AI AA-84-2 163 On the Aerodynamic Optimization of Mini-RPV and Small GA Aircraft F. R.

Goldschmied, Monroeville, PA

AlAA 2nd Applied Aerodynamics Conference

August 21-23, 1984/Seattle, Washington
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019

ON

THE AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION OF MINI-RPV AND SMALL GA AIRCRAFl Foblo R. Goldschmied" Monruevi 1 le, PA 15146
Abstract F W Wing drag, l b J e t t o t a l - h e a d @ Sta. 5, l b l f t ' Total-head r i s e o f fan between S t a . 2 and 5, l b / f t 2 Wing l i f t , 7b n Fan soeed, RPM , Free-stream s t a t i c pressure, l b / f t 2 P5 qo = S t a t i c base pressure @ S t a . 5, l b l f t '

A b r i e f study has been c a r r i e d o u t on the adapt a t i o n of an optimized system comprising an axisymm e t r i c body, s u c t i o n boundary-layer c o n t r o l and s t e r n j e t - p r o p u l sion, which was developed o r i g i n a l l y f o r l i g h t e r - t h a n - a i r a p p l i c a t i o n , t o mini-RPV and small GA a i r c r a f t by t h e a d d i t i o n o f dynamic wina l i f t . For mini-RPV. c o n s i d e r a t i o n has been given t o fuselage diameters o f 20 and 34" w i t h a gross weight range from 125 t o 300 l b a t the speeds o f 100 and 150 Kn. The p r e d i c t e d powers ranged from 2.35 t o 16.20 HP.
For the GA a i r c r a f t , c o n s i d e r a t i o n has been given t o fuselage diameters o f 45 and 60" w i t h a gross weight range from 1400 t o 3400 l b a t t h e speed of 200 MPH. The p r e d i c t e d powers ranged from 60.6 t o 132.5 HP. Nomencl a t ure
A AR

H,
AH,,

w , 2

Free-stream dynamic pressure, l b / f t 2 Fan s u c t i o n flow, f t ' l s e c Thrust of fusel agelboundary-l ayer c o n t r o l / j e t system, l b Fan t i p speed, f t / s e c Free-stream v e l o c i t y , f t / s e c J e t v e l o c i t y @ Sta. 5, f t / s e c

4
T ut = nd,n
UO

Wing area, ft2 Aspect r a t i o Wing span, f t Wing chord, f t Wing drag c o e f f i c i e n t

B
C

V
NO
E l -

Fuselage volume, f t 3 Gross weight, l b wouo HP550 Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index Fan t o t a l e f f i c i e n c y Kinematic v i s c o s i t y o f a i r , f t 2 / s e c Mass d e n s i t y o f a i r , l b s e c 2 / f t 4

CH,,

4"
5

AH,

Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e c o e f f i c i e n t

'IF
V

CHT, =

q0 L

H, - Po

$ = n

Jet total-head c o e f f i c i e n t

A
diut

Fan f l o w parameter

CL =

q
q0

Wing l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t

P,

CP5 =

Introduction S t a t i c base pressure c o e f f i c i e n t @ Sta. 5 Fan s u c t i o n f l o w c o e f f i c i e n t The concept o f the optimum aerodynamic i n t e g r a t i o n of body p r e s s u r e - d i s t r i b u t i o n ( w i t h concomitant shape), s l o t - s u c t i o n boundary-layer c o n t r o l and s t e r n j e t - p r o p u l s i o n was presented i n 1967'; a windtunnel v e r i f i c a t i o n w i t h a s e l f - p r o p e l l e d t e s t model was presented i n 1982,' showing 50% power r e d u c t i o n as compared t o t h e best streamlined body w i t h s t e r n wake-propeller. An optimized LTA system was d e r i v e d from t h e above data' and i t was a l s o shown t h a t j e t p r o p u l s i o n o f a subsonic body w i t h f r e e t r a n s i t i o n was achieved w i t h j e t total-head equal t o f r e e stream's.' It can be noted t h a t , f o r t h e same mass flow, a conventional free-stream j e t p r o p u l s o r would have a j e t t o t a l - h e a d c o e f f i c i e n t CHT, = 4 o r , f o r t h e same diameter, a c o e f f i c i e n t CHT, = 2, as shown i n Ref. 5, on t h e b a s i s of the b e s t conventional streamlined body of equal volume. The o p t i m i z a t i o n of streamlined bodies by shape o n l y was presented i n 1974;6 f o r a l l - t u r b u l e n t boundary-layers, l i t t l e drag g a i n could be obtained by o p t i m i z i n g t h e shape. T h i s extensive program

CTw =

IW -

Thrust c o e f f i c i e n t f o r wing

qovo'66

CTo =

TO ___

Total t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t Diameter of fan, f t stern j e t and o f

qovo.66 d,

Diameter o f fuselage, f t

.-/

*Consulting Engineer; Associate F e l l o w A I A A . @Copyright 1984 by Fabio R. Goldschmied, P.E.

Released Io A l A A Io publish in a l l lorms.

proved c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t boundary-layer c o n t r o l and p r o p u l s i o n had t o be i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e body shape i f s u b s t a n t i a l power gain had t o be achieved. The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s paper i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e h e a v i e r - t h a n - a i r a p p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s optimized system, i . e . t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a l i f t i n g wing onto t h e fuselagefboundary-layer c o n t r o l f j e t p r o p u l s i o n system. The e v a l u a t i o n w i l l be c a r r i e d o u t on t h e b a s i s o f an aerodynamic e f f i f o r two classes o f a i r c i e n c y index 6 = W,U,/HP c r a f t , i.e. mini-RPV @ 100 and 150 Kn and small GA (General A v i a t i o n ) 2-seat and 4-seat a i r c r a f t 0 200 MPH. Qtimizeo Body/Boundary-Layer C o n t r o l / Jet-Propblsion System: *Tunnel Te-ss_t The wind-tunnel t e s t program o f t h e 20" diameter s e l f - p r o p e l l e d model was c a r r i e d o u t i n 1981 i n t h e 8x10 low-speed wind tunnel o f t h e David T a y l o r Naval Ship R&D Center; t h e t e s t program was q u i t e extensive as i t comprised o v e r 800 t e s t p o i n t s organized i n 86 t e s t runs. The t e s t r e s u l t s a r e The b a s i c t e s t presented i n Refs. 2, 3 and 4. model w i t h open j e t (Conf. 00) i s shown i n F i 1 (starboard photo) and i n F i g . 2 ( s t e r n photoy: I n F i g . 1 t h e 12" chord s t r u t can be p l a i n l y seen as l a r g e as a wing would be; i t s i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t i s a l r e a d y accounted f o r i n a l l t h e t e s t results. F i o u r e 2 shows c l e a r l y t h e t h r e e r a d i a l rakes i n t h e j e t nozzle t o measure t h e f l o w and t h e j e t total-head.

. .:. ..
/j

:.:. : : : .

Fig. 2

Stern photo o f wind-tunnel t e s t model (Conf. 00)

Fig. 3 Fig.

1 Starboard photo o f wind-tunnel (Conf. 00)

t e s t model

P o r t photo o f wind-tunnel t e s t model w i t h t a i l b o o m (Conf. 01)

The a x i a l force ( d r a g o r t h r u s t ) measurements were based b o t h on t h e wake's momentum balance, as i n d i c a t e d b y a wake rake, and on t h e f o r c e e x e r t e d on t h e s t r u t , as i n d i c a t e d by t h e windtunnel balance which was supporting t h e s t r u t .

A t t h e h i g h e r t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t s , above CT = 0.010, t h e r e was i n a l l cases e x c e l l e n t agreement between t h e two types of a x i a l f o r c e measurements, as shown i n Figs. 7, 8 and 9; t h e r e f o r e t h e t h r u s t data cannot be d i s p u t e d i n any way.
The model was a l s o t e s t e d w i t h a t a i l b o o m i n t h e j e t nozzle (Conf. 01) as shown i n F i g . 3.

The l a y o u t o f t h e t e s t model's aftbody w i t h t h e s u c t i o n s l o t , f a n i n s t a l l a t i o n and j e t nozzle i s shown i n F i g . 4 . While t h e fan should have been a t S t a t i o n 5, t h e arrangement shown had t o be accepted f o r p r a c t i c a l reasons. The fan mass-flow weighted mean pressure r i s e i s computed between S t a t i o n s 2 and 5, w i t h t h e flow being measured a t S t a t i o n 5; t h e f a n a i r power i s determined by t h e product of f l o w and pressure r i s e . Figure 5 presents a photo o f t h e a x i a l f a n i n s t a l l a t i o n i n t h e forebody of t h e wind-tunnel t e s t model: t h e fan discharae i s i n t h e l e f t foresround, w h i l e t h e f a n i n t a k e i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e Founded edge i n s i d e t h e forebody.

. _ .

L&&1
R =ssx106
I...

iMSz

1.0 0

0.7 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 12

1.4

1.6 . 1.8 . L.-L . 2 . 0 2.2 L . . .2.4 U . 2.6

2.8

1.0

Dimanrianler~h i d l 0iildnce. XI0

Fig. 6

Experimental s t a t i c - p r e s s u r e d i s t r i b u t i o n on t e s t model @ 6" angle o f a t t a c k

System A n a l y s i s

Fig. 4 Aftbody l a y o u t with s u c t i o n - s l o t , fan i n s t a l l a t i o n and j e t nozzle (Conf. 00)

A procedure has been developed f o r t h e a d d i t i o n of wings t o t h e body and f o r t h e computation o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l t h r u s t acquired from the j e t t o countera c t t h e w i n o ' s draa. The w i n o ' s l i f t l d r a a r a t i o s have been coGputed i r o m c l a s s i c a l NACA data;' better r e s u l t s could be obtained w i t h modern a i r f o i l s such as the Liebeck, t h e NASA GA(W)-l and -2, e t c . The fan performance has been based on t h e t e s t e d NASA a x i a l r o t o r / s t a t o r stage 516; t h e s t a g e ' s design and experimental performance i s given i n Ref. 8. The experimental wind-tunnel t e s t data of Ref. 2 have been r e p l o t t e d i n the complete t h r u s t range and a r e shown i n Figs. 7, 8 , 9 , 11, 12 and 13. The f a n s e l e c t i o n p l o t i s given i n F i g . 10, w i t h t h e 516 performance curves r e l a t i n g pressure, f l o w and efficiency. The computational procedure comprising 15 steps i s given below:
1. S e l e c t t h e max. c r u i s e speed U , and the corresponding dynamic pressure qo; determine o r estimate the gross weight Wo.

2. Select fuselage diameter t o y i e l d adequate cabin space and/or equipment volume.

3. Assume l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t CL o f wing @ max. c r u i s i n g speed. Compute t h e wing l o a d i n g qoCL and A l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t CL t h e wing area A = Wo/qoCL. = 0.40 i s selected f o r the mini-RPV and CL : 0.30 i s selected f o r t h e GA a i r c r a f t . 4. Compute the wing chord and span, assuming a wing a s p e c t - r a t i o AR = 10 and constant chord: Photo o f f a n i n s t a l l a t i o n i n wind-tunnel t e s t model The t y p i c a l stepwise s t a t i c pressure d i s t r i b u t i o n on the body i s shown i n F i g . 6 a t 0' and 6' angle of a t t a c k . The stepwise d i s t r i b u t i o n i s used ( w i t h s u i t a b l e boundary-layer c o n t r o l ) t o avoid t h e l a r g e growth o f t h e boundary-layer momentum-thickness which n o n n a l l v occurs i n t h e adverse Dressure g r a d i e n t area "and t o achieve v e r y low e x t e r n a l wake drags, a s shown i n Refs. 1 and 2. While i n Refs. 2, 3 and 4 the wind-tunnel t e s t data were p l o t t e d o n l y up t o CT = 0.020, since the main focus was on the e q u i l i b r i u m p o i n t (CT = O ) , i n t h i s paper a l l the a v a i l a b l e t e s t data a r e p l o t ted, f o r both f r e e t r a n s i t i o n on the body and f o r t r a n s i t i o n t r i p p e d a t 10% l e n g t h . 3 Fig. 5

=Q

1oc

A c t u a l l y the wing may have a t a p e r r a t i o and t h e computed chord value i s the niean chord. 5. Compute t h e wing l i f t / d r a g r a t i o a t t h e selected CL p o i n t , using one o f the f o l l o w i n g two experimental equations from Ref. 7 ( F i g . 18, p . 21) f o r wings of aspect r a t i o AR = 10: a. b. Cg=O.0068+0.0343 Cf (NACA 23018 A i r f o i l ) (NACA 653-418 A i r f o i l )

Cg=0.0045+0.0383 Cf

.....:... .

A parametric wing design study should be made, i n the manner of Koegler,' b u t i t i s beyond the scope o f t h i s b r i e f paper.

6.

Compute the drag o f t h e wing:

Fw =

cL/cD

WO

since t h e wing l i f t must equal t h e gross weight W,. Compute the t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t :

r e q u i r e d t o generate t h e t h r u s t t o counterbalance t h e wing drag. Add 10% t o the wing t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t f o r wing/fuselage i n t e r f e r e n c e drag, although the model was t e s t e d i n t h e wind-tunnel w i t h a s t r u t l a r g e enough t o be a wing; a l s o add another t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t increment o f 0.003 f o r t h e empennage and t a i l b o m s .
CT,
=

CTw

0.10 CTw

0.003
L

I n the wind-tunnel t e s t s o f Ref. 2, an empennage adequate t o y i e l d n e u t r a l s t a t i c s t a b i l i t y t o t h e body up t o 8' had an incremental power c o e f f i c i e n t o f o n l y 0.0020. Obtain t h e value o f t h e f a n a i r power coeff ic i e n t :

._
L

Y rn

7.

0.02k
M I
0 1 *

from t h e experimental p l o t C H P ~ J vs CT a s presented i n Fig. 7, corresponding t o the above C T , f o r the f r e e t r a n s i t i o n o r f o r t h e t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n case, as warranted by t h e Reynolds number and b y operat i o n a l considerations.

0.01

0.02

0.03

0 .M

Thrust Coefficient CT =Tk,Vo'66 Fig. 7 Fan a i r power c o e f f i c i e n t CHP25 vs T h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT

8. cient:

Obtain the value o f the f a n f l o w c o e f f i -

from t h e experimental p l o t CQs vs CT as presented i n Fig. 8, corresponding t o the above C T , f o r the f r e e t r a n s i t i o n o r f o r the t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n case, as warranted by the Reynolds number and by operat i o n a l considerations. Compute t h e f a n f l o w 4 = cq, x U 0 V Q . 6 6 .

..*

9. Obtain the value o f t h e fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coefficient :

CHli
= 2 qo
An

0.03-

Transition

vs CT as presented from t h e experimental p l o t C H ~ S T , f o r the i n F i g . 9, corresponding t o the above C f r e e t r a n s i t i o n o r f o r the t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n case, as warranted bv the Revnolds number and bv ooerat i o n a l consid&ations. Compute the fan i r e b e x q . , r i s e AH,,= CH,,
~

10. The s e l e c t i o n o f the best a x i a l r o t o r / s t a t o r stage f o r the j o b r e q u i r e s t h e computation o f t h e f a n system r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t O ' / $ i n the O N domain :

15

a"@

LY 5
=

--2

3557

Fig. 8

Fan f l o w c o e f f i c i e n t CQ5 vs Thrust c o e f f i c i e n t CT

1.00

,*

NASA Axial

Transition

0.4 Thrust Coefficient CT = T/qoVa6 Fig. 9 Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e c o e f f i c i e n t CH2s vs Thrust c o e f f i c i e n t CT

03 -Fan System Resistance

0 .2 Y

The denomination of $ i s t h e f a n f l o w parameter:

@=$-

d:ut

0 . 1-

The denomination of parameter:

i s the fan total-pressure

I

0.2

0 . 3 0.4 0.5 Fan Flw Parameter 0

0.6

The f a n diameter corresponds t o t h e j e t diameter d, ; u t = n d S n i s t h e fan t i p speed and P i s t h e a i r mass d e n s i t y . Figure 10 presents t h e $4 p l o t w i t h two fan system r e s i s t a n c e curves, r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e max. and min. encountered i n t h i s study, and and w i t h t h e experimental performance curves $4 $ - n ~of t h e selected NASA a x i a l r o t o r / s t a t o r stage 518; i t can be seen t h a t a f a i r l y good match i s achieved, i . e . t h e fan w i l l operate between 88.3 and 90.6% e f f i c i e n c y . Fan aerodynamic s e l e c t i o n procedures a r e discussed thoroughly i n Section 6 o f Ref. 10.

Fig. 10 Fan pressure parameter and t o t a l e f f i c i e n c y QF vs fan f l o w parameter $

13.

The j e t t o t a l - h e a d c o e f f i c i e n t CHT, = Hs- Po __ qo

11.

The fan speed i s computed: n =-c - q5

$

i s determined from t h e p l o t of Fig. 11 and t h e j e t v e l o c i t y r a t i o Us/U, i s determined from t h e p l o t o f Fig. 12 f o r t h e f r e e t r a n s i t i o n o r t h e t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n cases, as warranted by Reynolds number and opera t ional con s i dera t i on s. 14. The j e t s t a t i c base pressure c o e f f i c i e n t CP, i s determined from t h e p l o t of Fig. 13. I t can be seen t h a t t h e s t a t i c base pressure c o e f f i c i e n t range i s v e r y high; CPs w i l l be over 0.8 f o r t h e t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t range of t h i s study. A s a reference, Ref. 11 shows t h a t t h e base pressure c o e f f i c i e n t o f conventional b o a t t a i l / j e t a f t e r b o d i e s i s i n t h e 0.10 t o 0.15 range.
15. The f i n a l step i s t h e computation o f t h e aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index:

a
VO.33

130.13 RPS

The value of t h e fan flow parameter i s determined i n Fig. 10 from t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of t h e fan system r e s i s t a n c e curve w i t h t h e NASA 518 performance curve. The range of $ i s from 0.485 t o 0.508. S i m i l a r l y , t h e f a n e f f i c i e n c y n~ i s determined i n F i g . 10 from t h e NASA 51B e f f i c i e n c y curve a t t h e above 0 l o c a t i o n . The f a n diameter i s assumed t o correspond t o t h e s t e r n j e t diameter: ds = 0.1625D. 12. The fan shaft power can be computed now from t h e C H P 2 5 value of Step 7 and t h e above e f f i c i e n c y determination f o r an a v a i l a b l e fan design:

The index expresses t h e power r e q u i r e d t o f l y t h e a i r c r a f t s gross weight a t t h e max. c r u i s e speed; t h e r e f o r e , i t i s a good i n d i c a t i o n of t h e e f f i c i e n c y of t h e aerodynamic design when comparing two a i r c r a f t a t t h e same speed.
5

M i n i -RPV Mini-RPV aerodynamic design has n o t achieved y e t an adequate degree of e f f i c i e n c y f o r t h e m i s s i o n speed and endurance requirements. Considering t y p i c a l c u r r e n t v e h i c l e s such as t h e A i r Force/Boeing Pave Tiger, t h e Atmy/Lockheed Aquila, t h e I s r a e l A i r c r a f t i n d u s t r i e s Scout, t h e Tadiran M a s t i f f MK3 and t h e Developmental Sciences Sky Eye, i t i s found t h a t t h e gross weight ranges from 220 t o 380 l b , t h e maximum c r u i s i n g speed ranges from 8 5 t o 100 Kn and t h e engine powers range from 22 t o 30 HP. The aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index ranges from 2.5 t o 3.5. The wind-tunnel t e s t model,2"'4 w i t h i t s diameter D = 20.0 i n . and 100 Kn speed, may be c l a s s i f i e d a s a f u l l - s c a l e mini-RPV; Table 1 presents i t s performance d a t a f o r 125, 150 and 175 l b gross weights w i t h a s u i t a b l e wing (CL = 0.40) and empennage. Table 1 20" Diameter ( V = 6 . 2 ft3)Mini-RPV P 100 Kn (qo = 34.1 PSF) (Free T r a n s i t i o n ) Gross Weight

L&
1

9 , - '\FreeTransiiion

and Transition Tripped B 58%

I

fi
Coni.
Wake
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04
0.66
vS

0.05

Thrust Ccefficient CT = T/q 0V

F i g . 11 J e t t o t a l - h e a d c o e f f i c i e n t CHT, T h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT

1.8

W,

lb

125 I t 13.6 9.19 0.958 9.58 37.6 3.32 0.0285 0.034E 0.060 0.0237 13.50 2.54 86.36

150 l b 13.6 11.03 1.050 10.50 37.6 3.99 0.0348 0.0412 0.0685 0.0252 14.35 2.80 95.20 0.805 35,756 3.25 90.50 2.78 2.90 1.42 1.10 17.20

175 l b 13.6 12.86 1.134 11.34 37.6 4.65 1.0406 1.0476 1.0755 1.0264 15.03 3.05 103.70 0.811 37,311 3.25 90.75 3.12 3.16 1.51 1.10 18.22

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ CL= 0.4 PSF Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, Wing chord, C Wing span, B L i f t / d r a g r a t i o of wing, CL/CD @ CL = 0.40
ft2
ft ft

0. 2

01 0

CL Drag of wing, Fw = W o / ~
01
I I
I

lo
I

0.01

0.02

0.

-IJ
0.05

Thrust coeff. f o r wing Total t h r u s t coeff. Fan a i r power coeff. Fan f l o w c o e f f . CQ, Fan f l o w 9 Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coeff. Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e
AH2 i

CTw CTa

0. M

Thrust Ccefficient CT = TPoVo'66 F i g . 1 2 J e t v e l o c i t y - r a t i o U,/U, c o e f f i c i e n t CT vs Thrust

C H P , CFS
CHzs

PSF

1.4,

Fan system-resi stance coeff. Fan speed, n Fan diameter, d, Fan e f f i c i e n c y , '?F Fan shaft power Jet total-head coeff. Jet velocity r a t i o

0.785
@2/*

RPM

in.
%
HP

33,964 3.25 89.75 2.35 2.66 1.35 1.04

CHT5
U,/Uo

0.01

0.02

I
0.05

0.03

0.M

Thrust Ccefliclent C l =T/qoVo'M F i g . 1 3 J e t s t a t i c base pressure c o e f f i c i e n t T h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT

CP,

J e t s t a t i c base pressure c o e f f . Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index

cp5
F.

16.34
~

vs

__

With f r e e t r a n s i t i o n t h e f a n s h a f t powers a r e 3 HP and l e s s a t t h e 100 Kn speed; t h e aerodynamic The engine may be e f f i c i e n c y index i s o v e r 16. an a v a i l a b l e Fox Twin, y i e l d i n g 3 H P @ 14,500 RPM and weighing 3 l b w i t h mount and m u f f l e r . Table 2 presents t h e performance data o f t h e same 20 i n . fuselage a t 150 Kn speed w i t h f r e e t r a n s i t i o n , w h i l e Table 2a presents t h e corresponding data w i t h t r a n s i t i o n t r i p p e d @ 10% l e n g t h on t h e fuselage, f o r gross weights of 150, 175 and 200 l b . It i s found t h a t t h e fan s h a f t powers a r e l e s s than 7 HP w i t h f r e e t r a n s i t i o n and l e s s than 8 HP w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n ; t h e corresponding aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index values a r e over 13 and 10, respectively. As a d i r e c t comparison w i t h a c u r r e n t mini-RPV design, t h e fuselage diameter was increased t o 34 i n . t o match b o t h t h e l a t e r a l dimension and t h e l e n g t h of t h e A i r Force/Boeing Pave T i g e r ' s fuselage; Table 3 presents t h e performance data @ 100 Kn w i t h free t r a n s i t i o n w h i l e Table 3a presents t h e corresponding data w i t h t r a n s i t i o n t r i p p e d @ 10% length, f o r gross weights o f 225, 250 and 275 1b.

With f r e e t r a n s i t i o n t h e fan shaft powers a r e l e s s than 6 HP w h i l e w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n t h e powers a r e l e s s than 20 HP; t h i s may be compared w i t h t h e 28 HP enaine o f t h e 250 l b Pave T i a e r . The aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index values a r e over 14 and 11, r e s p e c t i v e l y . F i n a l l y , Table 4 presents t h e performance data of t h e 34 i n . diameter fuselage a t 150 Kn w i t h gross weights of 250, 275 and 300 l b and w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n . It can be noted t h a t t h i s case w i t h 300 l b represents a s u b s t a n t i a l performance improvement over t h e Pave T i g e r , i n b o t h speed (50% gain) and weight (20% gain); t h e f a n s h a f t power i s 16 HP and t h e aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index i s 8.75. I t can be noted t h a t , w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n , t h e r e i s no l a m i n a r f l o w r i s k and t h a t t h e t u r b u l e n t power c o e f f i c i e n t s should a c t u a l l y be lower because t h e Reynolds number i s h i g h e r by t h e f a c t o r 1.7 x 1.5 = 2.55.
A schematic l a y o u t of t h e proposed mini-RPV conf i g u r a t i o n i s shown i n Fig. 14; t h e pylon/wing arrangement was proposed b y Larrabee" f o r g l i d e r s so as t o maximize t h e w i n g ' s l i f t . I t can be noted t h a t t h e pylon/fuselage i n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t was a l r e a d y simulated i n t h e wind-tunnel t e s t s by t h e strut. The wing span i s 162 i n . and t h e useful fuselage l e n g t h i s 83 in., w h i l e t h e o v e r a l l fusel a g e l e n g t h i s 127 i n . The empennage i s supported by a s i n g l e boom.

7
~

Table 2

20" Diameter ( V = 6.2 ft') Mini-RPV @ 150 Kn (qo = 77.3 PSF) (Free T r a n s i t i o n )
175 l b

__
~

203 l b 30.8 6.49 0.805 8.05 37.6 5.32

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ C ~ = o . 4

30.8 4.87 0.697 6.97 37.6 5.68 0.753 7.53 37.6 4.65 0.0179 0.0226 0.0432 0.0210 17.89 2.05 158.8 0.763 45,412 3.25 89.6 5.74 2.20 1.20 0.89 14.00

S m a l l General A v i a t i o n A i r c r a f t Small GA a i r c r a f t cornwise another cateoorv. .. t o which t h i s system a n a l y s i s may be a p p l i e d w i t h interesting results.
~

Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, f t 2 Wing chord, C Wing span, B

V

=t

L i f t / d r a g r a t i o o f w' CL/CO @ CL = 0.40 Drag of wing, Fw = W0/% CL

Table 2a

3.99 0.015: 0.0191 0.039! 0.020; 17.20 1.94

20" Diameter ( V = 6.2 f t 3 )Mini-RPV @ 150 Kn (qo = 77.3 PSF) ( T r a n s i t i o n Tripped @ 10% Length)
Wo

Thrust c o e f f . f o r wing CTw Total t h r u s t coeff.

0.0205 0.0255 0.0471 0.0216 18.40 2.16 166.9 0.766 46,617 3.25 89.7 6.26 2.30 1.25 0.93 14.69

Gross Weight

lb

__
150 11

175 I t 0.022 0.054: 0.0227 19.3 2.35 181.6 0.778 49,835 3.25 89.9 7.19 2.40 1.32 1.02 11.19

200 l b 0.0255 0.0587 0.0234 19.9 2.48 191.7 0.783 50,140 3.25 90.2 7.75 2.50 1.36 1.06 11.84

CT,

T o t a l t h r u s t coeff. Fan f l o w c o e f f . CQ,

CT,

0.019c 0.050 0.022; 18.9 2.24 173.1 0.781 49,034 3.25 88.3 6.75 2.28 1.28 0.98 10.40

Fan a i r power c o e f f . CHP,, Fan f l o w c o e f f . CQ, Fan flow Q Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coeff. Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e
AH,,

Fan a i r power c o e f f . CHPZS Fan f l o w Q CFS Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coeff. C H , Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e AH* 5 PSF Fan system-resi stance coeff. '$2/$ RPM Fan speed, n Fan diameter, d5 Fan e f f i c i e n c y ,
' i ~

CFS CH2 5

150.0
PSF

Fan system-resi stance coeff. Fan speed, n Fan diameter, d S Fan e f f i c i e n c y , 'iF Fan s h a f t power Jet velocity r a t i o J e t s t a t i c base pressure c o e f f .
4

0.746
'$2/

RPM

44,071 3.25 89.0

5.29

in.
%

in.
%

H P
U,/Uo

J e t t o t a l - h e a d coeff. CHTs

2.06 1.16 0.86

Fan s h a f t power HP J e t total-head c o e f f . CHTS Jet velocity r a t i o J e t s t a t i c base pressure coeff. Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index U,/Uo cp5
E

cp5
E

Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index

13.00

__

Table 3

34" D i a k t e r ( V = 30.5 ft3)Mini-RPV @ 100 Kn (so = 34.1 PSF) (Free T r a n s i t i o n )

Table 4

34" Diameter ( V = 30.5 ft') Mini-RPV @ 150 Kn (so = 77.3 PSF) ( T r a n s i t i o n Tripped @ 10% Length)

Gross Weight

__
!50 I t
~

Wo

lb

225 l b
~

175 l b
~

Gross Weight

Wo

lb

250 l b 30.8 275 l b 30.8

I00 l b

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ C ~ = 0 . 4 PSF Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, f t Z Wing chord, C ft Wing span, B ft L i f t / d r a g r a t i o of wing, CL/CO @ CL = 0.40 Drag of wing, Fw = CL

__
30.8
9.74 0.986 9.86 37.6

13.6 16.5 1.284 12.84 37.6 5.98 1.0180 1.0228 1.0436 1.0210 34.95 2.05 69.9 0.763 :7,916 5.525 89.10 4.98 2.20 1.20 0.90 14.0

13.6 18.4 1.356 13.56 37.6 6.65 1.0201 1.0251 1.046f 1.021f 35.94 2.14 72.9 D.773
8,354 5.525 89.40 5.29 2.30 1.24 0.92

13.6 20.2 1.421 14.21 37.6 7.31 'LO221 1.0273 8.0495 '.0220 36.60 2.23 76.0 3.770 8.619 5.525 39.60 5.65 2.38 1.26 0.95 15.1

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ C~'0.4 PSF Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, f t Z Wing chord, C ft Wing span, B ft L i f t / d r a g r a t i o o f wing, CL/CD @ CL = 0.40 CL Drag o f wing, Fw = W o / r l b 0 Thrust c o e f f . f o r wing CTw Total t h r u s t coeff. CT, Fan a i r power c o e f f . CHP,, Fan f l o w c o e f f . CQs Fan f l o w Q CFS Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coeff. CH25 Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e AH*, PSF Fan system-resi stance coeff. Fan speed, n RPM Fan diameter, d in. Fan e f f i c i e n c y , QF % Fan s h a f t power HP J e t total-head c o e f f . CHTs Jet velocity r a t i o U& J e t s t a t i c base CP 5 pressure c o e f f . Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y E index

6.65 0.0089 0.0128 0.0390 0.0198 48.8 1.92 148.4 0.724 25,862 5.525 88.4 15.00 1.90 1.15 0.87 7.72

7.31 0.0098 0.0138 0.0405 0.0202 49.8 1.98 153.0 0.731

7.98 1.0106 1.0146 1.0416 1.0205 50.5 2.02 156.3 0.738 5,557 5.525 88.8 16.20 2.00 1.18 0.90
8.75

Thrust c o e f f . f o r wing CTw Total t h r u s t coeff. CT, Fan a i r power coeff. CHP,, Fan f l o w coeff. C Q 5 Fan f l o w Q CFS Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e CHss coeff. Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e AH, PSF Fan system-resi stance $2/* coeff. Fan speed, n RPM Fan diameter, d in. Fan e f f i c i e n c y , n~ % HP Fan s h a f t power J e t t o t a l - h e a d c o e f f . CHT5 Jet velocity r a t i o U,/Uo J e t s t a t i c base CPS pressure c o e f f . E Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index

__

m2/*

'

26,276 5.525 88.6 15.70 1.96 1.16 0.89

8.19

14.6

__

Table 3a

34" Diameter ( V = 30.5 ft') Mini-RPV P 100 Kn (qo = 34.1 PSF) ( T r a n s i t i o n Tripped @ 10% Length)
~

Gross Weight

Wo

lb
~

275 l b 0.0273 0.0612 0.0237 39.43 2.54 86.6

T o t a l t h r u s t coeff. Fan a i r power coeff. Fan flow c o e f f . CQ, Fan f l o w Q Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coeff. Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e
AH25

CTO CHP,, CFS

CH,,

Table 5 l i s t s t h e p e r t i n e n t parameters of t h r e e c u r r e n t 2-seat personal GA a i r c r a f t by Beech, Cessna and Piper; t h e gross weight i s n e a r l y t h e same (1670 t o 1675 l b ) and so i s t h e speed (121 t o 127 MPH) and t h e engine power (108 t o 115 HP). The aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index i s i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f 5.0. The fuselage diameter i s selected a t 45 i n . so as t o accommodate two tandem seats; t h e cabin arrangement l a y o u t i s shown i n Fig. 15. I t has been observed t h a t minimum cabin h e i g h t i s 42 i n . and t h e minimum seat spacing dimension i s 36 i n . The speed has been selected t o be 200 MPH i n s t e a d of 125 MPH because i t represents present GA speed f o r small personal a i r c r a f t . Table 6 presents t h e performance data f o r gross weights of 1400, 1675 and 1800 l b w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n . I t can be seen t h a t t h e fan s h a f t power i s l e s s than 72 HP and t h e aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index i s over 12.0. T h i s performance y i e l d s a 60% speed improvement, a 33% power gain and a 7.5% gross weight enhancement. l h e schematic l a y o u t o f t h i s 2-seat GA c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s shown i n Fig. 16, w i t h a mid-wing arrangement w i t h 0.45 t a p e r r a t i o and 277 i n . o v e r a l l span. The useful fuselage l e n g t h i s 110 i n . w h i l e t h e o v e r a l l fuselage l e n g t h i s 130 i n . The empennage i s supported b y a t w i n boom and i t comorises t w i n rudders.
8

PSF

Fan system-resistance coeff. Fan speed, n RPM Fan diameter, d5 in. Fan e f f i c i e n c y , n~ % Fan s h a f t power HP J e t total-head coeff. CHT, Jet velocity r a t i o U,/Uo J e t s t a t i c base CP 5 pressure coeff. Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y E index

m2/+

0.785 20,018 5.525 89.8 6.90 2.56 1.38 1.08 12.26

>

48"

I I

4-Seat Cabin Arrangement

- 60"

Oia. Fuselage
L

110"

6.7'

n
U

2-Seat Cabin Arrangement

- 45"

Dia. Fuselage

F i g . 1 5 Cabin arrangement l a y o u t f o r GA a i r c r a f t Table 6

45" Diameter ( V = 70.6 f t 3 )E4 A i r c r a f t @ 200 MPH (qo = 104 PSF) ( T r a n s i t i o n Tripped @ 10%Length)
Wo

Gross Weight

lb

F i g . 14

Schematic l a y o u t of mini-RPY c o n f i g u r a t i o n 2-Seat E4 A i r c r a f t @ 120 MPH (qo = 37.0 PSF)

Table 5

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ C ~ = 0 . 3 PSF Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, f t 2 Mean wing chord, C ft Wing span, B ft L i f t / d r a g r a t i o of wing, CL/CO @ CL 0.30
i

-- 1400 1b 675 1 I __ - 800 1b

31.2 44.8 2.11 21.1 38.3 36.5 0.0206 0.0256 0.0588 0.0234 117.1 2.45 254.8 0.793 25,777 7.31 90.1 60.6 2.5 1.37 0.92 12.1 31.2 53.7 2.31 23.1 38.3 43.7 1.024; 1.030: 1.0651 1.0241 122.1 2.66 276.6 0.794 !6,82! 7.31
90.2 68.6

31.2

57.7 2.40 24.0 38.3 47.0 1.0265 1.0321 1.0685 1.0248 124.1 2.74 284.9 0.796 17,211 7.31 90.3 71.6 2.74 1.44 1.11

___
Beech 77 ,kipper

__
Empty weight Gross weight Wing span Wing area Wing l o a d i n g Length Engine power Max. c r u i s e speed Wing l i f t coeff. Aerodynamic efficiency index
W Wo

Cessna Piper 152 PA-38-112 i e r o b a t Tomahawk 2

CL Drag o f wing, Fw = Wo/rlb

lb

1,103

Ib
ft ft'

1,675

B
A W/A
2 .

30.0
130

124.7
24.1

PSF
ft

12.88 24.0 115 121 0.341 122 0.272 5.04 23.1

HP

Uo
CL

MPH

127 0.322 5.05

4.70

Thrust coeff. f o r wing CTw CTo Total t h r u s t coeff. Fan a i r power c o e f f . CHP,, Fan f l o w coeff. CQ, Fan f l o w Q CFS Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e coef f C"* 5 Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e AH,, PSF Fan system-resistance coeff. Fan speed, n RPM Fan diameter, d5 in. Fan e f f i c i e n c y , ' 1 ~ % Fan s h a f t power HP J e t t o t a l - h e a d c o e f f . CHTs Jet velocity r a t i o U,/Uo

m n '

Note: The above data were d e r i v e d from A v i a t i o n Week & Space Technology, March 12, 1984, p. 144.

J e t s t a t i c base cp5 pressure c o e f f . Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y E

index

2.66 1.41 1.10

13.0

13.3

Table 7 l i s t s th'e p e r t i n e n t parameters o f f i v e c u r r e n t 4-seat GA a i r c r a f t b y Maule, Mooney, Piper, Cessna and Beech, w i t h speed from 196 t o 201 MPH, gross weights from 2500 t o 3400 l b and engine powers from 200 t o 285 HP. The aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index ranges from 6.5 t o 7.9. The cabin dimensions f o r f o u r seats a r e t y p i c a l l y 43 i n . width, 48 i n . h e i g h t and 92 i n . l e n g t h ; a fuselage diameter o f 60 i n . has been selected and t h e cabin l a y o u t arrangement i s shown i n F i g . 15. Table 8 presents the performance data f o r gross weights of 2500, 2900 and 3400 l b a t 200 MPH w i t h t r i p p e d t r a n s i t i o n . I t i s seen t h a t f o r the lowest weight t h e f a n s h a f t power i s 110, f o r a gain o f 47%; f o r the middle weight t h e f a n power i s 120 HP, f o r a gain o f 40%, w h i l e f o r t h e top weight t h e f a n power i s 132 HP, f o r a gain o f 53%.

Table 7

4-Seat 6R A i r c r a f t @ 200 MPH (so = 104 PSF)

__
2125 3400 33.5 181.0 18.8
Length Engine power
M a x ' cruise speed
ft

24.4

24.7

27.3

28.6

26.7

HP 210.0 200.0

200.0 235.0 285.0 198.0 199.0 198.0 0.167 0.172 0.184 7.90 7.22 6.50

U , MPH
CL
E

196.0 201.0 0.157 0.148 6.49 7.47

r - r f l

;
1

2-Seat GA Aircraft Schematic Layout Confiouration 1675 6 Gross Weight

68 HP (Tripped Trans. I

Wing l i f t coeff. Aerodynamic efficiency index

__
500 1t
31.2

Gross Weight

W,

lb

__

Wing l o a d i n g qoCL @ C ~ = 0 . 3 PSF Wing area A = Wo/qoCL, f t 2 Mean wing chord, C ft Wing span, 8 ft L i f t / d r a g r a t i o o f wing, CL/CO @ CL = 0.30 CL Drag of wing, Fw = Wo/-lb CD Thrust c o e f f . f o r wing CTw Total t h r u s t c o e f f . CTO Fan a i r power c o e f f . CHP,, Fan f l o w c o e f f . CQ, Fan flow Q CFS Fan p r e s s u r e - r i se coeff. CH.. Fan p r e s s u r e - r i s e AH". PSF / < Fan system-resistance $%4 coeff. R P M Fan speed, n Fan diameter, d, in. Fan e f f i c i e n c y , 'IF % Fan shaft power HP J e t total-head c o e f f . CHT5 Jet velocity r a t i o U5/Uo
L D

!900 1b 31.2 92.9 3.04 30.4 38.3 75.7 0.0240 0.0794 0.0644 0.0242 215.6 2.64 274.5 0.787 19,96C 9.75 90.2 120.1 2.64 1.41 1.09 12.88

1400 1b 31.2

108.9 3.30 33.0 38.3 88.7 3.0281 5.0339 5.0712 3.0252 224.5 2.82 293.2 0.800 20,744 9.75 90.4 132.5 2.81 1.46 1.12 13.68

80. 1 2.83 28.3 38.3 65.2

1.02Oi 1.025i 1.059( 1.023! 209.4 2.48

257.9 0.790 19,42; 9.75 90.0 110.3 2.50 1.37 1.06 12.08

F i g . 16 Schematic l a y o u t o f 2-seat GA a i r c r a f t configuration

J e t s t a t i c base cp, pressure c o e f f . Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y E index

e
~

10

The aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index i s over 12.0. The schematic l a y o u t o f t h e 4-seat GA c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s shown i n F i g . 17; a high-wing arrangement was selected w i t h a span o f 360 i n . and a 0.45 t a p e r r a t i o . The useful f u s e l a g e l e n g t h i s 147 i n . w h i l e the o v e r a l l fuselaoe l e n o t h i s 174 i n . The emDennage i s supported -by t w i n booms and i t comprises t w i n rudders. Conclusions
I t has been shown t h a t t h e simole a d d i t i o n o f a conventional NACA wing t o t h e t e s t e d optimized system comprising axisymmetric body, boundary-layer c o n t r o l and s t e r n j e t p r o p u l s i o n y i e l d s a p r e d i c t e d a i r c r a f t perfonnance which i s s u p e r i o r t o c u r r e n t mini-RPV and small GA a i r c r a f t l e v e l s .

A 250 l b gross weight mini-RPV could a t 100 Kn w i t h 7.0 HP; a 2-seat 1675 l b GA could be f l o w n a t 200 MPH w i t h 69 HP, and 2900 l b GA a i r c r a f t could be f l o w n a t 200 120 HP.

be f l o w n aircraft a 4-seat MPH w i t h

The general t r e n d of t h e aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index E a g a i n s t t h e t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT i s shown i n F i g . 18 f o r b o t h f r e e t r a n s i t i o n and t r a n s i t i o n t r i p p e d a t 10% l e n g t h ; i t can be seen t h a t t h e t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t should be k e p t above a value of 0.025 i n o r d e r t o achieve aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y T h i s can be done b y index values above 12. 0. a d j u s t i n g t h e gross weight Wo a g a i n s t t h e f u s e l a g e volume V and t h e speed Uo. B e t t e r r e s u l t s can be expected if t h e l i f t system should be i n t e g r a t e d , i . e . if t h e fuselage s u c t i o n a i r mass f l o w should be d i r e c t e d l a t e r a l l y i n t o t h e wings t o supply j e t f l a p s o r c i r c u l a t i o n control w a l l - j e t s . The l i m i t a t i o n then would be t h e a l l o w a b l e wing l o a d i n g and t h e w i n g ' s induced drag, a s t h e l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased by t h e j e t - f l a p o r by t h e c i r c u l a t i o n control. The a i r mass f l o w would serve t h r e e purposes: ( a ) fuselage boundary-layer c o n t r o l , ( b ) wing l i f t enhancement, and ( c ) p r o p u l s i o n . A l s o t h e suct i o n ' s momentum d r a g i s minimized since o n l y t h e i n n e r boundary-layer f l o w i s drawn i n t o t h e s l o t a t Sta. 1 ( F i g . 5); i t i s estimated t h a t a 33% d r a g saving i s achieved, as compared t o free-stream f l o w intake, a t the p o i n t o f equilibrium f o r the body alone. The n e x t step o f t h i s program i s expected t o be t h e wind-tunnel t e s t o f t h e 20 i n . diameter model i n t h e arrangement of F i g . 14; t h e wing p y l o n would be i n s t a l l e d e x a c t l y as t h e present s t r u t . A second step would be t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e optimum f i n e n e s s r a t i o ; t h e 2.72 fineness r a t i o was s e l e c t e d o r i g i n a l l y f o r LTA application. A preliminary theoretical parametric study i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e optimum should be n e a r 6 and t h a t f u r t h e r power r e d u c t i o n can be expected.

Schematic Layout 4-Seat GA Aircraft Configuration 2903 Ib Gross Weight 2% MPH Speed 120 HP (Tripped Trans.

181
16 T a

Free Transition and Transition Tripped

14 12

Q 58%
,*'

\,**--o-

_/--

. o x -

.$<

Ea
"3

/'

# s t

E=-lO-

Transition Tripped B 10%

.5u II

gi
0

6-

I '

2
I

I//

,2' ;: L M P H7 2-Seat GAB 123 MPH Mini-RPV @1WKn

I

-,'
I I

01 0
174" F i g . 17

0.01

0.02 0.03 0.04 Thrust Coefficient CT = T/qoVo'66

E

0.05

Schematic l a y o u t o f 4-seat GA a i r c r a f t configuration

11

Fig. 18 Aerodynamic e f f i c i e n c y index T h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT

vs

References

1.

F. R. Goldschmied, " I n t e g r a t e d H u l l Design, Boundary-Layer Control and Propulsion of Submerged Bodies," A I A A Journal o f Hydronautics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-11 ( J u l y 1967). F. R. Goldschmied. " I n t e o r a t e d H u l l Oesion. -~~, Boundary-Layer Control and Propulsion of Submerged Bodies: Wind-Tunnel Verification," A I A A Paper 82-1204, AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th J o i n t Propulsion Conference, Clevela nd, OH (June
~~ ~~~ ~

2.

1982). 3 .
F. R. Goldschmied, "Wind-Tunnel Demonstration o f an Optimized LTA System w i t h 65% Power Reduction and N e u t r a l S t a t i c S t a b i l i t y , " A I A A Paper 83-1981, A I A A Lighter-Than-Air Systems Conference, Anaheim, CA ( J u l y 1983). Bodies w i t h J e t Total-Head Equal t o FreeStream's,'' A I A A Paper 83-1790, A I A A Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Danvers, MA ( J u l y

4. F. R. Goldschmied, "Jet-Propulsion o f Subsonic

1983).
5.
F. R. Goldschmied, "Aerodynamic I n t e g r a t i o n o f Ax isymme t ri c Body Pressure- D i s t r ib u t ion , Slot-Suction Boundary-Layer Control and Stern Jet-Propulsion, I1 - Propulsion Evaluation," A I A A Journal o f A i r c r a f t ( t o be published). schmied, "Shaping o f A x i s m e t r i c Bodies f o r Minimum Drag i n Incompressible Flow," A I A A Journal of Hydronautics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 100-107 ( J u l y 1974).

6. J . S. Parsons, R. E. Goodson and F. R. Gold-

7.

I. H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff and L . S. S t i v e r s , Jr., "Sumnary of A i r f o i l Data," NACA Report 824 (1945).

8. G. Kovich and R. J. Steinke, "Performance of

Low-Pressure-Ratio Low-Tip-Speed Fan Stage w i t h Blade T i p S o l i d i t y o f 0.65," NASA TMX3341 (February 1976).

9. J . A. Koegler, Jr., "A Parametric Wing Design

Study f o r a Modern Laminar Flow Wing," T M 80154 (December 1979). NASA

10. C. 0. Wood and F. R. Goldschmied, "Design and

S p e c i f i c a t i o n Guidelines f o r Large Draft Fan:. and Systems," E l e c t r i c Power Research i n s t i t u t e Report EPRI CS-3431 (January 1984).

11.

D. E. Reubush and J . F. Runckel, "Effect 0: Fineness R a t i o on B o a t t a i l Drag o f C i r c u l a r A r c Afterbodies Having Closure R a t i o s of 0.50 with t Exhaust a t Mach Numbers up t o 1.30," I 3 S A ThJ-7192 (May 1973).

12. E. E. Larrabee, "Preservation of Wing LeadingEdge Suction a t t h e Plane o f ! F e t r y as a F a c t o r i n Wing-Fuselage Design, Proceedings of the NASA-Industry-University General A v i a t i o n Drag Reductic? Workshop, J. Roskam, Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas ( J u l y 1975), pp. 107-119.

12