Subsonic Wings

an introduction

W.H. Mason
Configuration Aerodynamics Class

VLM Methods a way to get insight

Linear, inviscid aerodynamics strictly subsonic
Ignores thickness bcs applied on the mean plane
Finds Cp, not the upper/lower surface pressures
Very handy and accurate as seen below
Really good for understanding interacting surface ideas

Choices: VLMpc, Tornado, AVL

VLM Models and Tips

Convergence with number of panels

F/A-18

( ) Number of chordwise panels

Neutral
point, 2
percent c

(5)

(9)

Vortex Lattice Method

0
0

40

80
120
160
Total number of panels

200

240

Panel Models

F-15 3-Surface VLM Model

Three-Surface F-15 Longitudinal Derivatives

Canard Height Effect

F-15 horizontal tail effectiveness

F-15 aileron effectiveness

Warren-12 Test Case

Note: CM about wing apex,

Reference chord is 1.0

Comment: Reference Area(s)

The key:
Define it for
others!

The
reference
trap wing

Source: Stinton, Design of the Airplane

Aerodynamics of High Aspect Ratio Wings

Planforms
Spanloads
Pitching moment and pitchup
Aerodynamic Center
Isobars/Twist
Camber
2D-3D connection
Canard and Ground Effects

Typical Planform Characteristics of

Transport Aircraft

Way off
the trend
line!
Clearly the A380 pays a price to satisfy the 80 meter gate box limit

Forward, Unswept and Aft Swept Planforms, AR = 2.8

Related Spanloads and Section Lift Coefficients

1.60
1.40

For an untwisted
planar wing

1.20
1.00
Spanload,
cc / c 0.80

aft swept wing

0.60

unswept wing

0.40

forward swept wing

0.20
0.00

Warren 12 planform, sweep changed

0.0

0.2

0.4

y/(b/2)

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.40
aft swept wing
1.20
1.00

Section CL
0.80

unswept wing
forward swept wing

0.60
0.40
0.20
Warren 12 planform, sweep changed
0.00
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6
y/(b/2)

0.8

1.0

Forward, Unswept and Aft Swept Planforms, AR = 8

Related Spanloads and Section Lift Coefficients

1.6

Aspect ratio 8 wings

1.4

For an untwisted
planar wing

1.2
Spanload,
1.0
ccl / ca
0.8
aft swept wing

0.6

unswept wing
0.4

forward swept wing

0.2
0.0

0.2

1.50
0.6

0.4

0.8

1.0
aft swept wing

y/(b/2)

1.00
unswept wing

Section CL

forward swept wing

0.50

Aspect ratio 8 planforms

0.00
0.0

0.2

0.4
y/(b/2)

0.6

0.8

1.0

Example: VLM Pitching Moment agrees well

with data until wing pitchup
0.08
data from NACA RM A50K27

0.06
Cm

AR = 10, c/4 = 35, = 0.5

Re = 10 million

0.04

x ref = c/4

0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04

VLMpc calculation

-0.06
-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4
CL

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Aerodynamic Center on Finite Wings

- is it actually at the quarter chord? -

From Shevelle, Fundamentals of Flight, 2nd Ed.

Low Aspect Ratio Wing Neutral Point (ac)

For a rectangular wing it moves forward!
From Schlichting and Truckenbrodt,
Aerodynamics of the Airplane
0.25

0.05
1

AR

Discovered while making

pre-test estimates
Inboard Wing built/tested at VT

Isobars

These funny NACA report numbers

denote series classified at the time,
L stands for Langley, reports
starting with A denote Ames

Without twist and camber: dont get full effect of sweep

Note: this is actually a transonic case, M = 0.93, = 2from AFFDL-TR-77-122, February 1978.

Typical Twist Distributions

from LAMDES on the software website
6.0
5.0
4.0
, 3.0
deg.
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0

Aft Swept Wing

0.2

0.4
0.6
y/(b/2)

0.8

Forward Swept Wing

7.0
6.0
5.0
, 4.0
deg. 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
y/(b/2)

A LAMDES artifact

0.8

Typical Camber Variation

0.05

= 0.925
= 0.475

0.04
0.03
(z-zle)/c
0.02

= 0.075

0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.2

0.2

0.4

x/c

0.6

0.8

1.2

Cambers from the LAMDES code on the software website

Relating 2D and 3D

The airfoil problem is converted to 2D (normal),

solved (designed), and put in the wing 3D

Canard-Wing Interaction

Canard wake
streams over
wing

canard wake extends to indinity

wing wake not shown

Upwash outboard
of canard tips
1.5
1.0
0.5
w 0.0
-0.5
A
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0

-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Downwash from canard across wing
at Section A-A

Example for Minimum Induced Drag

Calculations

Sample case in John Lamars NASA TN with LAMDES

Canard Wing Induced Drag

Note: The sample case may not be a good
design, the canard is too big.
0.0400

Computations from LamDes

0.0350

M = 0.3, CL = 0.5

Canard height
above wing ,z/b

CDi

0.1
0.2

0.0300
Static Margin

0.3

Stable Unstable
0.0250

Canard lift must be

negative to trim

Advantage of relaxed
static stability evident

0.0200
-0.4 -0.3
Forward

-0.2

-0.1

0.0
0.1
x/c

Advantage of vertical
separation clearly evident

0.2

0.3

0.4
Aft

Typical Required Twist Distribution

Forward Swept Wing

Aft Swept Wing

6.0
5.0
4.0
, 3.0 without
deg.2.0 canard
1.0
0.0
-1.0
0.0
0.2

8.0

in presence
of canard

6.0

canard tip
vortex effect
0.4
0.6
y/(b/2)

0.8

in presence
of canard

4.0
2.0
without
canard

0.0
-2.0
0.0
1.0

0.2

Actual twist values are heavily

dependent on the canard load!

canard tip
vortex effect

0.4 0.6
y/(b/2)

0.8

1.0

Some Variations: Tip treatment

A Whitcomb winglet

from Feifel, in NASA SP-405, 1976

The Raked Wingtip used

on the Boeing 767-400

Rounding the intersection

leads to a blended winglet
Note Yehudi
from Kroo, Ann. Rev. of Fluid Mech., 2001

Ground Effects from VLM

Solid lines: computed using JKayVLM
Dashed lines: from Kalman, Rodden and Giesing
Symbols: Experimental data

8.0
7.0

U
c/4

6.0

CL 5.0

AR

4.0

3.0

2.0
1.0

1
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

h/c

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.20
0.10

AR

CM

0.00

1
2
4

-0.10
-0.20
-0.30

Solid lines: computed using JKayVLM

Dashed lines: from Kalman, Rodden and Giesing
-0.40
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2

h/c

1.4

A completely new category

Slender Wings

Laser Light Sheet Leading Edge Vortex Flow

Light Sheet is a
great way to see
the LE vortex

Northrop IR & D
example of flow
over a delta wing
configuration.
Exhibited at the
36th Paris air
show.
Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 29, 1985

Vortex Lift

Drawback?
Its draggy lift

The Polhamus LE Suction Analogy

Another View of the Suction Analogy

R.M. Kulfan, Wing Geometry Effects on Leading Edge Vortices, AIAA 79-1872

Results of the Polhamus Suction Analogy

2.00
AR = 1.5 ( = 69.4)
Prediction from Polhamus
Leading Edge Suction Analogy
1.50
CL

Experimental data from

Bartlett and Vidal
Vortex
Lift

1.00

0.500
Potential
Lift
0.00
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Reduce Drag with a Vortex Flap?

The Concept

The reality?

Flight International, 16 March 1985

This concept was briefly popular,

but it proved too hard to achieve.

Strakes are also low aspect ratio wings. Because they

dont stall, even low tail designs can have
a nose-down moment problem
F-16

Forebody
Strakes

The Concorde Exploited Both Ground Effects

and Vortex Lift to be Even Somewhat Practical

Vortex
Burst

From Poisson-Quinton, Sustained Supersonic Cruise Aircraft Experience

And VLM works for Hypersonic Class Concepts

Jimmy Pittman and James Dillon, Vortex Lattice Prediction of Subsonic

Aerodynamics of Hypersonic Vehicle Concepts, Journal of Aircraft,
October 1977, pp. 1017-1018.

To Conclude

This just gives you the very basics

- no end to planform concepts, invent one yourself!