AESF 5310

Advanced Aerodynamics

Lecture 10: 12 Oct 2022

Dassault Falcon 7X Instructor: Prof Larry Li 1
 Today’s agenda [AS5.1−5.5]
• Flow over 3D wings (i.e. wings of finite span)
• Induced drag
• Effect of wing planform: Elliptical vs tapered
• Effect of aspect ratio (AR)
• Lift slope: Airfoils (2D) vs Wings (3D)
• Vortex lattice method (VLM)
• Wingtip devices

L10 2
 LLT: Supplemental problem (with Solutions)

Tapered wing with washout

L10 3
 LLT: 𝐶𝐷𝑖 ↔ Tapered vs elliptical wing [AS5.3.3]
𝐶𝐿2 𝐶𝐿2 2 −1
𝐴𝑛
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 1+𝛿 = with 𝑒 = 1 + σ𝑛=3,5,7 𝑛
𝜋AR 𝜋𝑒AR 𝐴1

Span efficiency factor 𝛿 = Induced drag factor

Induced drag factor 𝛿

Tapered wings can be designed with

an induced drag factor that is
reasonably close to the minimum
value (i.e. that of an elliptical wing) 𝑐𝑟 𝑐𝑡
→ Optimal taper ratio 𝜆 ≈ 0.3−0.4 𝛿>0
Tapered

𝛿=0
Elliptical
Taper ratio: λ = 𝑐𝑡 Τ𝑐𝑟

The induced drag factor (𝛿) increases

with AR, but this does not mean that
𝐶𝐷𝑖 also increases with AR. Why?
…because AR appears in the
L10 𝐶𝐿2 4
denominator of 𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 1+𝛿
𝜋AR
 LLT: 𝐶𝐷𝑖 ↔ Aspect ratio (AR) [AS5.3.3]
Experimental
𝐶𝐿2 𝐶𝐿2
𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 1+𝛿 =
𝜋AR 𝜋𝑒AR
High AR
(low induced drag)
Both 𝛿 and AR affect 𝐶𝐷𝑖 but the effect of AR is
much stronger: [AF5.20] on the previous slide
shows 𝛿 varying by only around 10% for most
practical values of the taper ratio.

Thus, the primary design strategy for reducing 𝐶𝐷𝑖

Increasing AR
is not to achieve an elliptical lift distribution, but
rather to make AR as large as possible.

However, this can cause issues with structural Low AR

integrity (higher bending stresses → need a more (high induced drag)
robust structure), flight maneuverability (higher
moment of inertia → more difficult to roll and
turn), and airport operations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yx7aNdGYZo

L10 5
Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings
 LLT: 𝐶𝐷𝑖 ↔ Aspect ratio (AR)

L10 6
 LLT: 𝐶𝐷𝑖 ↔ Aspect ratio (AR)

L10 7
 Lockheed U-2
Ultra-high altitude reconnaissance aircraft [AF5.26]
As the previous slides show, most civilian aircraft have AR ≈ 6−9, but high-speed military
aircraft may have lower AR. There are exceptions: Lockheed U-2 spy plane (AR = 11). Why?

James May at the Edge of Space (BBC)

The U-2 was designed by Lockheed's legendary engineer,
Kelly Johnson. He also designed the SR-71, F-104
Starfighter, and countless other revolutionary aircraft.
The U-2 was designed to fly at 70,000 feet. At that
altitude, it could not be tracked easily by radar or shot
down with missiles by the Soviet Union at the time.

8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtsZaDbxCgM
 Lift slope: Airfoils (2D) vs Wings (3D) [AS5.3.3]
Airfoil (2D) → Infinite Span Wing (3D) → Finite Span
Lift coefficient 𝐶𝑙 = 𝑎0 (𝛼 − 𝛼𝐿=0 ) Untwisted elliptical:
𝐶𝐿
𝐶𝐿 = 𝐶𝑙 = 𝑎0 (𝛼 − 𝛼𝑖 − 𝛼𝐿=0 ) with 𝛼𝑖 = [AE5.42]
𝜋 AR
𝐶
𝐶𝐿 = 𝑎0 (𝛼 − 𝐿 − 𝛼𝐿=0 ) 𝑎0
𝜋 AR 𝐶𝐿 1 + = 𝑎0 (𝛼 − 𝛼𝐿=0 )
𝐶𝐿 = 𝑎 (𝛼 − 𝛼𝐿=0 ) 𝜋 AR
Lift slope 𝑑𝐶𝑙 𝑑𝐶𝐿
≡ 𝑎0 = 2𝜋 for TAT but < 2𝜋 in ≡ 𝑎 ≠ 𝑎0 because 𝛼𝑖 = 𝛼𝑖 (𝐶𝐿 )
𝑑𝛼 𝑑𝛼
reality because of viscous effects
Untwisted elliptical:
𝑑𝐶 𝑎0 A wing has a smaller lift slope
𝑎≡ 𝐿= 𝑎0 < 𝑎0 than an airfoil because the
𝑑𝛼 1+
𝜋 AR
wing’s wingtip vortices increase
𝐶𝑙 𝛼𝑖 and thus decrease 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓
General planform:
𝐶𝐿 𝑎0 [AE5.70]
𝑎= 𝑎0
where the lift-slope parameter is typically
1+ 1+𝜏
𝜋 AR 0.05 < 𝜏 < 0.25 and depends on 𝐴𝑛

Smaller lift slope because

wingtip vortices → increase 𝛼𝑖
→ decrease 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝛼𝐿=0 𝛼
All three curves have the same 𝛼𝐿=0 because at zero
L10 lift (𝐶𝑙 = 𝐶𝐿 = 0) → no wingtip vortices → 𝛼𝑖 = 0 → 9
𝛼 = 𝛼𝑒𝑓𝑓 → converge to the 2D airfoil case
 Lift slope: Airfoils (2D) vs Wings (3D) [AS5.3.3]
Experimental

As AR → ∞, 𝑎 → 𝑎0

Increasing AR

L10 10
Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings
 LLT: Summary for generic lift distribution
To solve for the circulation distribution of a generic planform wing, we evaluate the
monoplane equation at 4 spanwise locations on the half-wing:
𝑐 𝜃 𝑎0 𝑐(𝜃)𝑎0
sin 𝜃 𝛼 𝜃 − 𝛼𝐿=0 𝜃 = ෍ 𝐴𝑛 sin(𝑛𝜃) 𝑛 + sin 𝜃
4𝑏 4𝑏
𝑛=1,3,5,7

𝑏2
Lift coefficient (3D Wing): 𝐶𝐿 = 𝐴1 𝜋 𝑆 = 𝐴1 𝜋AR
4𝑏
Section lift coefficient at 𝜃: 𝐶𝑙 𝜃 = 𝑐 σ𝑛=1,3,5,7 𝐴𝑛 sin 𝑛𝜃
𝜃

𝐶𝐿2 2 −1
Induced drag coefficient (3D Wing): 𝐶𝐷𝑖 = 𝜋AR σ𝑛=1,3,5,7 𝑛𝐴2𝑛 = σ
𝐴𝑛
𝜋𝑒AR with 𝑒 = 1 + 𝑛=3,5,7 𝑛 𝐴1

σ 𝐶𝑑 𝑑𝑠
Parasite drag coefficient (3D Wing): 𝐶𝐷𝑝 =  Viscous drag (non-LLT)
𝑆

Total drag coefficient (3D Wing): 𝐶𝐷 = 𝐶𝐷𝑝 + 𝐶𝐷𝑖  Add up viscous drag (non-LLT)
and inviscid drag (LLT)

Failure of LLT: (1) at low AR → lift becomes more distributed, can no longer be modelled as
acting at c/4, where the bound vortex sits, (2) swept wings → wingroot element won’t
‘feel’ wingtip vortex, (3) delta wings [AS5.6] → LE separation causes a big vortex 11
 Delta wing at low speeds [AS5.6]
Although delta-winged aircraft are designed for high speeds,
they must fly at low speeds during takeoff and landing.
Eurofighter Typhoon
- The lift slope is small: on the order of 0.05/degree
- Thus, we need a high α to generate the large 𝐶𝐿 required for low-speed flight
- This is fine because delta wings stall much later (α > 20o) because of LE vortices

Flow field looks nothing like the LLT model! Aerodynamics for Engineers (6th ed), J.J. Bertin and R.M. Cummings
 Beyond LLT [AS5.5]
Recall LLT → A system of horseshoe …but such a vortex system
vortices on the lifting line: (LLT) cannot accurately model
the flow around some wings:

For such wings, there is a need to use a more

sophisticated model → Lifting surface theory
L10 13
 Lifting surface theory →
Vortex lattice method (VLM) [AS5.5]
Concept: Superimpose a finite number of horseshoe vortices of different
strengths Γ𝑛 on the wing surface.
(1) Discretize the wing surface into (3) Place a control point on the
𝒏 panels of dimension l × l panel’s centerline at a distance
(squares, rectangles or trapezoids) l 3/4 from its front.

(4) With the entire wing covered in panels and

(2) On each panel, place a horseshoe vortex horseshoe vortices, apply the flow-tangency
(abcd) of strength Γ𝑛 such that the segment bc condition (zero normal velocity) at all the control
is a distance l/4 from the front of the panel. points. This leads to a system of equations,
L10 which can be solved for the unknown 𝜞𝒏 values. 14
 Winglets → Shifts and weakens wingtip vortices
As discussed earlier, increasing the wingspan (via an increase in AR) can reduce the induced
drag, but this would also increase parasite drag and would require boosting the strength and
weight of the wing. At some point, there is no net benefit from further increasing the wingspan.
Moreover, there may be operational conditions limiting the allowable wingspan (e.g. available
width at airport gates). For such situations, winglets can be a viable solution.

L10 15
No winglet: The wingtip produces Winglet: The winglet moves the vortices away
vortices that trail behind the wing. from the wing, reducing their effect on lift.
Top view

View from behind

16
Source: https://fyfluiddynamics.com/2016/05/in-flight-airplane-wings-produce-dramatic-wingtip/
 Winglets → Reduce downwash → Reduce 𝛼𝑖

L10 17
 Winglets → Reduce induced drag (by 3−5%)
Increases the effective AR
without increasing the
actual wingspan, thus
reducing downwash, 𝛼𝑖
and ∴ induced drag.

Tapering and sweeping

winglets/wingtips → for
improved supercritical
performance.

Drawbacks:
Increased wetted area and
junction flow give rise to
higher parasite drag.
The wing becomes slightly
heavier.
L10 18
 Canted winglets
Used on e.g. Boeing 747-400, Airbus A220
• Increases the range of the 747-400 by 3.5%
over the 747-300, which has no winglets
• Simple and can be added to existing wings
without extensive structural modifications

L10 19
 Blended winglets (Airbus calls them ‘sharklets’)
Used on e.g. Boeing 737-800, Airbus A320neo, Airbus A350
• Attached to the wing via a smooth curve, rather than a sharp angle
• Designed to reduce interference drag at the wing-winglet junction

L10 20
 Wingtip fences
Used on e.g. Airbus A380
• Surfaces extend both above and below the wingtip
• Almost exclusively used by Airbus

L10 21
 Raked wingtips
Used on e.g. Boeing 777-200LR/300ER, 777X, 787-8/9/10
• Wingtip features greater sweep than the rest of the wing
• Boeing claims this reduces the induced drag by up to 5.5% (vs. typical 3−5%)

L10 22
 Hybrid wingtip device (i.e. split-tip)
Used on e.g. Boeing 737 MAX, MD-11
• Three-way hybrid between a blended winglet, wingtip fence, and raked wingtip
• Boeing claims this is better than conventional winglets

L10 23
 Synergy Double Boxtail Aircraft Project

Closed wing configurations

• Eliminates wingtips altogether → low induced drag
• Disadvantages → fuel volume, landing gear
integration, and lower section Reynolds numbers

24
PrandtlPlane