Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUNE 2008
327
NOMENCLATURE
ABSTRACT
ACA
AST
CAD
CFD
EAP
ECA
ECF
ESDU
FOAS
IT
LO
ODM
RAE
STOVL
A
CD
CD0
CL
CLcrit
D
D/Q
k
K
L
M
PTj
P0
Q
Rn
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of aircraft drag
prediction in the context of the overall design and development
process. Each airframe manufacturing organisation has its own
detailed methodologies and there are some significant differences
between civil and military aircraft design practices, but the basic
objectives of producing efficient, safe air vehicles through the application of good aerodynamic design are common to both.
Although this paper is primarily based on experience of combat
aircraft design and development, many of the techniques and lessons
learnt are relevant to most air vehicle programmes.
The authors professional aerodynamic experience began at the
Handley Page company based at the Cricklewood factory, north
London, and Radlett aerodrome, Hertfordshire, during the 1960s,
Paper No. 3280. Manuscript received 23 January 2008, revised 3 April 2008, accepted 4 April 2008.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293
328
JUNE 2008
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293
NEWTON
329
(for CL CLcrit)
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293
330
JUNE 2008
In the context of drag prediction, an approach which has been implemented on several combat aircraft programmes is that of drag
synthesis, using a number of wind-tunnel models together with
prediction methods to allow for differences in geometry and flow
conditions between model and full-scale aircraft. An essential task is
to establish a clearly-defined force and moment accounting system
to ensure correct interpretation of wind-tunnel measurements.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293
NEWTON
The Tornado multi-role combat aircraft provides a good illustration of this procedure. A 1/11th. scale high-speed 6-component
force and moment model of the full aircraft configuration (Fig. 7),
used primarily to establish stability and control data, formed the
basis for drag synthesis before first flight. The model featured
accurate mould line representation apart from the afterbody/nozzle
region, which was necessarily distorted to accommodate a rear sting
mounting in the tunnel and large-area outlets for the internal free airflow from the open air intakes. This distortion resulted in elimination
of inter-nozzle gullies on the upper surface, shallower boattail angles
and unrepresentative nozzle details and base areas. Drag corrections
for internal flow through the open air intakes, ducts and outlets were
obtained by total- and static-pressure rake measurements at the
outlets.
The design of a close-spaced nozzle/afterbody with adjacent
tailplane and fin surfaces presented a significant airframe/engine
integration challenge, and to contribute to the design process an
accurate 1/21st scale high-speed afterbody model and associated
mounting rig was developed (illustrated in Figs 8 and 9). This model
not only represented the detailed external boattail and nozzle
geometry including tailplanes and fin, but also featured nozzle jet
exhaust flow at representative jet pressure ratios PTj /P0.
A forebody fairing incorporated thick wings to supply the high
pressure air to the nozzles and was earthed to the model support
system. The afterbody was live, mounted on internal strain-gauge
balances to measure thrust, drag and thrust-minus-drag. The splitline between earthed and live components was chosen to be as close
as possible to the location of maximum cross-sectional area in order
that the measured pressure force on the live afterbody corresponded
closely with the required afterbody pressure drag. Note that to obtain
afterbody pressure drag, estimates of afterbody skin friction drag
(and tailplane/fin friction plus form drag, when fitted) had to be
subtracted from the total measured afterbody drag. An equivalent
model of the distorted afterbody, featured on the 6-component
model, was also tested on this rig to obtain the required afterbody
pressure drag correction term.
Intake spill drag variation with intake mass-flow was partially
obtained from the 6-component model (using blockers in the ducts to
reduce mass flow below the fully-open condition) and also from
larger-scale subsonic and supersonic intake development models
(e.g. Fig. 10, consisting of a forebody/intake configuration mounted
on a sting and balance and powered by an ejector to obtain a full
range of mass flow conditions).
An important part of planning such a suite of models is the choice
of intake and exhaust nozzle reference conditions so that model test
results can be unambiguously corrected to flight operating conditions.
The zero-lift drag synthesis process illustrated in Fig. 11, thus
consisted of:
a)
b)
c)
d)
331
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293
332
JUNE 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank BAE Systems for the opportunity and
privilege to take part in so many varied and interesting aircraft projects,
and for providing funding and facilities to produce this paper. Special
thanks go to my aerodynamics and wind-tunnel colleagues at Warton
for their generous assistance, IT advice and forbearance.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 117.241.140.212, on 06 Oct 2016 at 13:25:13, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000002293