Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2016
A Project Presented
by
Nicholas Conde
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Project Scope ..................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Project Importance ............................................................................................. 7
1.3 Plane Background ............................................................................................. 7
Flight Data ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Standard Day ..................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Vehicle Dimensions ........................................................................................... 8
2.3 Wing Dimensions ............................................................................................. 10
2.4 Fuselage, Vertical Fin, and Horizontal Stabilizer Dimensions ........................... 12
Calculations................................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Parasite Drag ................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Wing, Aerodynamic Calculation ................................................................ 13
3.1.2 Fuselage, Blunt Body Calculation ............................................................. 14
3.1.3 Total Parasitic Drag ................................................................................... 15
3.2 Induced Drag ................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Interference Drag ............................................................................................. 17
3.4 Compressibility Drag ........................................................................................ 17
3.5 Total Drag ........................................................................................................ 18
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 Results ............................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Reasonability ................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 20
References .................................................................................................................... 21
All values in Table 1 were drawn from reference material [2] [3] except for the Mach
number, which was calculated using the following formula:
=
Equation 1 - Mach Number Formula
Wing Dimensions
Specification NACA 2213
Span (ft) 30.833
Wing Area (ft2) 242
t/c 0.13
Taper Ratio 0.4880
Tip Chord (ft) 3.8940
M.A.C (ft) 6.1708
Root Chord (ft) 7.9790
Thickness (ft) 0.8022
Exposed Area 219.6370
Swetted (ft2) 448.0595
Aspect Ratio 5.61
= /
3.894
0.448 =
7.979
Equation 2 - Taper Ratio Calculation
2
. . . =
(1 + )
3 1+
2 0.448
6.1708 = 7.979 (1 + 0.448 )
3 1 + 0.448
Equation 3 - Mean Aerodynamic Chord Calculation
The exposed area was determined by taking the total wing area and
subtracting the section that would include fuselage leading to an exposed area of
219.637 ft2. The wetted area was then calculated using the equation below.
= 1.02 2
448.0595 = 219.637 1.02 2
Equation 4 - Wetted Surface Area Calculation
I determined the airfoil thickness based on the NACA 2213 designation. In terms
of the numerical notation the 13 at the end of the 2213 signifies a max 13% thickness in
relation to the chord length. Based on the M.A.C length I found that the appropriate
thickness for the wing is 0.8022 feet or 9.627 inches.
Fuselage Dimensions
Length (ft) 29.917
Diameter (ft) 3
Area 89.751
Wetted Area 183.09204
Fineness Ratio 9.972333333
Horizontal Stabilizers
Root Chord (ft) 4.369
Tip Chord (ft) 1.1864
Exposed Area (ft2) 34.387
Wetted Area 70.14948
Taper Ratio 0.271549554
Span 5.188
t/c 0.13
Sweep Angle 15.9
M.A.C 3.081576791
Aspect Ratio 0.782718586
Vertical Fin
Root Chord (ft) 4.827
Tip Chord (ft) 1.1864
Exposed Area (ft2) 13.001
Wetted Area 26.52204
Taper Ratio 0.245784131
Span 3.3668
t/c 0.13
Sweep Angle 36.9
M.A.C 3.374045383
Aspect Ratio 0.871882335
=
Equation 5 - Parasitic Drag Equation
In the above equation K is the correction factor for pressure drag and increased
local velocities, where it can be determined by either referencing Figure 11.3 or 11.4 in
Fundamentals of Flight providing either the thickness ratio (t/c) and sweep angle, or
fineness ratio respectively. Cfi references the skin friction coefficient, which for all
purposes shall be considered typical transport aircraft roughness, the value of which
can be determined from a calculated Reynolds number. Swet is the calculated wetted
surface area and the reference area is the initially provided surface area of the
component.
The Reynolds number for the wings can be calculated using the equation below:
=
Equation 6 - Reynolds Number Calculation
v is the velocity of the aircraft at cruise altitude, L is the M.A.C length for wing
calculations and is the kinematic viscosity as originally determined in the standard day
table. Plugging in the appropriate values yields the following results:
Based on the above Reynolds number the K correction factor was determined
from Figure 11.3 of Fundamentals of Flight to be 1.27 based on a 0 degree sweep angle
of the wings and a thickness ratio of 0.13. The skin friction coefficient was found to be
0.0036 given the Reynolds Number. Using the Parasitic Drag Equation the Wing
Parasitic Drag Coefficient can thereby be calculated as:
ft 29.917 (ft)
36720568.73 = 322 ( )
sec ft 2
0.00026234 ( )
determined as 1.09 based on a fineness ratio of 9.9723. Though this number may be
slightly skewed due to the assumption of the chart that the plane is flying at M = 0.5.
Refer to Appendix for subsequent calculation of Parasitic Drag for the remaining
surfaces. Below the components of Parasitic Drag Coefficients are summed in order to
determine the total Parasitic Drag of the aircraft.
2
=
Equation 11 - Induced Drag Coefficient Equation
In the above equation CL is the Coefficient of Lift, AR is the aspect ratio, and e is
the Airplane Efficiency Factor. The coefficient of lift can be calculated using the
following equation:
=
1
(2) 2
Equation 12 - Coefficient of Lift Equation
1
65.6994 / 2 = ( ) 0.0012673 322
2
Equation 13 - Calculation of Variable "q"
6650
0.4183 =
65.6994 242
Equation 14 - Calculation of Coefficient of Lift
Based on the Coefficient of Drag, and the Aspect Ratio the efficiency factor can
be determined from Figure 11.8 in Fundamentals of Flight. Interpolation was required in
order to determine the appropriate value, based on the efficiency factors determined at
Cdp 0.2 and Cdp 0.25 for the same aspect ratio.
0.25 0.318
0.7856 = (( ) (0.84 0.88)) 0.88
0.25 0.2
Equation 15 - Efficiency Factor Interpolation
With the above information the coefficient of induced drag can be calculated a
follows:
0.41832
0.0052847 =
5.61 0.7856
Equation 16 - Calculation of Induced Drag Coefficient
= 0.1
0.00318 = 0.0318 0.1
Equation 17 - Calculation of Interference Drag
0
3
=
cos
Equation 18 - Compressibility Drag Relationship
The ratio can be calculated as 0.3104/0.69 which is equal to 0.44986. When this
number is found on the chart in Figure 12.13 of Fundamentals of Flight it is found that
the value for compressibility drag is found along the asymptote, making the coefficient
near negligible. Due to the low Mach number that the Spitfire Mk V cruises at,
compressibility effects will be considered trivial.
The Lift to Drag Ratio can be calculated given the total coefficient of drag:
= /
10.379 = 0.4183/0.0403
Equation 20 - Lift to Drag Ratio
=
640.788 = 0.040303 65.6994 242 2
2
Equation 21 - Drag Calculation
4.2 Reasonability
I believe the ultimately my results are reasonable and fall well within the realm of
expectation. The L/D ratio is the most telling result of the above calculations, giving a
value of 10.379. Given the age and size of the aircraft I believe that this result is
reasonable and can be compared to the Cessna 172, developed in 1955 and of a
similar size, with an L/D ratio of 10.9 [5].
4.3 Conclusion
Though the final result falls within the realm of reasonability it is not without error.
Due to limitations of measuring drawings and estimating values from graphs the results
are subject to variability. The results herein should be considered a reasonable
approximation but for a more exact value a more detailed and inclusive analysis must
be performed. If this project were to be reassessed I would seek more readily to take
actual measurements of an aircraft or find more complete manuals listing specifications
and performances. I would also like to perform a deeper investigation into interference
drag due to the effects of rivets and other relatively large protuberances on a smaller
aircraft.
Reynold
Component Length Sweep K Cfi Swet Sref Cdp
Number
Wing 6.1708 7574083 0 1.27 0.0036 448.0595 242.0000 0.008464991
Fuselage 29.917 36720568 N/A 1.09 0.0027 183.0920 89.751 0.0061149
Horizontal
3.0816 3782372 15.9 1.25 0.0028 70.14948 34.387 0.00714
Stab.
Vertical Fin 3.374045 4141353 36.9 1.24 0.004 26.52204 13.001 0.0101184
Total 0.031838291