Surface Pressure Measurements on an

Aerofoil in Transonic Flight

Introduction
This report details the study of transonic flight over an aerofoil. The investigation first takes
place by measuring, for a range of free-stream Mach numbers from subsonic, to supercritical, the
surface pressure distribution on an aerofoil mounted in a transonic wind tunnel. These
measurements are then used to assess the validity of the Prandtl - Glauert Law, which relates the
pressure coefficient at point on the surface of an aerofoil in sub-critical, compressible flow to
that at the same point in incompressible flow. Furthermore, the results are then used as a basis
for a discussion of the changes which occur in the character of flow over an aerofoil as the Mach
number increases into the transonic regime.

Apparatus
Induction wind Tunnel with Transonic Test Section
The tunnel used in this experiment is equipped with a transonic test section having liners which
are nominally parallel apart (after initial contraction) from a slight divergence to compensate for
growth of the boundary layers on the wall. The top and bottom liners are ventilated by
longitudinal slots backed by plenum chambers, to reduce interference and blockage at transition
speeds. The working section has a width of 89mm and a height of 178mm.
The stagnation pressure, p0∞, in the tunnel is close to atmospheric pressure, and (with only
a small error) can be taken to be the same as the settling chamber pressure. The reference
stagnation pressure, p∞, is taken from a pressure tapping in the floor of the working section, well
upstream of the model to minimise the disturbance due to the model itself. The nominal ‘free
stream’ Mach number, M∞, in the tunnel can be calculated from the ratio p∞ / p0∞.
The tunnel Mach number is controlled by varying the pressure of the injected air, pj. The
maximum Mach number which can be achieved is about 0.88.
The model
The untapered, unswept model has the well known NACA 0012 symmetric section1, and spans
the tunnel. The model has a chord length of 90mm and a maximum thickness/chord ratio of 12%.
Pressure tappings, numbered 1 to 8, are provided on the upper surface of the model at the
chordwise positions given in table 1.1, and there is an additional tapping 3a in the lower surface
at the same chordwise position as tapping 3; this is to enable the model to be set at zero
incidence by equalising the pressures at tappings 3 and 3a.

Fig 1.0 – the model

_____________________________________________________________________________
_

Mercury Manometer
 A multitube mercury manometer is provided, with a locking mechanism which allows the
mercury levels to be ‘frozen’ so that reading can be taken after the flow has been stopped. The
manometer bank should be set at a slope of 45 degrees.

Fig 2.0 – The mercury manometer

Procedure
As a preliminary, the barometric pressure, Pat was recorded, in inches of mercury. For a range of
values of Pj, from 10 – 110lb/in2 in intervals of 20lb/in2, Pj was then recorded along with the
manometer readings, corresponding to stagnation pressure (I0∞), the reference static pressure(I∞),
airfoil pressure tappings (In, n=1 to 8 and 3a) and the atmospheric pressure(Iat)(at all inches).

*
Fig 3.0 – Pictorial representation of manometer

Theory
The typical reading, I, on the sloping manometer can be converted to an absolute pressure, p,
using the equation:
p=pat±|I-Iat|sinθ (1)
Where θ is the slope angle of the manometer, which will be set to 45°.
For isentropic flow of a perfect gas with γ = 1.4, the mach number, M∞, is related to the ratio of
static/ stagnation pressures, p∞/ po∞, by the equation:
M∞=2γ-1p∞po∞-γ-1γ-1 (2)
The pressure coefficient, Cp, is defined as:
Cp=p-p∞12ρ∞U∞2 (3)
For compressible flow, this can more conveniently be re-written in the form:
Cp=2γM∞2pp∞-1 (4)
According to the Prandtl- Glauert law the pressure coefficient, Cpc, at a point on an
aerofoil in sub-critical, compressible flow is related to the pressure coefficient, Cpi, at the same
point in incompressible flow by the relation:
Cpi=Cpi1-M∞2 (5)
This relation is based on thin-aerofoil theory. It is therefore not exact, but is quite
accurate for reasonably thin aerofoils at small incidence. It breaks down completely in super-
critical flow, when regions of locally supersonic flow occur and shock waves begin to form.
The theoretical pressure distribution for inviscid flow over the NACA 0012 section in
incompressible flow is included as the last column in Table 1. The value of the critical pressure
coefficient, Cp*, corresponding to locally sonic conditions, is given by2:

Cp*=10.7M∞25+M∞263.5-1 for γ = 1.4 (6)

_____________________________________________________________________________
_
2
Motellebi, F. Surface Pressure Measurements on an Aerofoil in Transonic Flight handout,
Queen Mary Pubs., London

Results

Fig 3.1 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.32

Fig 3.2 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.52

Fig 3.3 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.65

Fig 3.4 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.74

Fig 3.5 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.80

 Fig 3.6 - -cp vs x/c for M = 0.84

Critical Mach number and shockwave analysis

Fig 4.0 – graph showing crossings of two graphs representing Mcritical

Fig 4.1 – graph showing close-up of crossings of two graphs representing Mcritical
From these graphs, it can be shown that the Mcritical value is 0.7253. this value is the threshold
level required for the NACA 0012 wing profile to experience local shockwaves on the surface of
the aerofoil. Hence, mach numbers below (or equal to) this value will not experience enough
acceleration near the aerofoil leading edge to experience a shockwave along the surface. Hence,
Mach numbers 0.32, 0.52 and 0.65 will not experience a local shockwave.

Discussion
Transonic flow
As an aeroplane is in motion at subsonic velocities, the air is treated as incompressible flow. As
the velocity increases, however, the air loses its incompressible behaviour. The question arises as
to how fast an aeroplane must be moving before compressibility is taken into account.
A disturbance in the air will send pressure pulses or waves out into the air at the local
speed of sound. For example, take a cannon fired at sea level. A person observing situated at
some distance from the cannon will see the flash almost immediately, but the sound wave is
heard (or pressure wave is felt) some time later. The observer can easily calculate the speed of
sound by dividing the distance between him and the cannon by the time it takes the sound to
reach him. The disturbance propagates out and away from the cannon in an expanding
hemispherical shell.
The speed of sound varies with altitude. It depends upon the square root of the
absolute temperature. At sea level under standard conditions (i.e. T = 288.15 K) the speed of
sound is approximately 340.3 m/s, but at an altitude of 15 km when the temperature is
approximately 216.7 K, the speed of sound reduces to 295 m/s. This difference indicates that an
aeroplane flying at this altitude encounters the speed of sound at a slower speed, thus comes up
against the effects of compressibility sooner.
a=γRT

Where a = local speed of sound, γ = ratio of specific heats (1.4 for air), R = molar gas constant,
T = local temperature in Kelvin
An aeroplane flying below the speed of sound creates a disturbance in the air and
sends out pressure pulses in all directions. Air ahead of the aeroplane receives these "messages"
before the aeroplane arrives and the flow separates around the aeroplane. However as the plane
approaches the speed of sound, the pressure pulses merge closer and closer together in front of
the aeroplane and little time elapses between the time the air gets a warning of the plane's
approach and the plane's actual arrival time At the speed of sound, the pressure pulses move at
the same speed as the plane. They merge ahead of the aeroplane into a "shock wave" that is an
almost instantaneous line of change in pressure, temperature, and density. The fluid has no
warning of the approach of the aeroplane and abruptly passes through the shock system. There is
a tendency for the air to break away from the aeroplane and not flow smoothly about it; hence,
there is a change in the aerodynamic forces from those experienced at low incompressible flow
speeds.
The Mach number is a measure of the ratio of the aeroplane speed to the speed of
sound. In other words, it is a number that may relate the degree of warning that air may have to
an aeroplane's approach. The Mach number is named after Ernst Mach, an Austrian professor
(1838 - 1916).

M=Va

Where V = local velocity of object in m/s, a = local speed of sound in m/s

For Mach numbers less than one, one has subsonic flow, for Mach numbers greater
than one, supersonic flow, and for Mach numbers greater than 5, the name is hypersonic flow.
Additionally, transonic flow pertains to the range of speeds in which flow patterns change from
subsonic to supersonic or vice versa, about Mach 0.8 to 1.2. Transonic flow presents a special
problem area as neither equations describing subsonic flow nor those describing supersonic flow
may be accurately applied to the regime.
At subsonic speeds, drag was composed of three main components—skin-friction
drag, pressure drag, and induced drag (or drag due to lift). At transonic and supersonic speeds,
there is a substantial increase in the total drag of the aeroplane due to fundamental changes in the
pressure distribution.
This drag increase encountered at these high speeds is called wave drag. The drag of
the aeroplane wing, or for that matter, any part of the aeroplane rises sharply, and large increases
in thrust are necessary to obtain further increases in speed. This wave drag is due to the unstable
formation of shock waves that transforms a considerable part of the available propulsive energy
into heat, and to the induced separation of the flow from the aeroplane surfaces. Throughout the
transonic range, the drag coefficient of the aeroplane is greater than in the supersonic range
because of the erratic shock formation and general flow instabilities. Once a supersonic flow has
been established, however, the flow stabilizes and the drag coefficient is reduced.
The total drag at transonic and supersonic speeds can be divided into two categories:
(1) zero-lift drag composed of skin-friction drag and wave (or pressure-related) drag of zero lift
and (2) lift-dependent drag composed of induced drag (drag due to lift) and wave (or pressure-
related) drag due to lift. In the early days of transonic flight, the sound barrier represented a real
barrier to higher speeds. Once past the transonic regime, the drag coefficient and the drag
decrease, and less thrust is required to fly supersonically. However, as it proceeds toward higher
supersonic speeds, the drag increases (even though the drag coefficient may show a decrease).
 It is a large loss in propulsive energy due to the formation of shocks that causes wave
drag. Up to a free-stream Mach number of about 0.7 to 0.8, compressibility effects have only
minor effects on the flow pattern and drag. The flow is subsonic everywhere. As the flow must
speed up as it proceeds about the airfoil, the local Mach number at the airfoil surface will be
higher than the free-stream Mach number. There eventually occurs a free-stream Mach number
called the critical Mach number at which a supersonic point appears somewhere on the airfoil
surface, usually near the point of maximum thickness, and indicates that the flow at that point
has reached Mach 1. As the free-stream Mach number is increased beyond the critical Mach
number and approaches Mach 1, larger and larger regions of supersonic flow appear on the
airfoil surface. In order for this supersonic flow to return to subsonic flow, it must pass through a
shock (pressure discontinuity). This loss of velocity is accompanied by an increase in
temperature, that is, a production of heat. This heat represents an expenditure of propulsive
energy that may be presented as wave drag. These shocks appear anywhere on the aeroplane
(wing, fuselage, engine nacelles, etc.) where, due to curvature and thickness, the localized Mach
number exceeds 1.0 and the airflow must decelerate below the speed of sound. For transonic
flow, the wave drag increase is greater than would be estimated from a loss of energy through the
shock. In fact, the shock wave interacts with the boundary layer so that a separation of the
boundary layer occurs immediately behind the shock. This condition accounts for a large
increase in drag that is known as shock-induced (boundary-layer) separation.
 Fig. 4.2+ – diagram showing transonic regime with Mcrit = 0.8

_____________________________________________________________________________
_
+
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Transonic_Flow/TH19G6.htm
The free-stream Mach number at which the drag of the aeroplane increases markedly is called
the drag-divergence Mach number. Large increases in thrust are required to produce any further
increases in aeroplane speed. If an aeroplane has an engine of insufficient thrust, its speed will be
limited by the drag-divergence Mach number. The prototype Convair F- 102A was originally
designed as a supersonic interceptor but early flight tests indicated that because of high drag, it
would never achieve this goal. It later achieved its goal through a redesign.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
3
Anderson, Jr., John D. A History of Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England
4
Wegener, Peter P. What Makes Airplanes Fly? Springer-Verlag, New York
Analysis
As previously mentioned, we have concluded from observations made from fig. 4.1 that the
critical Mach number is approximately 0.7253. Thus, in the –Cp vs x/c graphs for M = 0.74, 0.80
and 0.84, we should expect a shockwave along the body of the aerofoil, progressively moving
more downstream as the free steam mach number increases. To identify this, first we must look
back at the definition of Cp. We know that:
Cp=p-p∞12ρ∞U∞2

Hence, as p∞ is assumed constant, as the static pressure in the test section remains constant, as
the Psi remains costant, and ρ∞ = U∞ = constant. Hence we can say:
Cp=p-const.const.

Hence, as it is known that a normal shockwave results in a discontinuity in flow properties. In

particular, the stagnation pressure is lowered by a substantial amount. Hence, the pressure loss is
detected by the different pressure tappings. Hence, -Cp will show a large drop in the graph when
a shock occurs. Below shows the graph of the suspected regions of shock occurring, highlighted
by red regions.
Fig 5.0 – shock roughly between 0.16 to 0.36 x/c
Fig 5.1 – shock roughly between 0.25 to 0.45 x/c
Fig 5.2 – shock roughly between 0.35 to 0.55 x/c
Hence we can say:
M Position of shock (x/c, approximation)
0.84 0.35 - 0.55
0.80 0.25 - 0.45
0.74 0.16 - 0.36

Thus, our hypothesis regarding the shock moving more downstream as M increases, is correct as
it can be shown above.
The theoretical values were designed using the Prandtl – Glauert Law, and there were
several assumptions made. Firstly, it is based on the thin aerofoil theory. It is not exact, and
hence the theoretical values are not as accurate as desired. When observing figs. 3.1 to 3.6, the
experimental data does not completely follow the theoretical graph exactly, however at smaller
Mach numbers they correlate closer than that at higher M numbers. This is possibly because at
higher Mach numbers there are larger losses. As mentioned in the transonic regime section,
during supersonic flight, drag is induced from several sources; particularly wave drag, pressure
drag and skin friction. As the flow velocity increases the skin friction increases as the shearing
with the surface of the NACA 0012 body and neighbouring fluid particles is relatively high.
Another factor is the fact that the pressure drag will increase as the Reynolds number increases
thus resulting in more separated flow as M increases. Finally, the shockwaves generated during
the highest three Mach flows creates a large difference between the theory graph and
experimental graph. This is because the theoretical graphs do not take shockwaves into account,
as the theory breaks down completely in super-critical flow, when regions of locally supersonic
flow occur and shock waves start to form. Hence when M = Mcrit, the theory graphs are useless.
The inaccuracies for the lower M speeds is noticeable mainly in the regions of x/c from 0.2 to
0.6.
The experiment was successful in terms of determining accurate information, such as the
position of the shockwave and the value of Mcritical. However, the accuracy of the experiment
could have been greater due to general human inaccuracies and limitations in the experimental
equipment available. For example, the pressure tappings began from x/c of 6.5 % and the last
pressure tapping was at x/c position of 75%. Hence, these tappings are not centralized relative to
the leading edge and trailing edge. Hence, it is impossible at the current status to determine how
much pressure is conserved, i.e. as the aerofoil is placed at 0 incidence, the pressure at the tip of
the LE should be equal to the pressure at the tip of the TE. Hence as an improvement, there
should be more pressure tappings covering the whole length of the aerofoil. This would also
provide more points to plot on the above graphs hence providing more accurate data.
Conclusion
Overall, the experiment was successful, as the experimental data resulted in reasonable
graphs which comply with aerodynamic laws of transonic flight. The theoretical graphs followed
a trend with Mach numbers below Mcritical, but after this critical value, the theoretical values had
no correlation with the experimental data. The shockwaves produced after the critical Mach
number showed a sharp drop in the graphs, and the location of the shockwaves moved further
downstream as M increased, which is true for transonic flight. The experiment has satisfactory
equipment to produce sound results, but can be improved by increasing the number of pressure
tappings to cover the entire aerofoil surface, hence yielding more accurate information. The
mercury manometer could also be replaced with a device which could read pressure and have
digital values as outputs, further increasing accuracy of the experiment.