunnel
References 63 d 6.Ian be sed to identfy dragpolar
accur.c that mighi hexpected for a range f dfferext aircraft
configutaion types
 7-33J
2 . 005 .010 -05 -005 0 0
20 0 %

401
1~'F
020

x rA0 -005 40 -01 .005S -00 415 -020 .00 .015 .020 -025

I I I ooo
074 06

5020~

0 .05 111 41 405 00 415 .20

1
0 0.1 .010
T1
I. 00
20

IsI
500

060

20 4055 005 a 405 5 4065 410 405 40 5 420

I1 0U I 0

002 070

5050 -0 56 05kA 0

20 % 1 005 0 a0 0 00a 0 40S8 015 0 -405 .270 41S 420

20 1
0I0 \, . I 0.4

0 70\ on8

. so O

00 20 Is 072
6a0.0. I6a lo*
Fig~~~~
Prdce Lif-Inuce
57 DrgCaaceitc (sCnors o anr o1gu na
Lif Leel as a Functio ofCnr
Difrn deFa Iednrri
elcin
7-34

I Z 0
____________-

-8
-PART 2: DRAG REDUCTION/MINIMIZATION
TECHNIQUES
D SCUS ION DRAG REDUCTION
/M INIM IZATION

(A) EFFECT
OFLIFTONOPTIMUM
CAADDEFLECT1ON In Part 1,a number of engineering dragprediction methodswere

0* < 0 affect drag reductions thatoptimire the configuration shape The

t~o 01 -consists of a collection of casestudiesthatillustrate the useof

O IF NOPTIMUM
(B FFC LEADING computational methodsfor dragreduction/imiztation
DEFLECTION
(B FETEDGE problems anddiagnostics The topics include

TRIMMED UNTRIMMED (I) Wing Tip-Mounted Winglet Design

I I I(2) Transonic Transpot Wing DragMinimization

~51-'.a 1 ..... 4 (3) Natural Laminar Plow Airfoil Design

01 (4) Fgbter High.SpeedDrag/Iluffet Reduction

0 (5) SweptWing Tip Optimization
(C) EFFECT
OFLIFTONOPTIMUM
TRAILING
EDGEDEFLECTION (6) Hypersonic Drag SourceDiagnostics

- I [(7) righter Transonic Maneuver Wing Optimization

CC In eachcas, an effort is madeto identify thevalueaddedto the

tn - project byihe application of eogisenng draganalysis methods
7 -0 - - Wing Tip.Mnunted W~inglet Design

7 11 1 1 1 Wing np-mounted wingleis provide a reduction in airenaftlift

induced draglevels thatcan be antributedtoend plateeffects A
LIFTCOEFICIET
CLspan The reaalti'g; wing root bending tmoment is lessthan ihat
(D)EFFCT
N OTIMMF LFT driv frm asimle ingtip extension sostructural ieight
SUCTINPARMETERpenalties are minaiied To be effetctise.however, the winglet
lifi induced dragbeinefitmustnot beoffset bya large%etted
OPTIUMOMPOITEsurface friction dragpenalty This differetites nicts from
simple eod-plates. It also nnggents thai designdetais are
UNTRUMEDImportant. Further, manywsngleiapplications requiredesign at
transonic speedswheresheapplications engineermusstensure
OP~tM
COMPSIT thatinterferencl: effects andwavedragpenaties arenor
LIFTIncurred Onceagain,design details areunpisnan

POLAR empirical guidelines (Ref 65) developed by Dr. Whitcomab at

NASA's Langley Reschb CenterKeycharacteristics ate
sumnmaaired belou
*Avoid rake thatwould reducewsngtip region loading
*Wingler spanshouldbecomiparable to wing tip chord
DRAG length
(E) DRAGPOLAR
COMPARISON Winglet toe-out angleis comparable to wing tip twist
angle
-____ ____ Avoid merging of wing andwinglet supersonic regions
Fig 58 Optimum Drag Polar Shape Constructed Winglet cant angleshould be selectedfor optimum
Using Multiple "Lift" PolarnsGenerated combination of induced dragandwangroo bending
with Control Sutface Deflections msolnent
*Winglet juncture region should be treatedlike a wing roo
juncture region Asoid trading edgeload build up

The final threeitems can beaccomaplished using both subsonic

pasnelmethodsanldtransonic finite difference relaxation
schemes.Figure 59 identifies typical winglel parameters
 7-35

N=I: WNGLET
SECTION
UPPERSURFACE
-ACESINBOARD

WNGLET Z
L7
H..C SWEEP ZI
hZ

7h ORIGINAL
GAW-TYPESECTION

ccZZIIIZz-z
C G IIIWINGLET
AIRFOIL.
CANT (MODIFIED FORIMPROVED PERFORMANCE)
HIGHSPEED
AN4GLE
.. Fig. 60 Originally Proposed & Final G-Ill Winglet
UPPERSURPACE Airfoil Section

TOEOUTANGLE UPPERSURFACE

SECTION
WINGLET -0

iin5~M25~7A ODESIGN
CL~ ~ 0

Fig. 59 Details of Wirigini Geometry

During the winglet design effert for theGulf'ucam, III aircraft. COEFA'CIEPJT
theseguidelines werefollowed and3 recommended GAW type C
airfoil %as Implemented The airfoil shapecan beseen in Fig WINDTUNNELTESTM 00750 2
60 During the first wind tunnel test,early dragrie %w0FLsH TESTM . 5
observedaridattributed to theGAW sectionshape ibis effect IFLGTTEST M - 0 7S
was verified usinga transonic two-dimensional tMaSottiC
analysts(Ref 33)coupled with extendedsweeptheory (see
-ransonie andSupersonic Wave Drag* section) Iterative
anaiyses were Performed to re-contour the airfoil forward andafi
regions. tnaking theshapemnore supercrtical in 0haravsecrThe
improved arfoil shape(lug 60) wasplaced backin the , inglet 0 0030 00020 011010 0 00020 00020)
planforin for wind tunnelmodelfabrication All of the design AC0 DRAGCOEFFICIENT
INCREMENT
goals-ere achiesed during the secondwind iunnel testi
Fig. 61 G-1llWInglet Drag Increment
(3uif'srram IIl winglet dragincrementsare shownin rig 61
The benefit/penalty tradecan heidentified Testing
demonstrated a benefit that wasslightly greaterthanthat
predicted by analysis Also. gainsarereducedb) wavedrug
lossesata higher-thant-dessgn Stacb numbercoupled with
higher than-design lift levels Theaircraft performtasce
benefitsTal5 oul fWige
thatresulted from this design effort are summarteein Table S al eulso igo
Applying computational methodsin this cawe(todelaydragrise) Experimental Validation
saved considerable model andtesttimeexpenses Further,
it is DRAG 3 1%DRAG REDUCTION ATCRUISE
CL
judged thatthefinal wingiet dragbenefit would nothavebeen us
highconsidering thetime constraints characterizing mosttest WEIGHT .112% OFAVERAGE CRUISEWEIGHT
programs Designing byrepetitve testing often resnults in RNE . 7M(33%
con'pronixed final configurations duetoliats onthenumber of RAG I7M13%
variables thatcan beassessed I basis particularly thecasefor FUEL -6500 GAL/fR (BASED
ON600 HOUR
USEI
aircraft with trautsonic,
design points .- I
 7-36

Transonic Transport Wing Drag Minimization

The Gulfstream I executiveet is a goodcase study to - r NGSTATON387

demonstrate computaional drag unirruzaon techniques 08 . IG-I1 0 937
applied to high-speed wings. This is bestaccomplished by
examining the seriesof Gulfstrcant designs from 1966 CP-04
(Gulfseanm 1) to 1984
experimentation was the(Gulfsiream IV) In 1966,design by
meansto optimize high-speed wing 0
shapesThe Gulfstream i program fabricated eight
separate
wing shapesfor wind tunnel testing Including refinements to
04
theongtnal eight, twenty-four wing shapeswereevaluated and
thebestwasselectedfor the M=O75 cruise design point This
may seem like a largenumber of wing shapes, but for thatperiod
some aircraft development programs investigated
hundredsof
wing shapesbefore settling onthe final one. C

TheGulfsutrean Ill configuration evolved dating 1979.An effort

wasinitaied to develop a new high-speed (M.0 78) wing by .12 WINGSTA]IOI146
retaining theG-11wing boxsinictrire andflap/aileron surfaces 5 1
are compared in Fig,62. 08 GI0
The G-11 and G.11 wing planforms
Leading edgeanidwing tip extensions increased wing areaby
15% Leading edgesweepwasIncreased 3 degreesandaspect CP 04
ratio wasmaintained at6 0. The wing root chord extension
decreased wing thickness from 12%to 10%.Equivalent two- I
dimensional airfoil sectionswereextracted from theoriginal G-
II wing at threespanlocations ( n - 0.182.0 351.and0 937) 04L
Theseshapeswererefined using the transonic airfoil analysis
methodof Ref. 33. subject to theextent constraints identified in
Fig 62 Refinements evolved using iterative direct analysis
Figure 63 showsa wing pressuredistrbution "before andafter"
comparison whereshockwavelosseswere
reduced
considerably Initial testing revealed thatG-Il drag creep
chanctensncs wereeliminated andthis wasconsistent with the
specific pre-test predicted wing section dragreductions included
in Fig 64 12[ GT W/NG 7
Clearly aportion of the higier dragdivergence Mach benefit is 08- IG II 0 182
atti table to reductions is wing thickness ratio Equation 25
Shows that the inboard drag divergence Mach beneit of0 04 is
CP 04 Gi
greaterthan thatassociated with thickness. 002 Figure 65
"' / I!/
vcnrleatiomthe
qulatifies total configuration
testing This drag reduction basedon
trinsonic wing design effort ,.
underscored thevalue of computaional methods The 0"
performance enhancement wa so substantial thatG Ill wings
werefitted to many existing G IIaircraft.
-e re called G IAs Pc ~aps Thesehybrid aircraft
most Intrguing, the nrw
achieved with asingle wind tunnel test that verified
o;-, erc
computational predicuons
a, .14s.

G iiiAMOILFig. 63 Airfill Shapeiwing PrOSSure Distribution

SKAP<00 Refinement for Guilslream Ill

o XG 0 004 ]
(,02 I G.1

<20075
STA
AC 0
0
"/ 'I
s O2

STA145

0 o t, 088 072 078 080

__________________________
MACH NUMBiER
Fig. 62 Gulistream iVill Wing Planforms with G-Ill Fig. 64 Analytically Predicted Improvement In G11 I
Airfoil Contour Modification Region Wing Section Drag Divergence Mach Numbor
 7.37-

shift loadinboard tocompensate for wing loadsuppression

induced bythelarger engine nacelleA transonic wing-body.
nacelle-winglet computational analysis method(Ref 60) was
usedtodevelop appropriate wing contour changes in the
/Iunconstrained region (Fig 67) Carewastaken to inimize a
wing tip lower surface leading edgespik: thatevolved with the
EXPOISIMENTi twisting needed toshift load inboard. This pressmsespike
AgoDI44COE Ngts required treatment to avoid dragcreep thatwould appear prior to
241
W(1ST9T66)PUAIOA achieving thecruise design Mach number andlift level. Figure
DESIGN
AERODYNAMIIC 68shows therefinement implemented
G-1:1(1979)
1 WtNGNJNGLET
TESTED G.IV design goalswereachieved with testing
thatimmediately
040
C' 0
Is I
15
I
followed thecomputational design
pressure
wing pressure
field(Fig.69) shows
program.

adransutic
Wind tussel
well with ptc-test projectious The
distributions agreed
u,
t;
II /f number toM.0 80. Perhaps
reduction in
outboard shock wave strength; thisraised the GIV cruise Mach
mostinteresting, from the
Q0
GLvnEA IPOVEMEN7 improvement shown in Fig 70wherethereisa sall drag
0 C20 1 benefit whserthe0-1ll and0.lV wing-fuselage configurations
tI~nM~n
n l I arecompared With thenacelle installed, however, the
0241---4--4----4- perforntance iscrement islargerThis caseillustrates improved
60 64 68 72 76 so 84 60 component integration capabilities through computational
MACHNO analysis
Fig. 65 G-IIIG-1ll
Drag Comparison
Natural Laminar Flow Design
Gulfstreara IV developmseni (Ref 66)wastiit, d in Miaech
1983Unlike the1979G-11 effun.,theG.IV wing would re Another technique fomdragreduction/misnieiatton ir.olves
redesignedstructurall) feeueight re4.ictirn This nade it achieving thelowet levels of friction dral; ihut arederived from
possible to affect additional aerodynamic refinementsthatcould maintaining laminatrflow over aslarge asurfaceas possible.
reduc- dragandincreaserange Theprimary designchallenge This might involve poweredcoincepts wheresuction isapplied to
centeredontgeometric characteristics of the largefuselage- rerion. low-energy boundaiy layer flow, or shapes might be
mountedlay enginet with 50% ore volume than bhe G 11', contoured to achievefavorable gradients thatdelaytranstnonto
Speyengines turbulent flow, Thutsecon.ltact,called naturallaminar flow, is
only applicable to someaurcraftdesign concepi whereoperating
Wing shapepastthe 65-4 .h d location wasto be maintained .n cimrnstanaces anad manufactunsng/matmenance constraits make
anteffort to preserveG-Il cotitri sitrices 2,d Ldiesreduce it feasible Wing sweep,feeexample, mustbemoderateto
deselopmencrt arid manufacturing costsFuselagestnixiure was inhibit instabilities in thelamna bosindar) layer flow If ihese
leftuntzuched byconstraining thewing fuselage
p...ture requirements aremet,considerable advances io pecrformancecan
contouts Coussicig thsese the mosteffective wing
contasraints. beachieved
byapplying modern computational drag
design wiouldreduceoutboard shockwavestrenghl(Fig 66) arid minimizations
tools,

Ca C

0WIJNDb
TUNE DAT

O FLIGHT
TEST
DATA

Fig, 66 G-1llWing Pressure Distributioni Comparinon at Cruise Corillhon (Ma0 78, a 4*)
7-38

G IV BL450 SECT.ON
MOD

G.IVPLANFORM 29

~
6-Il LANFORM

G-IVAIRFOIl 3 ORIGINALCONTOUR
MOD REGION_______________

----- CFP ORGINAI. Cp MODIFIED

Fig. 67 Gulfstreamn 11111V

Pianforms %%lth
G-iV Airfoil
Contour Modification Region

Fig. 68 G-lV Wing Tip Mod ta Eliminate Lower Surface

Pressure Spike, M 0.78, a 3.5', 11 0.95

CF I C

0000rE

C400 A -.

1200- EXPEHIMENT

ANALYSIS

-0400- - 00

00§00 --

0400

Fig. 69 Correlation of G.IV Wind Tunnel lest Pressure Jistributions with Pro-Test Code Prediction
(M=0.78, ao=4.0*)
 7-39 -

4 < AIRFOI.
G-Il /

NACELLE
ON 0 to 20 304050 0 708090100
(%CHORD)
X-ORDINATE

Fig. 71 NACA 64 2 -015/Advanced Airfoil

Shape Comparison

NACEILLE
OFF
08 - R- 6O
2

6!
..L FREETRANSITION ,

'
6
L 0 T- .TRu-36X-0
*TUR8ItN

5 - MACI4NUMOER . - -0

0 070 . 075 080 ', .....

' 085 01 -
t 1 -4!
- s(A) ADVANCED
AIRFOIL
o 5
o 08
........ R..72X t0,
0 •FREETRANSITION
o0 ---- ARAA7.2X106
. TURBUAON
'5 04

Fig. 70 OIV/G-Ilt Drag Reduction Showing /4

Engine-Airframe Integrat ion Benefit o2

Eppler s method (Ref 22) w;Asdiscussed in the "Skin rnction -
andltcssu~rcDnS'svb-sect:ton Because ofviscousflow 0 0DD 0004 0006 0008 0010 0012
simulation conplexiiy. theseedfor a predictior experience base DRAGCOEFFIECIENT •Co
was stressed With anunderstanding of simulation formulation (0) NACA642-015AIRFOIL
assumptions and lirhutations. theapplications engineercan use
Epplu's methodto synthesizenew win& section shapes for Fig. 72 Predicted Drag Polar Characleristics for NACA
specific applications An application is inclufed hee io A 64 2 -0IS/Advanced Airfoil Seclons
the power of thi. engineering method

NACA 6-Series wing sections %etc de eloped to exploit the

perfon.nce gains pos ible with various extents of natural
lamriar flow Many aircraft nowin production employ NACA
6-Scncs s.ct"'r Forthis case,a NACA 6015 symmctric
sectionsees at a baselineEpplcr's methodis used togenerate
an advanced seclion with unproved dragcharactensucs Figure
71 showsthe NACA and advasced Aifoil section shapes plotted
to an expanded scalerevealing details thatare quite subde It.a
be seenthat theimproved airfoil features a comparable nose
shape I is slightly thicker between 20% and60% chord while
being somewhatthinner between 70% and90% chord Figures
72 A and72 B illustrate the improved dragcharactensucs
achieved At two Reynolds numbcrs It might beexpectd thatthe
largest dragreductions occur at the lower Reynolds number, and
this is thecase It is Important to identify th theimproved
pcformwc c e in severalforms First. th extent of lamnar
flow is increased asevidenced bylower drag in thepolar
"buchke region Second,the inci=ce rangeover which lairauna
flowcan bemaintained is broadenedThird. oec transiiwn
occurs (above CIL- 0 51turbulent flow drag level is Joer than
that for the standardNACA section. Finally, all of these
beneficial charascinetics are achieved with an airfoil shape
havingsuwre thickness - a charctensm that vucId translate
into a stncturt weight savings.
It should beapparentthat considerable progress hasbeenmade
in airfoil design since theNACA s'ctions were conceived The
advanced airfoil described here was Senerated with very simple
parameterspocifications to tpple's method.Given sonic time. it
is likely thatsecton shapeswith lirger improvemints can be
synthesized Perhapsiore important than performace in sonne
applications. compulatuoal techniques of this typeallow the
designer to tailor airfoil section charctcnstes for specific
design problcm with unique goals andconstraints This nmght
becontrasted to the alternaive that involhes settling on an jurfoil
seiton thatfeaturessomeof thedesired attributes but its
primary benefit is derved frrm the fact thatit alreadyexists
7-40

Fighter High.Speed Drag/Buffet Reduction
Flight testing revealed thatsubtle alterations to theF-14 nozzle,
sponson, inter-famug, andcomposite region (Fig 73) required
toaccommodate new F110-GE-400 enginescompromised the
aircraft buffet boundary during acceleration at low altitudes
Transonic buffeting occurred atlower Mach numberswhen
comparsons weremadeto theoriginal configuration In
addition, the intensity was higher. Many monthsof flight test
diagnostics and"field fixes" resulted in no satisfactory solution
of theproblem It wasalso unfortunate thatthethrast to find a
solution assoonaspossible limited fluid mechanical
phenomenon test;ng neededtodevelop a good physical
understanding of theproblem source.
coM.)SITE
IIN
SPNON
/ 7)'
The changein buffet character was most noticeable bypilots at
M-0.95 CFD was implemented because the closest available
sub-scale testdata wastakenatM=0 90 Initial flow simulations
wereperformed using transonic smaUll-disturbance analyses
Unfortunately, modeling constraints precluded any
representation of the verticaltails M=0.95 analysesprovided no
insight into therelevant buffet problem flow physics
Valuable diagnostic information (Refs.67 and68) was
eventually obtained using the Navier-Stokes formulation
PARC3D (Ref. 69) Figure 74 shows the surfacegnddiug for the
afterbdy region of the original andmodified F.14
configurations Modeling sophistication was increased by adding
thevertcal tail surfaces. Comparisons with available M-0 90
wind tunnel testdata (Fig 75) proved that simulation fidelity
wasquite good The only discrepancy noted canbe attributed to
wake modeling limitations Computations performed at the
Mach number of interest. M-0 95.eventually highlighted the
problem areaFigure 76 illustrates alow-pressure area
terminated bya shockwave on thenacelle afterbody It was
conjectured that increased
shockwave strength in this region
wasthesource
of thebuffet boundary shift Compnutations
were

Wu.1-iswt NOZZLE FLAPS it

Fig. 73 Modified Aflerbody Surfaces

tA

0 TESr DATA(WT)
06 - PASC3 0 INS ANALYSIS)

.04/ /

AB

~~-06 M t

02
Cp -02 CPcci M

00
6 p.02

O4

F I40 0.2 "

6000 7250 600
"' . ,4. , X(INOCHES)
Fig 74 Surface G3rlsldlngfor tNavler-Stokes Analysts FIg. 75 F-lnA Aflerbody Prosisuro Con-ilatlon 2t
M : 0.90
 -06 617-41
06 MtL"132

*05 ,ML' 126

M-04 --- F-14A

0 - F14D
03
i-

~-01

.01 ~

02

.n V"" lbF-14

Fig. 76 Predicted F.14 Afterb-ndy Preacure Fieat

M = 0.95

thenusedto identify mans to weakenthe shockwave One

solution involved deflecting therudder surfacesinboard to back.
pressure this region Thegoal wasto reducepressureexpansions
to thelevel found on theoriginal configuration Figure 77
provides a conipleit. three-dimsensionalview of the flow
expansion/shock characteristics ComnpuratooxS indicated thata
rudder deflection of 4 degrees(6 degreessetio comipeniate for
loading effects) would reduceexpansion pressures as shown but
in addition, the redaction in local maximsumr Much nsfslr (4*11
78 and79) would alsoresultis a netdragreds.uxvnar canbe P-tO WITHV'INIIOASO
seesin Fig 80 Flight iesing perfoermed in August 1999l RUDDERDE)IEC110N
confirmiedthecomputational predictions In this ease,the
buffeting problem wasnor idlentified bysub-scaletesting Thec
analysis lcedto a valuable engineering design solutin thatwav
not identified during a flight testprogratri.Fursher. drag
reductions wereidentified asa secondarybenefit. Fig. 77 Navier.Stoires Analysla for F.14 Buffet
at M 0.95
Swnept
Wing Tip Optimiration

Over thepast' years.investigatirs haveexplored the possibility
of rodamorg lift-inuced dragbyseverelysweepingandtaperng
wing ups The mrotivation for doing this isdersveiifroms
observing the shapes of bird wings ansifish fins recognizing that
:hese pianfoecss haveevolved naturally over mrillionsof yearstu
formstte rmosieffiisent andcompetitive shapesfor survival
Cotriuwat~oxal inethods wereapplied to investigate this effest in
thierud 19M~.ass in beidentified in Refs 70 and"1 IInitial
pmedvvtvons 4drnified lift induced dragreductions on the ordet
of 30% lBntthis large benefit was theresult of a faulty drag
calculation scheme"naserscal drag"atzero-lift wasnot
property remiovedfrom the predictions tiade at incidence
When thedrag force wasadjustedfor this problem, thebenefit
wascloserto 3% Perforitance gainsin this rangehavealso
beenachievedin hydrodynamiuc applications (Ref 72)
Reveutly (Ref 73). NASA perforsed reststo gainmoiretnsoght
into the lift induced dragreduton mechanism The miodels
exanined hiavebeenincluded hee asFig 81 Testresultsverify
A performance: improvemsenton theorderof 3% (Fig 82)
[Dragredwvutis derived from swept bAckwingtipsippea u, be
verysontroveruji in aocmautational senseOne soree kRef
74, ..laims th..i thereis little benefit to bederiv-d from shapes of
this type,while another (Ref 75) believes thatthe benefit
actually hisa&diffeteni hansctcrnd echansr. Other ariies
iRefs 76 and77) suggestthai swepttips provide an effec~tive
endplating benefit whi~h van bevisualized byiriaginig a vtew
looking upstreamat a swept tip wing planform, thai is at some
ineidece angle That is to say.a wing plainfoemi thatis planar at
rero incidence may not beplanar or exhibit planar wing drag
characterisu~at incidence Clearly thereistorevwork to be
doneto fort outsaphysical explanation foethe drag
nseatanisnss involved. but oneaircraftdesigneehasdafided riot
to watt (Fig 831
Hlypersonic Drug Source Identification
Interestin hyperionic flight hasgrown considerably daring the
last desade Itis recognized thatas speedincreases, aircraft
dominated bywing shapestransition to vehicles that are
dominated bybodyshapes(Fig 84) Underitaniding the
Lharacirissses of body fomi at hypersonic speedsbecomes
important. not only becauseof the body influence on propulsion
inegration. butalsohesausethebodlykthe largestcomponent)
generatesa considerable pomoatn of the total dragforce
 7-42

b 67f
-06
-08 ML. 132
-05 F-14D
*5F.14DWITH6R .4' ML. 12

-03
z 03

02
.1 TvNNEL
Ci S.TING

CENTER
Fig. 76 Effect of Inboard Rudder Deflection on F-14 PANEL
Afterbody Pressure Field at
M = 0.95
TUNL
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
__STING
14I Fig 81 SweP-BaC Wing.Tip Wind Tunnel Models
I(Ref. 73)

0 13- N F14A09$
< - " O F.14009
,0o097 [ =
F '1A9

10 ... .

C 2 -8 . -10

Fig. 79 Maximum Mach No. at8151

------- -'---0-
1
,1CRESCE

01
0--ELLIPTIC

167
S 40 60 80
I 32 CL

.4 [
[0 2 Experiment Drag
Fig. 82 Swept-Back 73) to
Tips (Rat. due
Wing Reduction

64-
06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20
MACHNO
Fig, 80 F-14D Delta CD for Rudder Deflection Angles

Fig. 83 Aircraft Designs Featuring Swept-Back
Wing Tips
M.0 6
g o
MAt
_ _ _ __ _ j
Fig. 84 Dominance of Body Shapes as Speed Increases
the impact of
In 1988.a projct was initiated to identify
hypersonic forebody shaping on inlet flow quality The
foundation for this work was reported on in Ref 78 The new
study in luded flight conditions at incide c andsideslip angles
A secoodary objectcv of this effort as to betterunderstand the
natureof forebody drag charactertstics at incdenre kRef 79) In
other words, there wasan interest usexamining forebody drag to
Identify theelements of resistance (I c, friction, vetex, and
wave diag) as variations occur with incidenc Figure 85 sho's
the hy-personuvehile forebody shapesthat formed thebasisfor
7-43
this study. Two d&ffrnt types of computational methods were
applied. Onemethod (Ref. 79) was characterized bysimple
Newtonian Theory. while theother (Ref 80) was a modern
Navier-Stokes formulation Experience with thesemethods
applied to body shapes(Fig 86 and87) indicated that
reasonably accurate absolute drag predicnons could bemade
By comparing the results from two vastly different
computational formulations, the natureof drag on forebody
shapesatincidence could be better understood But the
computational predictions agreedclosely, and theresults were
not what wasexpected Close agreementindicated that there
wasprobably not an appreciable amount of forebody drag
attributable to voriex flows andcomplex viscous interactions
This is thecasebecause the Newtonian method useddid not
include tre viscous andvortical flow simulation capabilities
The featurenot expected wasa dent or hole in thedrag polar
shape(Fig 88)0
SinceNewtonian Theory registers this effect, it might be
appropriate to think in Newtoman Theory terms Netoman
Theory is linked to perfect gas,compressible flow. obhque
shock wave relations for M--
5
C-- + sin 0
y,,1 (30)
Where for very high speeds.shock waveswith angles0 will lie
close to vehicle surfaceswith local orientation angles e Also y
i a C,b 2s um n (31)
This "point pressurelaw" is appliedby breaking configuration
surfaces intorc and mo aets nd 3 iu ng for
sumai oe nal
windward elements while Cp- 0 is usedfor leeward elements
In Fig 89. a body form is represented bya simple cone-cylinder
combination At zero incidcce, a pressurefield is generated on
the forwrd.facing surface. The cylindrical poon "egsters no
effect As incidence increases. the onset flow 'exposes'
additional body surfacearea nd is o doing changesthe
effective body shape - theshapegenerating forcesin Newtonian
Theory Finally. depending on te coneangle, an incidence
angle is reached%here the effective body shapeis 'locked in"
(note thelast shapein Fig 89) It is con)etured thattheirregular
hypersonic forehedy polar shapeasa direct result of wavedrag
lecls registering on an effective bodyshapethatchangeswith
angle-of-attack over a shallow incidence range 'Te analogy to
this would be an arfoil or body shapein ,.tscous flow %here the
effective shapechangeswith Reynolds number asthe bonridary
layerdisplscnment thickness vanes
Iswasfound (Ref 81) that eprnentaliss weremeasuring this
characters. in te past.and .jrve fits %ere usedto fair thedat
sgnrmg the'dent" This oc.urred because,Inm Most early
hypersom testing, data at large(five degree)Increments in
Incidencescneusually taken This canbeseenin Fig 90 In
this ase.,
computtional drag analysts served to highlight drag
mneihaitssnand provide a basisto understand thefluid
mchanmal foundations of observed charactenstics
7-44

Fig 85 Hypersonic Forebody Shapes for Drag-ueTolncidence Study

0.

08 -.
0 TESTDATA-- -
-NEWTORIAU THEORY
0 01 BENTNOSEDICONIC

II

S04.
030
CL

02 0201
0 BICONIC
TESTSTRAIGHT
O TESTSENTBICONIC
O0~ *c-ARC31)
STRAIGHT
BICONIC
______________IN *ARC 3D SENT BICONI
ANGLEOF~
ATTACK
c. DEG 010 012 014 0l BIB01 02'0

Fig. 86 Hypersonic Body Drag Polar CD

Correlation with Newtonian Theory Fig. 87 Straight & Bent Biconic Drag Polar at Mach 6 0
 12- 0

CDCLTANa 08
D-2A. INC:OENCE-INOUCED
0
.L FORMDRAG CD
04

12
CD

Fig. 88 Hypersonic Body Drag Polar "Dent'.

080

Cc
0

04

Fig.89 EfeciveIn ewtnianFlo

odyShap

Fig. 89Shape
Body ingstn
Newtnia
Efectivec Flowt

X-29 (Fig 91) configuration development provides a basisfor M= 10 (Ret. 81)

thebenefits thatcomnputaional dragprediction
understan~ding
methodscan havewhenapplied to bigo-speed ighter wing
optitnization In this case,two-dimensional airfoil ainalyses
(appliedin a three dimensional wing designprocess)idenitified
thai win& sectionload wasearneddifferently (on the apperand
lower surfaces)depending on whether thewing was swepi
forward or aft This haa beenshownin Fig 92 A andis
attributed to decoupled upper/lower flow narchanisms at
tr-ansonicconditions (Ref 82) Reduced supensonix espansion
ultimately resslts with reducedshock%avestrengthandan
attendantredaction in wavedrag It can alsobeseen thai as
flow conditions becomemoreseverewith inceases at incidence
or Macb number, theforward swept wing shock wanemovesafi
into a region whereshock wavesweepangles are incri:Asc;
just theopposite of theaft swept wing Situation Foraft swept
wings, a shockwavemoving back on the planfortt is fortcedto
lower sweepangleswith an accompanying wavedragpenalty
(Fig 92 B) Dhiii.of -w se. is not to saythatwavedragactually
decreasesfor forward sweptwings with increasig flow sesent
Instead,it suggests thatthee isadragrelief mecmhaism
involved thatcan slow the ratethatwanedrag increases
Iligh-speed wing design wasaffected with a design procedure
thatcoupled a two-dimensional trailsortmfinite difference
methodwitl a three-dittinstottal subsonic/snpersonit panel
method Tie Iwo-dimensional analysts generated a streamuste
wtng section.while thethree-dimensional methodidentified
wing incidence or twtst distibutton along with any
spantwechordse camber tnodifi~aaons (Refs 32 andS.)
Theresultant sweepeffects %ere aerified bywind tunnelitestsat
AEDC andeentiaily byflight testsaiNASA s Di)dcn Flight
Reseasch Center.A USAF study(Refs 83 va 84j provided key
insights into theimtpactof resalung perfonmance, levels Figure
93 comparesdrag polars Mach numbersusing
at two tra-ansonic
X 29 dataandthe dragpolar from anexiting light-weight
fighter andan air superiority fighter Figure 9-4revealsthat the
X 29 is characterized by lower thnist-io-wetght ratio but a
5 h~ghen nsium liftcoefficienit. All of this translatesinto an
advantage in dlytinti turnsthatmight beperformted during air-
to-air combat engagements(Fig95)
7 7-46

Fig. 91 X-29 Configuration

((MATWINGKPRESSURE x2
DAE.2 2.SR
0ANALYSIS FIGHTVEGT X2
LOWERSURFACE
SWEEPTAPER
12 ANAL.YSIS

'z0 STNOR8WE 8 A IR SUPERIORITY

FIGHTER

TAE CUICEN DRG C

04

12
a ------............
0 -C ...// LGHTWEIGHT
DECOUPLED
(A) EFFECTOF UPPEP.1OWER FIHE
SURFACEANALYSIS
FORAIRFOILK
SHOCK LOCATIONSWEEP
SHOCKWAVE LOCATIN ATHIGHER MACHAnaORn
ATDESIGN
a SWEEP UjFitCONDITION
CONDITIONJ SUPERIORITY
AIRM FIGHTER

DRAGCOEFFICIENT
CD
/ (a) M.12

/ Fig. 93 Drag Polar Comparisons (Ret.83)

AFTSWEPT WING FORWARD SWEPT

WING
(B)SHOCKWAVEDRAGRELIEF
EFFECT
FOR
TAPEREDFORWARD
SWEPT VOWS40

Fig. 92 Mechanism for Reduced Drag at Transonic

Speeds with Fcrward Sweep
 7-47

AIRSUPERIORITY
FIGHTER\
UGHT.WEIGHiT
FIGHTER UIGHT-WEIGHT
FIGHTER
S2,

XX-29

MACHNUMBER

O AIRSUPERIORITY
FIGHTER

Wi X-29

UGHT-WEIGHT
FIGHTER LGTWIH

MACHNUMBER FIG4TER

Fig. 94 Maximum Lift &Thrust/Weight Comparison X-29

(Ref. 83)

The X-29 representsa breakthrough in advancedmanneuvering

technology. Not only were theoriginal conceptual ongins of t
modern fomrvadivcop technology identified via computational
drag predicuon methsodology. but corsputational tools iscreR
instrumniial in allowing thedesign to movesmoothly forward
despitethe fact that noapplicable desga experience baseexisted
foe swtntfotward configurations which might haveenhanced
confide~nce andreduced lisk levels. It is difficult to make
compaions to existng fightems since. for example, the
cxpetnenial X-29 configuration isnot required to perform all
the functions of a tactical fighter, Not withstanding this. it is
remArkablethat only 160houts of high-speedwinid-tunnel tost POIIN XI
time wererequired to finalire theconfiguration concept (Fig (B) U . a.2
96). thisisconsiderably lessthanthattypically usedfor fighter '"
configuration optimization (Ref. 85)Y Fig. 95 Aircraft Dynamic Turn Performiance at 35,000 ft
(Ret. 83)

WINDTUNNEL
TESTHOURS

GENERAL,
ARRANGEMENT I - -
X29 FLIGHT
CONTROL&
PRESSURELOADS
GENERAL ARRANGEMEHNT __
WING PUANFORM,$=O
CMBER.TVAIST NI
LE &
TE FLAP
SYS .W
STRAKE
DEVELOPMEN
F-l6 CONTROLDEFLECTIONS -
STORE LOADS
PRESSURELOADS-
f__ I
tHWET
FLUTTER-
STORESEPARATION
SPIWNSTAaLL
SPILLAGE
&NOZDRAG
MISCELLANEOUS
I77=r
Fig.96 Wind Tunnel Test Comparison (Ret. 85)
7-48
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A number of engieenng computational methods that can play a
role in predictinglanalyzang drag components dunng aircraft
development programshavebeendescribed An attempt has
beenmadeto cover all drag components thatareof interest to
thedesign engineer andprovide somebas.s for understanding
whatmight be expected. r e. typical results andaccuracy levels.
A keyconstraint in any application, however, tsthefact that
aircraft flows canbecomequite complex Occasionally, this
complexity is beyond thecapabilities of cutrent computational
enginecring tools Further. it is recognized that no single
methodis capableof simultaneously treating all dragsources
thatare important This requires thattheapplications engineer
beclever andoccasionally creative Nothing, however, will
replacethe needto establish a computational drag prediction
experience base-examplesof which wereincluded herein
The role of computational engineenng methods can bequite
vaned Itshould be apparentthatthe drag prediction tools
described canandhaveplayed an important role in bridging the
gapbetweensimple handbook methods andthe perforntance
establishing sub-scaleteststhatcharacterize aircraft
development programs Further. therearemany instanceswhere
theseengineerng tools haveprovided thedesign teamwith key
insights neededto advance:hzstateof-the art or soive problems
withconsiderableresource savings This results in an element
of creativity thatisderived from theability to inexpensively
evaluatemanyideaswithout thetime/expense constraints
associated with sub-scaletesting Finally. it shuldbe
recognized thatin somecases,there nay be discrepancies
between wind tunnel tsting andflight test results When this
happens,a third source(coming from computational engineering
tools) can prove valuable in thesensechata hird sourc of
information is often needed to breakties
Thercarclikely to be times, however. .hen the best
computerized methods areinadequateA fall-back position
might involve the use of Smeaton s original 1759equation tEq
I) The applications engineer might also be advised to use
Smeaton's coefficient (0 0049)which was shown tobe
.onser1vatve - sincea good acrodynamicist knows that it is
important to keepa few counts of "drift" in his
or her back
pocket Thesecounts areoften neededas projects evolve
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthor would like to thank thoseat Grumman who ha e
madesignificant contributions on a numberof drag analysis and
reduction projects The work ofP Ilavitz (G Ill). R
Iendrickson andW Evans (F. 14).andG Spaeht(X-29)
belongs to this group D Ies of Pratt & Whitney isto be
recognized for his formulation of thesynnnemtclift induced
dragFouner load integration scheme E Tinoco and1
M.Mauters (Boeing) provuled usefulinsights into thestate of
the an in fillet design Finally. the author appreciates
receiving
permission o usephotographs of Scaled Composites. Inc
design concepts
REFERENCES
if) 'AicraftDragPredicton.*AGARDR 723.1985
(2) Acrodynamic Drag." AGARD CP 124. 1973
3a Aeronynamic Interferece. ' AGARD CP 71 71. 1971
(4) 'Drag Prediction andMeasurement." AlIAA Professional
Development Series.August. 1990
kSt MiCornmick. B W , Aerod)nruamcs, Aerosamaucs,and
FlgiAMechanics, JohnWiley & Sons.N Y 1979
(6) "Technical StatusReview on Drag PrImction
andAnalysis
from Computational Fluid Dynamics Stateof the An,"
AGARD AR-256. June 1989.
(7) "Aircraft Excrescence Drag." AGARD
CP-264.1981
(8) Jobe. C E . "Prediction of Aerodynamic Drag." AFWAL-
TM-84-203. July 1984
(9) Covert. E E. Thrust andDrag Its Prediction and
Verification. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronauics.
Volume98.AIAA. NewYork. 1986
(10) van der Vooren. J and Stooff. J W . "CFD-Based Drag
Prediction. State-of-the-Art. Theory. Prospects."NLR TP
90247L. Lecture Notes Preparedfor AIAA Professional
Development Series on Drag Prediction andMeasurement.
August 1990
(11)Slooff. I W ."Computational DragAnalyses and
Minimization. Mission lmposstble'. AGARD R-723.
May 1985
(12) Rogalo. R S andMon,P. "Numerical Simulation of
Turbulent Flows," Annual Review ofFluid Mechanc, Iol
16. 1984
(11) lladcock. R , Aeronautcal Engineering Development, Part
I 1759 1914.Manuscript to be Published. 1992.
(14) Oswald. W B ."General Formulas andChars for the
Calculation of Airplane Performance." NACA Report No
408. 1932
(15)Jones, R T, "Properies of Oblique Wing-Body
Combinations for Low Supersonic Speeds.'NASA SP-
292, pp 389.407, 1971
(16) Iloemer. S F. Fluid-D)nauic Drag. Published by Author.
1965
t17)F[ik. R D. ctal. "U S A F Stability & Control Datcom.'
Wright Research & Development Center. [light Contkols
Division. April 1976
(18) Locke. F W. S..Jr.. "Recommutnendcd Definition of
Turbulent Friction in Incompressible Fluids." NAVAIR
4
Report No 1 15.June. 1952
( 191 Schlchtig. II . Boundary Layer Theory. McGraw Ihll.
1960
(20) Sommer. S C andShort. B J. "FreeFight Measurements
of Turbulent Boundary Laser Skin Friction in thePresKnce
of SevereAerodynamic IHating at Mach Numbers rrom
2 87 0," NACA TN 3391 1055
(21) Peterson. I B . It."A Comparison of Experimental and
Theoretical Results for theCompressible Turbulent
Boundary Layer Skin Friction with 7xroNessure
Gradient." NASA TN-D 1795.March 1963
(22) Fppklr. R andSomters, D M . A Computer Program for
theG-stgn andAnalysis of Low SpeedAirfoils, NASA
T1 802 10. August 1980
(23) Abbott. i Aet al. Theory of Wing Secions. Dover. New
York.1959
(24) Althaus.D etu. Stutga ter Profilkatafog1.Fnedr
Vi€eg & Sohn.IBraunschwctg/Wiesbaden. 1981
(251 Stevens.W A et al. Nlathematical Model for Two
Dimensional Muln Component Airfoils in Viscous Flow.
NASA CR-1843. July 1983
26 Drela. M andGiles. M B. "Visous Inviscid Analysis of
Transonic andLow Reynolds Number Arfoils." AIAA 86
1786.January 1987
(27) Drtla. NI andGiles. NI B. "ISES A Two-Duitensotnal
Viscous Aerodynanic Design andAnalysts Code."AIAA
87-0424. January 1987
128) Bopp.C.W..csal. "STARS&STRIPES. Computatiooal
Row Simulations for Ilydrodynanc Deaign." The Eighth
Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium Proceedings. March
19b7
(29) Ives.D. Private Communication, Pratt & Whitney. 1983
(30) Glauer, II .T e Elementsoj'Aerofod aud Aiatre
Theory, Ca uidge Universit) PressLondon, 1926

(31) Ashley, H. andLandishi,M.; Aerodyna,,atcs of Wingsand
Bodies. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc,
Reading. Mans 1965
(32) Boppe. C. W.; 'Computational Aerodynamic Design: X-
29. TheOulfstreain Series, and a Tactical Fighter.' SAE
851789. October 1985 (SAE Wright Brothers Medal
Award Paper - 1986).
(33) Bauer, F., et al; " Supeical Wing Sections 11,a
Handbook," L-ecrure Notes in Econonars and
Marhematical Sysrerns, No 108,Spinnger-Verlag, 1975
(34) Cook. P H.. et al, "Aeeofil RAE 2822 - Pressure
Distributions, Boundary Layer, and Wake Measuremients,-
AGARD AR. 138, 1979
(35) Hoist. T. L,*"Viseous Transonic Airfoil Workshop
Compendium Results," AIAA 87-1460, June 1987
(36) Whitcomb, R T., "Recent Results Pertaining is ihe
Application of the Area-Rule'." NACA RM L53115a.
1953
(37) Whitcomb, R T.. "A Study of the Zero-Lift Drag Rise
Characteristics of Wing-Body Combinations Neurthe
Speed of Sound." NACA Report 1273. 1956
(38) von Karman. T.. "TheProblem of Resistance in
Compressible Fituds." Mensored Reale Accadema
dtalia. Clause di Science Fisiche. Matematiche c Naturali.
Vol XIII. pp2lO-265. 1935
(39) Harris. R V., Jr-,An Analysis and Correlation of Aircraft
Wave Drag." NASA TM X-947, 1964
(40) hfendickson. R . Private Communication. Grummain
Aurrft Systems Division. November 1990
(41) Ashley. II . "On MakingnTings the Besi - Aeronautical
Uses of Optimization,' 1981Wrigbt Broibers Lecture,
AIAA 81-1738. Augusi 1981
(42) Davis. W If Jr.. Technique for Developing Design Tools
from the Analysis Methods of Computational
Aerodynamics." A IAA79-1529R. also AIAAJournal.Vol
18. No 9, September 1980
(43) Davis. W 11. Jr. et al. "A Study to Develop Improved
Meihods for the Design of Transonic Fighter Wings by the
Use of Nunscrical Optimization," NASA CR-3995. August
1986
(4)Vaisderplaats. G3 N . 'CONMIN - A FORTRAN Program
for Constrained Function Minimization Users Manual."
NASA T1MX-62282. August 1973
(45) Tamvlell.R and Tampnplm G . "An Inlet System Installed
Performance Prediction Program Using Simplified
Modeling." AIAA 83 1167, June 1983
(46) Hems.J L ArMSmith. A MI0. "alculation of Non
Lifu~ngPotential Plow About Arbtrary Three-Dimensional
Bodies." Douglas Report 40622. Mlarch1962
(47) Sherman P NI and Lincoln. F W . "Ram Islet Systems for
Wuteriet Propulsors." A IAA 69 418. M~ay1969
(48) Henderson. W P. "Itopilsion integration for Militry
Aircraft." SAE 892234. September 1989
(49) Grossim. B anWd Nllk. R . -Ihe Numerical
Computation of the Transonic Plow Over Aftibodues
Including the Effect of Jet Plume and Viscous
Inieractions.' AIMA75-62. 1975
(50) Salas. MI D. 'The Numerical Computation of Invisui
Plume Flow Fields,' AIAA 74.523. 1974
(51) Yaeger. L S . "Transonic 1FlowOver Afierbodies
Includirg the Effects of Jet-Plume ard Viscous
Interactions with Separ-aiion." AIAA 77 228. 1977
(52) Ckgu-pion.W. B.. "Jet Effects on the Drag of Conical
Afterbodien ai Supetrsonic Speeds.' NASA TN D-6789.
1972
(53) Bushnell. D and Dorsaldson. C . "Cniri of ~'irtl
Vortex Plows.' NASA TM 102693. June 1990
(54) Rubber. P arid Coldharnmer, NI. CID in Design An
Airframe Perspective.' AIAA 89-0092. January 1989
7-49
(55) Rubbert. P andSaans,G. R., "Review andEvaluation of
a Three-Danensional Lifting Potential Flow Analysis
Method for Arbitrary Configurations," AIAA 72-188.
January 1972.
(56) Boppe. C. W.; '"Transonic Flow Field Analysis for Wing-
Fuselage Configurations,' NASA CR-3243. May 1980
(57) Boppe. C W. and Rosen. B S., 'Computatin of Prop-Fan
Engine Installation Aerodynamics." Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 23. No 4. April 1986.
(58) McCroslsey. W. J et al. "Airloads on Bluff Bodies, with
Appbications to the Rotor Downloads on Tilt-Rotor
Aircraft." Vertico. Vol. 9, No. 1, 1985.
(59) Maskew. B.; "Predictions of Subsonic Aerodynamic
Characteristics - A Case for Low-Order Panel Methods,"
AIAA 81-0252. January 1981.
(60) Boppe. C W, "Aerodynamic Analysis for Aircraft %ith
Nacelles, Pylons, and Winglels at Transonic Speeds."
NASA CR-U066 April 1987
(61) Miller E and Delaney. F J. "Level II Nuzzc.'Afterbody
Installed Performance Prediction Program, AFWAL TR-
88-3004, December 1988.
(62) Tindell. R H; "Computational Plaid Dynamics
Applications for Jet Propulsion System Integration,"
ASME 90-G 17-343.June 1990
(63) Carlson. I1. W, ore al. "Validation of a Compuier Code for
Analysis of Subsonic Aerodynamic Performrance of Wings
and Plaps in Combination with a Canard or Ilorironial Tail
and an Application io Optimization." NASA TP-2961.
January 1990
(6-I) Carlson, HIW and Walkley. K B . "ACompuier program
for Wing Subsonic Aerodynamic Perfotmance Estimates
Including Attainable Thrust and Vortex Lift Effects."
NASA CR-3515. March 1982
(65) Whitcomb, R T. "A Design Approach and Selected
Wind-Tunnel Results at high Subsonic Speeds for Wing-
Tip Mounted Wingleis.' NASA TN D-8260, July 1976
(66) Chandrasekaren. R MI, etal, 'Computational
Aerodynamic Design of the Gulfstreamn IV Wing.' AIAA
85-0427, January 1985
(67) Davis. W I . *Applied Trarisonics at Grumman."
Transonic Symposium - Theotny,Application and
Experiment. NASA LaRC. Hampton. Virginia, April 1988
(68) Davis,.W Hf. -TseRole ofCFD Applied to High
Performance: Aircraft." AIAA 9W-3071. August 1990
(69) Cooper. G K, "The PARC Code Theory and Usage.'
AEDC TR.87-24. October 1987
kC)) van Damn.C P. "- Swept Wing-Tip Shapes for Lois Speed
Airplanes". SAE 851770. October 1985
(71) van Dam.C. P. "Drag Reduction Characteristics of Afi-
Sisepi Wing TIPS."AIAA S&-1824.October 1986
(72) Boppe, C W ,"Sailboat Ilydrodynamic Drag Source
Prediction and Performance Assessment.' The Tenth
Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium Proceedings,
February 1991
(73) van Dam. C Pcit al. "Wind Tunnel Investigation on the
Effect of she Crescent Plantorm on Lift aria Drag."
Proposed Journal of Aircrafi uriicle.)Also - AIAA 90
0300), Mlarch1990
(74) Smith. S C and Kroo. I NI , "A Closer Look at the
Induced Drag of Crescent Shaped Wings. AIAA9O 3063.
August 1990
(75) Dafluari. M A . "Induced Dragof Wingu with Ilighl3
Swept and Tapered Wing Tips." AIAA 90 3062-CP.
August 1990
(76) B~urkett.C W, 'Reductions in Induced Drag by the Use of
7
Afi Swept Tips. Actunarwicil Joiurnal. December 1989
j 7i Ba.kcit. C W. Analysis of Cresceni Wings Using a
Srbvonic Panel Method. ICAS90 3 62. September 19%j
7-50
(78) Wilson, G J. andDavis, W H .Jr., "Hypersonic
Perforniance Sensitivities Basedon 3-D Equilibrium
Navier-Stokes Calculu.wsns," AIAA 87-2642, January
1987
(79) Boppe,C W andDavis, W H , Jr: "Hlypersonic Forebody
Lift-Induced Diag." SAE 892345.September1989 (SAE
Wright BrothersMedal Award Paper1990)
(80) Pulliama T andSieger,L.. "ImphoctFinite-Difference
Simulations of 3-D Compressible Plow,- AIAAJournal,
Vol 18,February 1980
k8l) Spencer.B ; Hypersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Minimum WaveDragBodies Having Variations in Cross-
Sectional Shape,"NASA TN D-4079. Sepiember1967
(82) Boppe.C W, "X-29 Aerodynamic Design and
Performance." ALPAA Professional Development Series.-
Aerodynamic Analysis andDesign. October 1988
(83) Bursey. C H ;"Fighter ClassAircraft Performance
Comparisons," AFWAL-TR-88.3081, November 1988
(84) Pinrof,S. M., 'X-29 Aerodynamc Specialists Meeting
Repori," WRDC-TR-89.30..7. April 1989.
(85) Bradley. R G . "CFDValidation Philosophy," AGARD
CPP-437,May 1988.
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

AGARD-R-783 ISBN 92-835-0652-9 UNCLASSIFIED

5. Originator Advisory Group for Ae. -pace Research and Development
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
6.Tte 7 ruc Ancclle, 92200 Neuilly sur Seine, France
6.Tte SPECIAL COURSE ON ENGINEERING METHODS INAERODYNAMI1C
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF AIRCRAFT

7. Presented as an AGARD Special Course at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey,
6th- I10th May 199 1,at the von Ktirmlin Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Rhode-St-Gen~se, Belgium,
13th- I7th May 1991 and at the Universitad Polttccnica de Madnd, Spain 20th-24th May 1991.
8. Author(s)/Editor(s) 9.Date
Various January 1992

10. Author\%/Editor's Address 11. Pages

Various 248

12. Distribution Statement T[his document is distributed in aceordane.. with AGARD

policies and regulations, which are outlined ott the
back covers of all AGARD publications.

%rcraft Cost effectiveness,

Aeroynaic nalystanoDesign uAircraft" have beeii assembled in this report. Proven

Ltigineermtg methods used duritigconceptual and preliininary design and development of nev.
,ureraft Loneepis arc lpreseted These methods focus on simple computational procedures%for
Lonceptual and prelimitiary design, low-level analysis computer codes, and experimental
techlniques for aircraft l)erftrinaiice predlictiotis ftic course waisaimed at helping train young
engineers to appretiate atid sork with simple enigitirering tools itoenhance the art of cost-effective
prelimi nary design oifnew aircraft

[he AUARI) fluid IDynatmics Paniel Spetha Course - for which this material was pr~epared -
\sas held 61h- 10th May 1991 at the Middle Eastllechnital University, Ankara, Turkey, i 3thi-
I 7tthMay at thte son Kartoan Institute for Mlid D~ynamnics, RhOde-St-Gen6se. Belgium, and
20th -24th May at the Un~versitad Politctruca die Madrid. E lsl Aeroitauticos, Marind Spain.
lilis cour5s 55 delpd .i(nd
conduceted under the Lominted sponisorship of the AGARI) Fluid
IDynaiitic Paitel. the AGARI) Conssultant and Lxchange: Programme. attd the Von Kdilidn
Intiitute for Flid IDvtamiev
 E E0
< Eo Rz~ Q 8

20~ C6C. 0
z Az

< r, ~ ~

0 0

S-1 ? 0 Fj
~ <~2<

0 - d 20

z 72

5 a cc 0

00
<
> 0

.< cC 0- C
 'c c
'O.C.
- 5 9- -

a E a0

A~

64 5.~ j -

E,~~ x I

j2
~o~-'sg
&
~12 ;l:

g~
~~V)

72
s

E b

-r - T-
~~ RUEANCELLE3ON~a:bSlE IRSODSUUAIN

jM~(04738,57,00, T&I17:4

':VA AR~hd-t~ -u A.. j~jt; s

e$ dn;, u TN AUX
&;CNRSEIFSOA
eN
4elinMANETV W
rumtw
* 'do paSLAND
it menahmfrmu
de
r
D'rectoro(Avjuuooc~eitinau'
6Pg m-
As.7t Weucntovldhae2au7t
-' mtW "Mieykjia e~a k'* cftilc~n cu
,BLGQU
mITALIEfm'rcpt~ e EasU ,iemtcdsp od
Coordoe deeurfofftfluSUd> Aeronuuucasuarc
Emtajof, eFceden"Utcodc cct aoaealAAD

:10el Defence
Research i

1"MiNestedaeds~elentet cloA0ARD;

'PRt) oALV ---

Nadond"ionsuuuandapaesdemaeiraso toAORD
;IfAGNpsNawW.trsrwLzorslrpNL

ini'S.# Amiisii~n Gaiekoce knbhtwfoniainc ntr

~~D~diaA~r~ozcelise&
AR arcalknhib
Anara

Deec isiii d '

92Sout Rhitdlo
sou RHost"
Nido~aI~chir~e= E~fraqpciea& SnondoSHc f~ rts irr
'Emoea St= ,nc ounotSplyDaso
l0.ruisganotl;EX,
CollduflS- W~ o'Aiu - 1n-, 1 o,
V, gn r htig u61 '7501S PailsA~un
- s ckiir) 5 8
We~lb~
Lcdi mkrolcbtodeho
hade 'aeoue-OR~crpsedmnc~ica

Nitoil Tc~c~l
iforraio Siiie ES ~ ~pou
ilifw pa c ione chi Iforitioh Llbrje

Fac. -I-nt oyiONS)UM

-

Imp'nEperSptensd toiithiiksnUcedaffSdsi arCO

deAAD t
ladenorninationAGARD~~~sinsiqmururn seAt
i esAIR-G33 tfm in&aousd- firde
qwlc~tect~atedeublictio~s lii L~lenougheayen
'Jou slxi 372-Rnmolc~
AAR-RlO
oommndekraf 6isAGR~tdcsrppoueg~s~ttibC-k