1. Is there a way to estimate the drag coefficient using Thin Airfoil Theory?

I
know that lift coefficient is estimated as 2*pi*alpha, but does Thin Airfoil
Theory even predict a value for the drag coefficient?
Thin Airfoil Theory does not predict drag, only lift and pitching moment.
However, another basic theory does provide a reasonable, first-order approximation for
the drag coefficient. This technique is called Prandtl's Lifting Line Theory. Thin Airfoil
Theory is derived assuming that a wing has an infinite span, but lifting line theory
applies to a finite wing with no sweep and a reasonably large aspect ratio. In simple
terms, the wing is modeled as a fixed vortex with a series of trailing vortices extending
behind it. These trailing vortices have the effect of reducing the lift produced by the wing
and creating a form of drag called induced drag.

Creation of trailing vortices due to a difference in pressure above and below a lifting surface

According to Lifting Line Theory, the lift coefficient can be calculated in the following
way:

where

CL = 3D wing lift coefficient

Cl = 2D airfoil lift coefficient slope
AR = wing aspect ratio
= angle of attack in radians
Note that this equation is of the same form as that derived from Thin Airfoil Theory. In
fact, the above equation becomes identical to that predicted by Thin Airfoil Theory if we
let the aspect ratio go to infinity, as it would for an infinite wing, and if we assume the lift
curve slope of the airfoil section, Cl, is the theoretical maximum value of 2. If you
know the actual lift curve slope for the airfoil on a particular aircraft you wish to analyze,
you can substitute that value for a more accurate estimate. However, 2 is usually a
very close approximation.
For example, the value 2 is used in the following graphs comparing experimental lift
coefficients for two aircraft as measured in a wind tunnel against predictions from both
Thin Airfoil Theory and Lifting Line Theory. The first comparison shows the Cessna 172
with its relatively high aspect ratio of 7.37. Note that the Lifting Line prediction is only a
slight improvement over Thin Airfoil Theory when compared to the Cessna wind tunnel
data, though the slope of the Lifting Line equation does better match that of the actual
data. Also note that like Thin Airfoil Theory, the Lifting Line model is not capable of
predicting stall and only provides a good estimate of the lift up to the stall angle.

In contrast, the Lifting Line model is a significant improvement over Thin Airfoil Theory in
predicting the lift of the Lightning. As was discussed in our previous article on Thin Airfoil
Theory, that approach breaks down for aircraft with small aspect ratio wings like the
Lightning, with its AR of 2.52. Even though the Lifting Line Theory assumes an unswept
wing, it still produces a good approximation of the lift produced by the Lighting's highly
swept-back wings.

Lifting Line Theory agrees so much better with the Lightning wind tunnel data than does
Thin Airfoil Theory because of the introduction of the aspect ratio, AR. This variable
makes it possible to estimate the influence of trailing vortices and their downwash on
the lift of the wing. This same factor makes it possible to approximate the induced drag
that downwash creates on the wing by the following equation:

where
CDi = induced drag coefficient
CL = 3D wing lift coefficient
AR = wing aspect ratio
Knowing the induced drag is useful, but it is only one component of the total drag acting
on an aircraft. For subsonic aircraft, the total drag is almost entirely due to the induced
drag plus another form of drag called profile drag. Combining these two forms allows us
to estimate the total drag on a wing by the relationship:

where
CD = 3D wing drag coefficient
CDmin = minimum 3D wing drag coefficient

k = constant of proportionality
CL = 3D wing lift coefficient
AR = wing aspect ratio
= ratio of induced drag to the theoretical optimum for an elliptic wing
Since many of these variables are nearly constants, the above equation can be
simplified by introducing a new constant called Oswald's efficiency factor (e) in their
place:

where
CD = 3D wing drag coefficient
CDmin = minimum 3D wing drag coefficient
CL = 3D wing lift coefficient
AR = wing aspect ratio
e = Oswald's efficiency factor
We now have a useful equation for estimating the drag of an aircraft. The minimum drag
coefficient, CDmin, can be estimated relatively easily. A good value to use is around 0.025
for subsonic aircraft and 0.045 for aircraft operating faster than the speed of sound.
Values for a variety of aircraft in cruise configuration, as measured in wind tunnel
experiments, are compared in the following table.
Minimum Drag Coefficients
Aircraft

Type

Aspect
Ratio

CDmin

RQ-2 Pioneer

Single piston-engine UAV

9.39

0.0600

North American
Navion

Single piston-engine
general aviation

6.20

0.0510

Cessna 172/182

Single piston-engine
general aviation

7.40

0.0270

Cessna 310

Twin piston-engine general

aviation

7.78

0.0270

Marchetti S-211

Single jet-engine military

trainer

5.09

0.0205

Cessna T-37

Twin jet-engine military

trainer

6.28

0.0200

Beech 99

Twin turboprop commuter

7.56

0.0270

Cessna 620

Four piston-engine
transport

8.93

0.0322

Learjet 24

Twin jet-engine business jet

5.03

0.0216

Lockheed Jetstar

Four jet-engine business jet

5.33

0.0126

F-104 Starfighter

Single jet-engine fighter

2.45

0.0480

F-4 Phantom II

Twin jet-engine fighter

2.83

0.0205 (subsonic)
0.0439 (supersonic)

Lightning

Twin jet-engine fighter

2.52

0.0200

Convair 880

Four jet-engine airliner

7.20

0.0240

Douglas DC-8

Four jet-engine airliner

7.79

0.0188

Boeing 747

Four jet-engine airliner

6.98

0.0305

X-15

Hypersonic research plane

2.50

0.0950

The efficiency factor, e, varies for different aircraft, but it doesn't change very much. As
a general rule, high-wing planes tend to have an efficiency factor around 0.8 while that
of low-wing planes is closer to 0.6. A reasonable average to use for most planes is
about 0.75.
The equation we have derived is also sometimes expressed in the following form, where
the factors in the denominator of the CL2 term are combined into yet another new
constant called K.

Assuming a typical value for aspect ratio of around 6 and an efficiency factor of 0.75,
the value of K turns out to be about 0.07.
We now have equations to estimate the lift as a function of angle of attack and
equations to estimate drag as a function of lift. It is simple to combine the two to
produce an equation for drag as a function of angle of attack. Regardless of whether we
use the Thin Airfoil approximation for the lift coefficient or the Lifting Line method, we get
an equation of the form:

When graphed as a function of angle of attack, the drag coefficient tends to look like a
parabola. It therefore makes sense that drag increases with the square of angle of
attack in the above equation.

Examples comparing the experimental drag coefficients of the Cessna 172 and the
Lightning against the results predicted by Lifting Line Theory are presented above. Note
that the lifting line approximation matches up against the wind tunnel results quite well.