Aerodynamic Performance

Antonio Filippone

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139161893.007

4 - Aerodynamic Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2013

Antonio Filippone

Show author details

Antonio Filippone: Affiliation:
University of Manchester

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Overview

In this chapter, we present first-order methods, based on the principle of components, to determine the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft. One is tempted to develop methods of high accuracy, based on the physics. These methods are inevitably complex and computer intensive. The requirement for methods of general value inevitably limits the accuracy on any single aircraft. Aerodynamic data of real airplanes are closely guarded. We show how these low-order methods, with a compromise between physics and empiricism, yield results of acceptable accuracy.

We deal with aerodynamic lift in § 4.1. The wide subject of aerodynamic drag (§ 4.2) is split into several sub-sections that present practical methods. The analysis of the aerodynamic drag has a number of separate items, including a transonic model for wing sections (§ 4.3) to be used in the propeller model (Chapter 6), transonic and supersonic drag of wing-body combinations and bodies of revolution (§ 4.4), and buffet boundaries (§ 4.5). We present a short discussion on the aerodynamic derivatives in § 4.6. We expand the aerodynamic analysis to the estimation of the drag of a float-plane in § 4.7. We finish this chapter with a simple analysis of the vortex wakes and the aircraft separation distance (§ 4.8).

KEY CONCEPTS: Aircraft Lift, Aircraft Drag, Transonic Drag Rise, Supersonic Drag, Bodies of Revolution, Buffet Boundaries, Aerodynamic Derivatives, Float-Planes.

Aircraft Lift

The determination of the lift characteristics of the wing ultimately depends on the amount of information that is available. Often only the plan form shape is known.

Type: Chapter
Information: Advanced Aircraft Flight Performance , pp. 78 - 125

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139161893.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1] Katz, J and Plotkin, A. Low Speed Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill, 1992.Google Scholar

[2] ESDU. Wing Lift Coef?cient Increment at Zero Angle of Attack due to Deployment of Plain Trailing-Edge Flaps at Low Speeds. Data Item 97011. ESDU International, London, Nov. 2003.

[3] ESDU. Lift and Drag due to Spoiler Operation in the Ground Run. Data Item 76026. ESDU International, May 1977.

[4] Kiock, R. The ALVAST model of DLR:. Technical Report IB 129 96/22, DLR, Lilienthal Platz, 7, D-38018 Braunschweig, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar

[5] ESDU. Increments in Aerofoil Lift Coefficient at Zero Angle of Attack and in Maximum Lift Coefficient Due to Deployment of a Double-Slotted or Triple-Slotted Trailing-Edge Flap, with or without a Leading-Edge High-Lift Device, at Low Speeds. Data Item 94031. ESDU International, London, Dec. 1994.

[6] ESDU. Estimation of Airframe Drag by Summation of Components: Principles and Examples. Data Item 97016. ESDU International, London, Dec. 1996.

[7] Callaghan, JG. A erodynamic prediction methods for aircraft at low speeds with mechanical high lift devices. In Prediction Methods for Aircraft Aerodynamic Characteristics, volume AGARD LS-67, pages 2.1–2.52, May 1974.Google Scholar

[8] White, F. Viscous Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar

[9] White, F. Viscous Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill, 1974. Chapter 7.Google Scholar

[10] Nielsen, J. Missile Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill, 1960. Chapter 9.Google Scholar

[11] van Driest, ER. The problem of aerodynamic heating. Aeronaut. Eng. Rev., 15:26–41, 1956.Google Scholar

[12] van Driest, ER. On turbulent flow near a wall. J. Aero. Sci., 23(11):1007–1011, 1956.CrossRef Google Scholar

[13] Hopkins, EJ and Inouye, M. An evaluation of theories for predicting turbulent skin friction and heat transfer on flat plates at supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers. AIAA J., 9(6):993–1003, June 1971.CrossRef Google Scholar

[14] Hopkins, EJ. Charts for predicting t urbulent skin friction from the van Driest method II. Technical Report TN-D-6945, NASA, Oct. 1972.

[15] Blumer, CB and van Driest, ER. Boundary layer transition – Freestream turbulence and pressure effects. AIAA J., 1(6):1303–1306, 1963.CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Hoerner, SF. Fluid Dynamic Drag. Published by the Author, Bricktown, NJ, 1965.Google Scholar

[17] ESDU. Drag Increment due to Fuselage Upsweep. Data Item 80006. ESDU International, London, Feb. 1988.

[18] Malone, B and Mason, WH. Multidisciplinary optimization in aircraft design using analytic technology models. J. Aircraft, 32(2):431–437, March 1995.CrossRef Google Scholar

[19] Hilton, WF. High Speed Aerodynamics. Longmans & Co, London, 1952.Google Scholar

[20] ESDU. Forebodies of Fineness Ratio 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0, Having Low Values of Wave Drag Coefficient at Transonic Speeds. Data Item 79004. ESDU International, London, June 1979.

[21] Hoerner, SF. Fluid Dynamic Drag. Published by the Author, Bricktown, NJ, 1965. Chapter 8.Google Scholar

[22] Tètrault, PA, Schetz, JA, and Grossman, B. Numerical prediction of interference drag of strut-surface intersection in transonic flow. AIAA J., 39(5):857–864, May 2001.CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Kubendran, L, McMahon, H, and Hubbard, J. Interference drag in a simulated wing-fuselage junction. Technical Report CR-3811, NASA, 1984.

[24] Barber, TJ. An investigation of wall-strut intersection losses. J. Aircraft, 15(10):676–681, Oct. 1978.CrossRef Google Scholar

[25] Sakellaridis, A and Lazaridis, A. Experimental study of interference drag for multi-element objects. Exp. Thermal & Fluid Science, 26:313–317, 2002.CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] McCormick, BW. Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics. John Wiley, 2nd edition, 1995.Google Scholar

[27] ESDU. Undercarriage Drag Prediction Methods. Data Item 79015. ESDU International, London, March 1987.

[28] Roskam, J. Airplane Design, Part VI, Chapter 4. DARCorporation, 2000 (paperback edition).Google Scholar

[29] ESDU. Mean forces, pressures and moments for circular cylindrical structures: finite-length cylinders in uniform flow. Data Item 81017, Amend. A. ESDU International, London, May 1987.

[30] Torenbeek, E. Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design. Kluwer Academic Publ., 1985.Google Scholar

[31] van Es, GH. Method for predicting the rolling resistance of aircraft tires in dry snow. J. Aircraft, 36(4):762–768, Oct. 1999.CrossRef Google Scholar

[32] Redeker, G. DLR-F4 wing-body configuration. In A Selection of Experimental Test Cases for the Validation of CFD Codes, AGARD AR-303, Volume II, pages B4–B21. Aug. 1994.Google Scholar

[33] Redeker, G, Mueller, R, Ashill, PR, Elsenaar, A, and Schmitt, V. Experiments on the DFVLR F4 wing body configuration in several European wind tunnels. In Aerodynamic Data Accuracy and Quality: Requirements and Capabilities in Wind Tunnel Testing, volume AGARD CP-429, July 1988.Google Scholar

[34] Langtry, RB, Kuntz, M, and Menter, FR. Drag prediction of engine-airframe interference effects with CFX-5. J. Aircraft, 42(6):1523–1529, Nov. 2005.CrossRef Google Scholar

[35] O., Brodersen and A., Stürmer. Drag prediction of engine-airframe interference effects using unstructured Navier-Stokes calculations. in 19th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 2001-2414. Anaheim, CA, June 2001.Google Scholar

[36] Wurtzler, KE and Morton, SA. Accurate drag prediction using Cobalt. J. Aircraft, 43(1):10–16, 2006.CrossRef Google Scholar

[37] Hanke, CR and Nordwall, DR. The simulation of a large jet transport aircraft. Vol. II: Modeling data. Technical Report D6-30643, N73-10027 Boeing Doc, Sept. 1970.

[38] Caldarelli, G. ATR-72 accident in Taiwan. In SAE Aircraft & Engine Icing International Conference, ICE 13, Sevilla, Spain, Oct. 2007.Google Scholar

[39] Filippone, A. Rapid estimation of airfoil aerodynamics for helicopter rotor calculations. J. Aircraft, 45(4):1468–1472, July 2008.CrossRef Google Scholar

[40] McCroskey, J. A critical assessment of wind tunnel results for the NACA 0012 airfoil. Technical Report TM-100019, NASA, Oct. 1987.

[41] Bousman, WG. Aerodynamic characteristics of SC1095 and SC1094-R8 airfoils. Technical Report TP-2003-212265, NASA, Dec. 2003.

[42] Yamauchi, GK and Johnson, W. Trends of Reynolds number effects on two-dimensional airfoil characteristics for helicopter rotor analyses. Technical Report TM-84363, NASA, April 1983.

[43] Beddoes, TS. Representation of airfoil behavior. Vertica, 7(2):183–197, 1983.Google Scholar

[44] ESDU. Similarity Rules for Application in Aircraft Performance Work. Data item 97025. ESDU International, London, Sept. 2008.

[45] ESDU. The Wave Drag Coefficient of Spherically Blunted Secant Ogive Forebodies of Fineness Ratio 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 at Zero incidence in Transonic Flow. Data Item 89017. ESDU International, London, 1983.

[46] ESDU. Pressure Drag and Lift Contributions for Blunted Forebodies of Fineness Ratio 2.0 for Transonic Flow (M∞ ≥ 1.4). Data Item 89033. ESDU International, London, 1989.

[47] ESDU. Subsonic and transonic base and boat-tail pressure drag of cylindrical bodies with circular-arc boat-tails. Data Item 96012. ESDU International, London, 1996.

[48] Blake, WB. Missile DATCOM: User's manual – 1997 Fortran 90 revision. Technical report, US Air Force Research Lab, Air Vehicles Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1998.Google Scholar

[49] Ashley, H and Landahl, M. Aerodynamics of Wings and Bodies. Addison-Wesley, 1965.Google Scholar

[50] Harris, RV and Landrum, EJ. Drag characteristics of a series of low-drag bodies of revolution at Mach numbers from 0.6 to 4.0. Technical Report TN-D-3163, NASA, Dec. 1965.

[51] Wallskog, HA and Hart, RG. Investigation of the drag of blunt-noised bodies of revolution in free flight at Mach numbers 0.6 to 2.3. Technical Report RM L5314a, NACA, 1953.

[52] Bromm, AF and Goodwind, JM. Investigation at supersonic speeds of the variation with Reynolds number and Mach number of the total, base and skinfriction drag of seven boattail bodies of revolution designed for minimum wave drag. Technical Report TN 3708, NACA, 1956.

[53] ESDU. An Introduction to Aircraft Buffet and Buffetting. Data Item 87012. ESDU International, London, 1987.

[54] Stengel, R. Flight Dynamics. Princeton Univ. Press, 2004.Google Scholar

[55] Newman, JN. Marine Hydrodynamics. The MIT Press, 1977.Google Scholar

[56] Liepmann, H and Roshko, A. Elements of Gas Dynamics. J. W iley & Sons, 1983.Google Scholar

[57] Rossow, V. Lift-generated vortex wakes of subsonic transport aircraft. Progr. Aerospace Sciences, 35:507–660, Aug. 1999.CrossRef Google Scholar

[58] Gerz, T, Holzäpfel, F, and Darracq, D. Commercial aircraft wake vortices. Progr. Aerospace Sciences, 38:181–208, 2002.CrossRef Google Scholar

[59] Holzäpfel, F. Probabilistic two-phase wake vortex decay and transport model. J. Aircraft, 40, Mar. 2003.Google Scholar