Low-Speed Aerodynamics

Robert Stengel, Aircraft Flight Dynamics, MAE

331, 2018
Learning Objectives
• 2D lift and drag
• Reynolds number effects

• Relationships between airplane shape and

aerodynamic characteristics

• 2D and 3D lift and drag

• Static and dynamic effects of aerodynamic

control surfaces
Reading:
Flight Dynamics
Aerodynamic Coefficients, 65-84

Copyright 2018 by Robert Stengel. All rights reserved. For educational use only.
http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/FlightDynamics.html 1

2-Dimensional Aerodynamic
Lift and Drag

1
 Wing Lift and Drag
• Lift: Perpendicular to free-stream airflow

• Drag: Parallel to the free-stream airflow

Longitudinal Aerodynamic
Forces
Non-dimensional force coefficients, CL and CD, are
dimensionalized by
dynamic pressure, q, N/m2 or lb/sq ft

reference area, S, m2 of ft2

⎛1 ⎞
Lift = C L q S = C L ⎜ ρV 2 ⎟ S
⎝2 ⎠
⎛1 ⎞
Drag = C D q S = C D ⎜ ρV 2 ⎟ S
⎝2 ⎠
4

2
Circulation of Incompressible Air Flow
About a 2-D Airfoil
Bernoulli s equation (inviscid, incompressible flow)
(Motivational, but not the whole story of lift)
1
pstatic + ρV 2 = constant along streamline = pstagnation
2
Vorticity at point x
Vupper (x) = V∞ + ΔV (x) 2 ΔV (x)
γ 2−D (x) =
Vlower (x) = V∞ − ΔV (x) 2 Δz(x)
Circulation about airfoil
Lower pressure on upper surface

ΔV (x)
c c

Γ 2−D = ∫ γ 2−D (x)dx = ∫ dx

0 0
Δz(x)

Relationship Between
Circulation and Lift
Differential pressure along chord section
⎡ 2⎤ ⎡ 2⎤
Δp ( x ) = ⎢ pstatic + ρ∞ (V∞ + ΔV ( x ) 2 ) ⎥ − ⎢ pstatic + ρ∞ (V∞ − ΔV ( x ) 2 ) ⎥
1 1
⎣ 2 ⎦ ⎣ 2 ⎦
= ρ∞ (V∞ + ΔV ( x ) 2 ) − (V∞ − ΔV ( x ) 2 ) ⎤
1 ⎡ 2 2

2 ⎣ ⎦
= ρ∞V∞ ΔV ( x ) = ρ∞V∞ Δz(x)γ 2−D (x)

2-D Lift (inviscid, incompressible flow)

c c

( Lift )2−D = ∫ Δp ( x ) dx = ρ ∞V∞ ∫ γ 2−D (x)dx = ρ ∞V∞ ( Γ )2−D

0 0

1
! ρ ∞V∞ 2 c ( 2πα )[ thin, symmetric airfoil] + ρ ∞V∞ ( Γ camber )2−D
2
1
( )
! ρ ∞V∞ 2 c C Lα
2 2−D
α + ρ ∞V∞ ( Γ camber )2−D 6

3
 Lift vs. Angle of Attack
2-D Lift (inviscid, incompressible flow)

( Lift )2-D ! ⎡⎢
1
⎣2
( )
ρ ∞V∞ 2 c C Lα
2−D
⎤
α ⎥ + ⎡⎣ ρ ∞V∞ ( Γ camber )2−D ⎤⎦
⎦
= [Lift due to angle of attack]
+ [Lift due to camber]
7

Typical Flow Variation

with Angle of Attack

• At higher angles,
– flow separates
– wing loses lift
• Flow separation
produces stall

4
 What Do We Mean by
2-Dimensional Aerodynamics?
Finite-span wing –> finite aspect ratio
b
AR = rectangular wing
c
b × b b2
= = any wing
c×b S
Infinite-span wing –> infinite aspect ratio

What Do We Mean by
2-Dimensional Aerodynamics?

Assuming constant chord section, the 2-D Lift is the

same at any y station of the infinite-span wing

1 1
Lift 3−D = C L3−D ρV 2 S = C L3−D ρV 2 ( bc ) [Rectangular wing]
2 2
1
Δ ( Lift 3−D ) = C L3−D ρV 2 cΔy
2
⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
lim Δ ( Lift 3−D ) = lim ⎜ C L3−D ρV 2 cΔy ⎟ ⇒ "2-D Lift" ! C L2−D ρV 2 c
Δy→ε >0 Δy→ε >0 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 2
10

5
 Effect of Sweep Angle on Lift
Unswept wing, symmetric airfoil, 2-D lift slope coefficient
Inviscid, incompressible flow
Referenced to chord length, c, rather than wing area

⎛ ∂C ⎞
C L2−D = α ⎜ L ⎟
⎝ ∂α ⎠ 2−D
= α C Lα ( ) 2−D
= ( 2π )α [Thin Airfoil Theory]

Swept wing, 2-D lift slope coefficient

Inviscid, incompressible flow

( )
C L2−D = α C Lα
2−D
= ( 2π cos Λ )α

11

Classic Airfoil
Profiles
• NACA 4-digit Profiles (e.g., NACA 2412)
– Maximum camber as percentage of chord (2) = 2%
– Distance of maximum camber from leading edge, (4) = 40%
– Maximum thickness as percentage of chord (12) = 12%

• Clark Y (1922): Flat lower surface,

11.7% thickness
– GA, WWII aircraft
– Reasonable L/D
– Benign theoretical stall
characteristics
– Experimental result is more abrupt
Fluent, Inc,12
2007

6
 Typical Airfoil Profiles
Positive camber

Neutral camber

Negative camber

Talay, NASA SP-367

13

Airfoil Effects
• Camber increases zero-α lift
coefficient
• Thickness
– increases α for stall and
softens the stall break
– reduces subsonic drag
– increases transonic drag
– causes abrupt pitching
moment variation

• Profile design
– can reduce center-of-
pressure (static margin, TBD)
variation with α
– affects leading-edge and
trailing-edge flow separation

Talay, NASA SP-367 14

7
 NACA 641-012 Chord Section Lift,
Drag, and Moment (NACA TR-824)

Rough ~ Turbulent
CD
CL, 60 flap
CL Smooth ~ Laminar

CL, w/o flap “Drag Bucket”

Cm

Cm, w/o flap

Cm, 60 flap

α CL
15

Historical Factoid
Measuring Lift and Drag with Whirling Arms
and Early Wind Tunnels
Whirling Arm Experimentalists

Otto Lillienthal Hiram Maxim Samuel Langley

Wind Tunnel Experimentalists

Wright
Frank Wenham Gustave Eiffel Hiram Maxim Brothers
16

8
 Historical Factoid
Wright Brothers Wind Tunnel

17

Flap Effects on
Aerodynamic Lift

• Camber modification
• Trailing-edge flap deflection
shifts CL up and down
• Leading-edge flap (slat)
deflection increases stall α
• Same effect applies for
other control surfaces
– Elevator (horizontal tail)
– Ailerons (wing)
– Rudder (vertical tail)
18

9
 Aerodynamic Drag
1 2 1
Drag = C D
2
( 2
)
ρV S ≈ C D0 + ε C L2 ρV 2 S
2 1
≈ %'C D0
&
( )
+ ε C Lo + C Lα α (* ρV 2 S
)2

19

Parasitic Drag, CDo

• Pressure differential,
viscous shear stress,
and separation

1 2
Parasitic Drag = C D0 ρV S
2

Talay, NASA SP-367 20

10
Reynolds Number and Boundary Layer
ρVl Vl
Reynolds Number = Re = =
µ ν
where
ρ = air density, kg/m 2
V = true airspeed, m/s
l = characteristic length, m
µ = absolute (dynamic) viscosity = 1.725 × 10 −5 kg / m i s
ν = kinematic viscosity (SL) = 1.343 × 10 −5 m / s 2

21

Reynolds Number,
Skin Friction, and
Boundary Layer
Skin friction coefficient for a flat plate
Friction Drag
Cf = Wetted Area: Total surface
qSwet area of the wing or aircraft,
subject to skin friction
where Swet = wetted area
Boundary layer thickens in transition, then
thins in turbulent flow

C f ≈ 1.33Re −1/2 [laminar flow ]

≈ 0.46 ( log10 Re )
−2.58
[turbulent flow ]
22

11
Effect of Streamlining on Parasitic Drag

CD = 2.0

CD = 1.2

CD = 0.12

CD = 1.2

CD = 0.6
Talay, NASA SP-367

DRAG
23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylh1CPqBwEw

Subsonic CDo Estimate (Raymer)

24

12
 Historical Factoid
Wilbur (1867-1912) and
Orville (1871-1948)
Wright
• Bicycle mechanics from Dayton, OH
• Self-taught, empirical approach to flight
• Wind-tunnel, kite, and glider
experiments
• Dec 17, 1903: Powered, manned
aircraft flight ends in success

25

Historical Factoids
• 1906: 2nd successful aviator: Alberto
Santos-Dumont, standing!
– High dihedral, forward control surface

• Wrights secretive about results until

1908; few further technical contributions

• 1908: Glenn Curtiss et al incorporate

ailerons
– Separate aileron surfaces at right
– Wright brothers sue for infringement
of 1906 US patent (and win)

• 1909: Louis Bleriot's flight across

the English Channel

26

13
 Description of Aircraft
Configurations

27

A Few Definitions

Republic F-84F
Thunderstreak
28

14
 Wing Planform Variables
Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
b
AR = rectangular wing ctip tip chord
c λ= =
b × b b2 croot root chord
= = any wing
c×b S
Delta Wing
Swept Trapezoidal Wing
Rectangular Wing

29

Wing Design Parameters

• Planform
– Aspect ratio
– Sweep
– Taper
– Complex geometries
– Shapes at root and tip
• Chord section
– Airfoils
– Twist
• Movable surfaces
– Leading- and trailing-edge devices
– Ailerons
– Spoilers
• Interfaces
– Fuselage
– Powerplants
– Dihedral angle
30
Talay, NASA SP-367

15
 Mean Aerodynamic Chord, c
Mean aerodynamic chord (m.a.c.) ~
mean geometric chord

b2
1
c = ∫ c 2 ( y ) dy λ=
ctip
=
tip chord
S −b 2 croot root chord
⎛ 2 ⎞ 1+ λ + λ
2
=⎜ ⎟ croot [for trapezoidal wing]
⎝ 3 ⎠ 1+ λ 31

Location of Mean Aerodynamic Chord

and Aerodynamic Center
• Axial location of the wing s subsonic
aerodynamic center (a.c.)
– Determine spanwise location of m.a.c.
– Assume that aerodynamic center is at 25% m.a.c.

Trapezoidal Wing Elliptical Wing

Mi
d-c
h ord
lin
e

32

16
 3-Dimensional Aerodynamic
Lift and Drag
Insect Wing
(flat plate)

Delta Wing

33

• Washout twist
– reduces tip angle of attack
Wing Twist Effects
– typical value: 2 - 4
– changes lift distribution (interplay with taper ratio)
– reduces likelihood of tip stall
– allows stall to begin at the wing root
• separation burble produces buffet at tail surface, warning of stall
– improves aileron effectiveness at high α

Talay, NASA SP-367

34

17
 Aerodynamic Strip Theory
• Airfoil section may vary from tip-to-tip
– Chord length
– Airfoil thickness
– Airfoil profile
– Airfoil twist
• 3-D Wing Lift: Integrate 2-D lift coefficients
of airfoil sections across finite span
Incremental lift along span

dL = C L2−D ( y ) c ( y ) qdy
Aero L-39 Albatros
dC L3−D ( y )
= c ( y ) qdy
dy
3-D wing lift
b /2

L3− D = ∫ C L2− D ( y ) c ( y ) q dy
−b /2
35

Bombardier Dash 8 Handley Page HP.115

Effect of Aspect Ratio on
3-Dimensional Wing Lift
Slope Coefficient
(Incompressible Flow)
High Aspect Ratio (> 5) Wing

# ∂C & 2 π AR # AR &
C Lα  % L ( = = 2π % (
$ ∂α '3−D AR + 2 $ AR + 2 '
Low Aspect Ratio (< 2) Wing

π AR # AR &
C Lα = = 2π % (
2 $ 4 '
36

18
Effect of Aspect Ratio on 3-D
Wing Lift Slope Coefficient
(Incompressible Flow)
All Aspect Ratios (Helmbold equation)

π AR
C Lα =
) 2,
+1+ 1+ #% AR &( .
+* $ 2 ' .-

37

Effect of Aspect Ratio on 3-D

Wing Lift Slope Coefficient
All Aspect Ratios (Helmbold equation)
Wolfram Alpha (https://www.wolframalpha.com/)
plot(pi A / (1+sqrt(1 + (A / 2)^2)), A=1 to 20)

π AR
C Lα =
) 2,
+1+ 1+ #% AR &( .
+* $ 2 ' .-

38

19
 Wing-Fuselage Interference Effects
• Wing lift induces
– Upwash in front of the wing affects canard
– Downwash behind the wing affects aft tail
– Local angles of attack modified, affecting net lift and pitching moment
• Flow around fuselage induces upwash on the wing, canard, and tail

from Etkin

39

Longitudinal Control Surfaces

Wing-Tail Configuration

Flap Elevator

Delta-Wing Configuration

Elevator
40

20
 Angle of Attack and
Control Surface Deflection
• Horizontal tail with
elevator control
surface

• Horizontal tail at
positive angle of attack

• Horizontal tail with

positive elevator
deflection

41

Control Flap Carryover Effect on

Lift Produced By Total Surface

from Schlichting & Truckenbrodt

C Lδ E cf
vs.
C Lα xf + cf

cf (x f + cf ) 42

21
 Bell X-1 Aileron Carryover Effect
M = 0.13, Re = 1.2 x 106

q − ( p − po )
SP ! , pressure coefficient
q

Area proportional
to lift

NACA-RM-L53L18, 1954
43

Lift due to Elevator Deflection

Lift coefficient variation due to elevator deflection

∂C L
C Lδ E !
∂δ E
= τ htηht C Lα( ) ht
Sht
S
ΔC L = C Lδ E δ E

τ ht = Carryover effect
ηht = Tail efficiency factor
(C )
Lα
ht
= Horizontal tail lift-coefficient slope
Sht = Horizontal tail reference area
Lift variation due to elevator deflection

ΔL = C Lδ E qSδ E
44

22
 Example of Configuration and
Flap Effects

45

Next Time:
Induced Drag and High-Speed
Aerodynamics
Reading:
Flight Dynamics
Aerodynamic Coefficients, 85-96
Airplane Stability and Control
Chapter 1

Learning Objectives
Understand drag-due-to-lift and effects of wing planform
Recognize effect of angle of attack on lift and drag coefficients
How to estimate Mach number (i.e., air compressibility) effects on aerodynamics
Be able to use Newtonian approximation to estimate lift and drag

46

23
 Supplementary Material

47

Thin Airfoil Theory

Downward velocity, w, at xo due to vortex at x

Differential Integral

γ ( x ) dx 1 γ ( x)
dw ( xo ) = w ( xo ) =
1

2π ( xo − x ) 2π ∫ (x
0
o − x)
dx

Boundary condition: flow tangent to mean camber line

w ( xo ) ⎛ dz ⎞
=α −⎜ ⎟
V ⎝ dx ⎠ xo
McCormick, 1995 48

24
 Thin Airfoil Theory
Integral equation for vorticity
1 1 γ ( x) ⎛ dz ⎞
2π V ∫ (x
0
o − x )
dx = α − ⎜ ⎟
⎝ dx ⎠ xo

Coordinate transformation
1
x= (1− cosθ )
2

Solution for vorticity Coefficients

1 π dz
π ∫0 dx
A0 = α − dθ
⎡ 1+ cosθ ∞ ⎤
γ = 2V ⎢ A0 + ∑ An sin nθ ⎥
⎣ sin θ ⎦ 2 π dz
n=1
An = ∫ cos nθ dθ
π 0 dx

McCormick, 1995 49

Thin Airfoil Theory

Lift, from Kutta-Joukowski theorem
1

L = ∫ ρV γ ( x ) dx = 2π A0 + π A1
0

For thin airfoil with circular arc

A0 = α , A1 = 4zmax
C L2−D = 2πα + 4π zmax = C Lα α + C Lo [Circular arc]
=C Lα α [Flat plate]

∂C L
C Lα = = 2π
∂α
McCormick, 1995 50

25
 Effect of Aspect Ratio on 3-Dimensional
Wing Lift Slope Coefficient

• High Aspect Ratio (> 5) Wing

• Wolfram Alpha

plot(2 pi (a/(a+2)), a=5 to 20)

• Low Aspect Ratio (< 2) Wing

• Wolfram Alpha

plot(2 pi (a / 4), a=1 to 2)

51

Aerodynamic Stall, Theory and Experiment

• Flow separation produces stall
• Straight rectangular wing, AR = 5.536, NACA 0015
• Hysteresis for increasing/decreasing α

Anderson et al, 1980

52

26
 Maximum Maximum Lift of
Lift
Coefficient,
CL max
Rectangular Wings
Schlicting & Truckenbrodt, 1979

Angle of
Attack for
CL max

Aspect Ratio ϕ : Sweep angle

δ : Thickness ratio 53

Maximum Lift of Delta Wings with

Straight Trailing Edges
Maximum Lift Angle of Attack
Coefficient, CL max for CL max

Aspect Ratio Aspect Ratio λ : Taper ratio

Schlicting & Truckenbrodt, 1979 54

27
 Typical Effect of Reynolds
Number on Parasitic Drag
• Flow may stay attached
farther at high Re,
reducing the drag

from Werle*

55
* See Van Dyke, M., An Album of Fluid Motion,
Parabolic Press, Stanford, 1982

Aft Flap vs. All-Moving

Control Surface
• Carryover effect of aft flap
– Aft-flap deflection can be almost as effective as
full surface deflection at subsonic speeds
– Negligible at supersonic speed
• Aft flap
– Mass and inertia lower, reducing likelihood of
mechanical instability
– Aerodynamic hinge moment is lower
– Can be mounted on structurally rigid main
surface
56

28
 Historical Factoid
Samuel Pierpoint
Langley (1834-1906)
• Astronomer supported by Smithsonian Institution
• Whirling-arm experiments
• 1896: Langley's steam-powered Aerodrome model
flies 3/4 mile
• Oct 7 & Dec 8, 1903: Manned aircraft flights end in
failure

57

Multi-Engine Aircraft of World War II

Consolidated B-24 Boeing B-29
Boeing B-17

Douglas A-26
• Large W.W.II aircraft had
unpowered controls:
– High foot-pedal force
North American B-25
– Rudder stability problems
arising from balancing to
reduce pedal force
• Severe engine-out problem Martin B-26
for twin-engine aircraft
58

29
Medium to High Aspect Ratio Configurations
Cessna 337 DeLaurier Ornithopter Schweizer 2-32

Vtakeoff = 82 km/h
hcruise = 15 ft

Vcruise = 144 mph

hcruise = 10 kft

Mtypical = 75 mph
hmax = 35 kft

Mcruise = 0.84
hcruise = 35 kft

• Typical for subsonic aircraft

Boeing 777-300
59

Uninhabited Air Vehicles

Northrop-Grumman/Ryan Global Hawk General Atomics Predator

Vcruise = 70-90 kt
hcruise = 25 kft
Vcruise = 310 kt
hcruise = 50 kft

60

30
 Stealth and Small UAVs
Lockheed-Martin RQ-170 General Atomics Predator-C (Avenger)

Northrop-Grumman X-47B InSitu/Boeing ScanEagle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft 61

Subsonic Biplane

• Compared to monoplane
– Structurally stiff (guy wires)
– Twice the wing area for the same
span
– Lower aspect ratio than a single
wing with same area and chord
– Mutual interference
– Lower maximum lift
– Higher drag (interference, wires)
• Interference effects of two wings
– Gap
– Aspect ratio
– Relative areas and spans
– Stagger

62

31
 Some Videos
Flow over a narrow airfoil, with downstream vortices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsO5BQA_CZk

Flow over transverse flat plate, with downstream vortices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z_hFZx7qvE
Laminar vs. turbulent flow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG-YCpAGgQQ&feature=related

Smoke flow visualization, wing with flap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=eBBZF_3DLCU/
1930s test in NACA wind tunnel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_WgkVQWtno&feature=related
63

32