AESF 5310

Advanced Aerodynamics

Lecture 7: 28 Sept 2022

Pilatus PC-24 Instructor: Prof Larry Li 1
 Homework 1: Solutions are online

L7 2
TAT: Supplemental problems (with Solutions)

L7 3
 Today’s agenda [AS4.10−4.13]
• Characteristics of real airfoils
• Effect of airfoil thickness
• Three different types of stall
• Laminar-flow airfoils
• High-lift devices: Slats and flaps
• Beyond TAT: Panel methods
• Vortex panel method
• Numerical formulation
• Practical implementation

L7 4
 Effect of airfoil thickness [AS4.13]

LE stall

Max 𝐶𝑙 is higher More gradual TE stall

and occurs at drop after max
higher 𝛼 LE stall 𝐶𝑙 (i.e. at stall) TE stall

Thin airfoil stall

Thinner airfoil Thicker airfoil

(12% of chord) (18% of chord)

Same camber → Same lift slope and

𝛼𝐿=0 for both thin and thick airfoils.
Main effect of thickness → Change max
𝐶𝑙 via LE stall (thin) vs TE stall (thick).
L7 Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings 5
 Effect of airfoil thickness [AS4.13]

Thin airfoil stall LE stall TE stall

Max 𝐶𝑙 peaks at
around 10−12%
thickness in
low-speed flow

L7 Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings 6
 Three different types of stall [AS4.13]
LE stall TE stall

Flow separation occurs gradually, beginning at the TE

and then moving towards the LE as α increases.

Flow separation occurs at the LE, but the flow reattaches to the surface
downstream, forming a separation bubble. As α increases, the reattachment
point moves downstream, causing the separation bubble to grow.
Flow separation occurs abruptly over the
entire top surface of the airfoil, with the
origin of this separation being at the LE.

Thin airfoil stall

L7 7
 Move the location of max thickness further
back (preferably near or behind mid-chord),
Laminar-flow airfoils thus maintaining a favourable pressure
gradient over a larger part of the airfoil.

Blasius laminar Prandtl turbulent

skin-friction coefficient: skin-friction coefficient:

<
Aircraft designers have long sought the drag reduction that
would be attained if the boundary layer over an airfoil were
largely laminar, rather than turbulent. Since the 1930s,
aerodynamicists have developed airfoils that could reduce drag
by maintaining laminar flow, culminating in NACA developing
laminar-flow airfoils (e.g. 6-series airfoils) for use in full-scale
aircraft, such as the examples shown below. Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings

P-51D Mustang: First production aircraft to Piper PA-28 Cherokee:

8
use laminar-flow airfoils (Year 1942) NACA 652-415 Black Widow Micro UAV
 Helios high-altitude solar-powered
aircraft: Altitude > 90,000 ft
Laminar-flow airfoils

Promising drag reduction ‘bucket’ but difficult to

maintain because the airfoil has to be very smooth →
Easy for wind tunnel models but rarely possible for
production aircraft, so there is limited benefit to using
laminar-flow airfoils unless the Reynolds # is low (e.g.
micro-UAVs and high-altitude aircraft).
“As a consequence, the use of NACA laminar-flow
airfoil sections has never resulted in any significant
reduction in drag as a result of the achievement of
laminar flow” [Loftin L.K. 1985. Quest for performance:
the evolution of modern aircraft. NASA SP-468]

9
Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings Black Widow Micro UAV
 Improve low-speed
performance by increasing 𝐶𝑙 ,

High-lift devices decreasing stall speed, while

satisfying noise regulations.

𝐶𝑙

L7 10
Angle of attack
 Improve low-speed
performance by increasing 𝐶𝑙 ,

High-lift devices decreasing stall speed, while

satisfying noise regulations.

For an aircraft:

2𝑊
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙 = [AE1.47]
𝜌∞ 𝑆𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥

Thus, we can reduce the stall speed

by increasing 𝐶𝐿,𝑚𝑎𝑥 or 𝑆 or both!

𝐶𝑙

L7 11
Angle of attack
 Improve low-speed
performance by increasing 𝐶𝑙 ,

High-lift devices decreasing stall speed, while

satisfying noise regulations.

LE high-lift devices (e.g. slats)

are viscous flow control
devices → Delay boundary
layer separation → Delay stall
TE high-lift devices (e.g. flaps) are
mainly camber-altering devices
Both may also increase the wing area.
𝐶𝑙

L7 12
Angle of attack
 High-lift devices
The importance of high-lift devices is illustrated by the following trade-offs derived
for a generic large twin-engine airliner, e.g. B777 [Boeing Co. − Meredith 1993]:
• A 0.10 increase in lift coefficient at constant 𝛼 is equivalent to reducing the
approach attitude by about 1o. For a given aft body-to-ground clearance angle,
the landing gear may be shortened, resulting in a weight savings of 1400 lb.
• A 1.5% increase in the maximum lift coefficient is equivalent to a 6600 lb
increase in payload at a fixed approach speed.
• A 1% increase in take-off L/D is equivalent to a 2800 lb increase in payload or a
150 nm increase in range.

Meredith PT 1993. Viscous phenomena affecting high-lift systems

and suggestions for future CFD development. In High-Lift System 13
B747 Aerodynamics, AGARD CP 515, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group.
 High-lift devices: Why are they at the TE?
TAT result: 𝐶𝑙 = 2𝜋 𝛼 − 𝛼𝐿=0
1 𝜋 𝑑𝑧
where the zero-lift AOA ≡ 𝛼𝐿=0 = − ‫׬‬0 cos 𝜃 − 1 𝑑𝜃
𝜋 𝑑𝑥

At LE: 𝜃 = 0 → At TE: 𝜃 = 𝜋 → cos 𝜋 − 1 =

LE
cos 0 − 1 = 0 → No
contribution to the 0 𝑐
integral regardless of
𝑑𝑧
the camber at the LE
𝑑𝑥
Triple-slotted flap system
on the Boeing 747
TE
𝜃 − 2 → Big contribution to the
integral → TAT tells us that, in
an inviscid world, lift can be
𝑥
generated most effectively by
increasing the camber at the
TE, which is why aircraft tend to
have high-lift devices at the TE:

L7 14
 Externally blown flap Internally blown flap

High-lift devices

Powered high-lift systems are not often used for civil transport owing to their complexity,
weight, cost, certification rules, and the availability of sufficient runway lengths.
L7 15
Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings
 High-lift devices: Complex flow field

Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings

L7 16
 High-lift devices: Trend towards simplicity
Enabled by advances in computational fluid dynamics
Triple-slotted flaps (CFD) and high-performance computing (HPC)

Double-slotted flaps

A380 and B787:

Single-slotted flaps

L7 Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings 17
 To TAT

…and beyond
L7 18
 Beyond TAT
• Recall: TAT is limited to thin airfoils at low α
• But: What if our airfoil is neither thin nor at low α?
• Seek: A simple method for calculating the flow around bodies of
arbitrary shape, thickness and orientation

Arbitrary airfoil Real airfoil

Vortex panel method (wrap vortex
sheet around entire airfoil) [AS4.10]

Thin airfoil theory [AF4.22]

L7 19
 Panel methods
• Numerical technique introduced in the 1960s
• Uses a combination of vortices, sources and sinks to model the flow
around solid objects
• Also known as ‘potential-flow codes’, although many (e.g. XFOIL) can
incorporate viscous effects (e.g. BLs) via empirical models
• Perhaps the simplest type of computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
• Very handy for preliminary analysis (simple → fast, OK accurate),
before performing full-scale high-order CFD simulations (complex →
slower, more accurate)

PAN AIR (A502) Quadpan

L7 MACAERO HESS PMARC 20

 Vortex panel method (VPM) [AS4.10]
𝛾(𝑠)
[AF4.15] Simulation of an arbitrary
𝑉∞ airfoil by distributing a vortex
Airfoil of arbitrary
𝑠 shape and thickness sheet over the airfoil surface

• Replace airfoil surface with a vortex sheet of variable strength 𝛾(𝑠).

• Find 𝛾 𝑠 subject to two conditions (same as those in TAT):
1. Streamline condition → Velocity normal to the vortex sheet is
zero. As in TAT, we consider velocity contributions from (i) the free-
stream 𝑉∞ and (ii) the velocity induced by the vortex sheet itself.
2. Kutta condition at the TE
• Unlike in TAT, here no closed-form analytical solution for 𝛾 𝑠 exists,
so we must find 𝛾 𝑠 numerically using a computer.
• As with any numerical solution, this requires discretizing the domain
L7 21
See next slide
 Vortex panel method (VPM) [AS4.10]
Streamline condition: Flow is
[AF3.40] Panel tangent to the panel at each control
distribution over the point (i.e. at midpoint of each panel)
surface of a body of 𝛾𝑗
arbitrary shape

𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑖 Kutta condition is
satisfied at the TE

• Discretize airfoil surface into 𝑛 straight panels (different lengths OK)

• Let 𝛾 𝑠 be constant over a given panel (i.e. ‘first-order’ method), but
allow it to vary from panel to panel
• Goal: Find the vortex panel strengths (𝛾1 , 𝛾2 , ⋯ , 𝛾𝑛 ) over all 𝑛 panels
such that (i) the normal component of the flow velocity is zero at
L7 each control point, and (ii) the Kutta condition is satisfied at the TE.22
 Vortex panel method (VPM) [AS4.10]
Streamline condition: Flow is
[AF3.40] Panel tangent to the panel at each control
distribution over the point (i.e. at midpoint of each panel)
surface of a body of 𝛾𝑗
arbitrary shape

𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑖 Kutta condition is
satisfied at the TE

• After a lot of maths, we get [AE4.79]:

𝑛
𝛾𝑗 𝜕𝜃𝑖𝑗
𝑉∞ cos 𝛽𝑖 − ෍ න 𝑑𝑠𝑗 = 0
2𝜋 𝜕𝑛𝑖
𝑗=1 𝑗
which, if evaluated at the control points of all 𝑛 panels, is a linear
system of 𝑛 equations in 𝑛 unknowns → Happy days!
•L7 But wait: How do we enforce the Kutta condition at the TE? 23
 Vortex panel method (VPM) [AS4.10]
Streamline condition: Flow is
[AF3.40] Panel Enforcing the Kutta condition
tangent to the panel at each control
distribution over the 𝛾 𝑇𝐸
point (i.e. at panel =0
midpoint)
surface of a body of 𝛾𝑗
arbitrary shape Let the panels at
TE be small and
let their vortex
strengths cancel
each other out:

𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑖 𝛾𝑖 = −𝛾
Kutta condition is 𝑖−1 [AE4.81]
satisfied at the TE
However, combining [AE4.81] and
[AE4.79] leads to a linear system of 𝒏 + 𝟏
equations in 𝒏 unknowns – an over-
• After a lot of maths, we get [AE4.79]: determined system! To fix this, we
𝑛
𝛾𝑗 𝜕𝜃𝑖𝑗 evaluate [AE4.79] at only 𝑛 − 1 control
𝑉∞ cos 𝛽𝑖 − ෍ න 𝑑𝑠𝑗 = 0 points, i.e. we ignore one control point.
2𝜋 𝜕𝑛𝑖 Thus, combining [AE4.81] and [AE4.79]
𝑗=1 𝑗
now leads to a linear system of 𝒏
all 𝑛 panels,
which, if evaluated at the control points ofequations is a linear
in 𝒏 unknowns, which can be
system of 𝑛 equations in 𝑛 unknowns → Happy days! via standard methods.
solved numerically
•L7 But wait: How do we enforce the Kutta condition at the TE? 24
 Vortex panel method (VPM) [AS4.10]
• The VPM presented here is only first order as it assumes 𝛾 is constant
over a given panel (although it can vary from panel to panel).
• Accuracy can be improved by switching to second order, which
assumes that 𝛾 varies linearly over a given panel: The streamline (flow-
tangency) boundary
condition is still
[AF4.34] Second-
enforced at each control
order panel method:
point, but the value of 𝜸
Linear distribution of
at the edge of each
𝛾 over each panel
panel is matched to its
neighbor → Find 𝜸𝒋 at
the boundary points.
• Considerations for practical implementation
• How many panels? More panels → More accurate (usually) but slower to solve
• How big should the panels be? Good practice: Put a large number of small
panels near the LE and TE, but a small number of large panels in the middle
• Which control point do you ignore? …to avoid an over-determined system
• Solution for 𝛾 is not always smooth, with oscillations arising from numerical
inaccuracies and instabilities → Can mitigate by combining source panels (to
L7 25
provide thickness) and vortex panels (to provide circulation)
Project: Wind tunnel testing + Numerical simulations

L7 26