Professional Documents
Culture Documents
N.
sotg^^*-' % . ^CL^^^e^f-^^^y"
TECHNICAL NOTE
No. 1316
By W. E. Moeckel
NACA
Washington
June 1947
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOE AERONAUTICS
By W. E. Moeckel
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
subsonic to supersonic values, with the spacing between the two air-
foils set at the theoretical optimum value, the theoretical shock
configuration was not obtained. Instead, fluctuating shock configur-
ations were observed until the design velocity was reached; then a
shock wave curved inward from the leading edges was observed to span
the entrance between the two airfoils. When the spacing between the
airfoils was slightly increased the expected intersecting oblique
shock pattern appeared and remained when the spacing was again reduced
to optimum. Ferri found that when the curved-shock configuration was
present the drag of the biplane was about six times as great as when
the theoretically expected shock configuration was attained. A
probable solution to the problem of reaching optimum operating condi-
tions is a starting rocket to accelerate the aircraft to or beyond
its design Mach number. For wind-tunnel investigations, of course,
the spacing may be made variable and adjusted to its optimum value
only after the design Mach number is attained.
The present theoretical investigation was undertaken to deter-
mine the effect of design variations and operating variables on the
aerodynamic performance of biplanes. The design variations for
triangular-section biplanes included (l) variation of all edge angles
simultaneously, (2) variation of the edge angles of the lower and
upper airfoils separately, and (3) separate variation of the trailing-
edge angles. Lift and drag coefficients were also calculated for a
biplane having circular convex sections and for a configuration
having a smell shock-reflecting surfaoe in place of the lower airfoil.
The calculated aerodynamic coefficients are compared with those of a
diamond airfoil and vith a thin flat plate. The variation of the
center of pressure with angle of attack was investigated for a
symmetrical and an unsymmetrical biplane, and the loading of these
biplanes was compared with that of a diamond airfoil. For one
biplane, the variation of aerodynamic coefficient with Mach number
was also determined. The effect of friction drag on the relative
performance of the biplanes and single airfoils is discussed.
METHOD Of CALCULATION"
The following symbols are used in the discussion and the figures:
c chord - -
CL lift coefficient
1
z=>3
M Mach number
P total pressure
NACA TH" No. 1316 5
p static pressure
t maximum thickness (of thinner airfoil for "biplanes)
For comparison with the diamond airfoil.and with the thin flat
plate, two biplanes were chosen from figure 5 and their drag and lift
coefficients were calculated for several additional angles of attack.
The results are plotted in figure 6. Comparisons are made at free-
stream Mach numbers MQ - of 2.0, 3.0, and 4/0 in figures 6(a), 6(b),
and 6(c), respectively. The biplanes selected were a symmetrical
biplane with all edge angles 9 = 7 and an* 'unsymmetrical biplane
with y = 7 - and 0J, = 10 The curves show that both biplanes
give greater lift for a given drag than a diamond airfoil of the samo
thickness ratio for all values of a and Mo considered. For the
biplanes, the symmetrical configuration gives greater lift for a given
drag over..the lower range of CL; whereas for high values of CL the
unsymmetrical configuration has lower drag than all others including
the thin flat plate. (For an MQ of 4.0 it was considered unnecessary
to calculate the polar diagram for the symmetrical biplane, inasmuch as
the relative position of the four configurations considered seoms to be
insensitive to Mach number.)
NACA TN Hb. 1316
The results presented thus far have dealt with biplanes of optimum
spacing, which varies only slightly with angle of attack but quite
widely with free-stream Mach number. Ferri (reference 3) found that,
when the biplane spacing was less than or greater than optimum, the
observed flow patterns differed greatly from those theoretically pre-
dicted. The high pressure beyond the intersection of the oblique
shocks (fig. 2) was apparently transmitted through the boundary layer
and resulted in a flow separation either ahead of or after the inner
10 NACA TN No. 1316
EFFECT OF FRICTION
Inclusion of friction effacts should somewhat reduce the rela-
tively greater lift-drag ratio of biplanes as compared with single
airfoils, inasmuch as the additional drag due .to friction will be
about twice as great for the biplanes. No adequate data on friction-
drag coefficients Cj) f at supersonic speeds are yet available. The
magnitude of the CD f that will reduce the lift-drag ratio of the
biplane to that of the diamond-profile airfoil may be estimated. If
CD f is assumed to be twice as great for biplanes as for single
airfoils, the diamond airfoil will have a lift-drag ratio equal to
that of a biplane when
C
L,b L,d
c + 2c + c
D,b D,f D,d D,f
or when
C
n L,b Cp.d " cL,d cD,b
%? " 2CL,d - 0^
CL/CD 'D,f
(deg)
M0 B 2.0
Diamond airfoil, 8.15 0.0164
0=7
Biplane, 8y = 7 7 14.7 .0061 0.0037
Biplane, % = 7 10 14,0 .0092 .0063
Mr 3.0
Diamond airfoil,
6 = 7
Biplane, % = 7 0.0017
Biplane, 0^. = 7 .0042
Biplane, 0g. =? 7 .0330
L/c C
D CL/C;
Comparison with figure 8 shows that CL/CJJ does not approach the
value obtainable with a diamond-profile airfoil. The drag coeffi-
cient, moreover, is about twice as great as for two symmetrical air-
foils. For these reasons and because of its structural disadvantages,
this scheme is probflbly of no practical interest (For the airfoil
of fig. 12 without the shock-reflecting surface, Cp is 0.028 and
C C is
L/ D 5.20.)
CONCLUSIONS
The relations between the angles of the Mach lines and their
intercepts on the airfoil surfaces may be deduced from the sine law.
The assumption is made that the bending of each Mach line through the
interaction region takes place.entirely at the point where it inter-
sects the corresponding Mach line emanating from the opposite airfoil,
The following expressions are obtained by using the notation of fig-
ure 14:
.C1,U
= ain (gfr^j - elfU - a) sin (<y2)U - e1>XJ - a)
Hj " cos 01,u sin (cp^y + cp2>u - 91)V - a)
C sln e + a sin a
B, = 1,L ftPl.L - l,L > >2,L - fl.L + > , ,
"^L fins ff-, ,- s'1 n (CO, ,. 4- ro , - 0, ,. 4- tY.l * '
HACA TW No. 1316 17
L (3J
" . tan 1?u
+ tan
1;L
tan i TT
*U -LtaaljL <"'
T =F sin (x n + 2t)
HJ U Bin ^u ein {2}U - 82)V + a) (5)
where
In each case is the angle that the Mach lines make with the free-
stream direction; that is, it is the Mach angle plus the angle which
the local flow makes with the free-stream direction. Because the
flow'direction changes 1 through each Mach line, the expansion process
must be followed quite carefully to determine the correct values of
to use in equations (3) to (6). When more Mach lines emanate from one
of the airfoils, supplementary Mach lines may be assumed to emanate
from the opposite airfoil in order that the bending points of the
excess lines may be determined from equations (3) to (6).
When the intercepts of the Mach lines on the airfoil surfaces are
known, the aorodynamic coefficients per unit span are obtained by a
summation of pressures over the surfaces.
REFERENCES
ti
1. Busemann, A.: Aerodynamischer Auftreib bei berschallgeschwin-
digkeit. Luftfahrtforschung, Bd. 12, Nr. 6, Oct. 3, 1935,
pp. 210-220.
ti
2. Walchner, 0.: Zur Frage der Widerstahdsverringerung von Tragflgeln
bei berschallgeschwindigkeit durch Doppeldeckeranordnung.
Luftfahrtforschung, Bd.- 14, Mr. 2, Feb. 20, 1937, pp. 55-62.
4. Taylor, G-. I., and Maccoll, J. W.: The Two-Dimensional Flow Around
a Corner; Two-Dimensional Flow Past a Curved Surface. Vol. Ill
of Aerodynamic Theory, div. H, ch, IV, sec. 5-6, W. F. Durand,
ed., Julius Springer (Berlin), 1935, pp. 243-249.
co-say^siSJ"-
*L,L-
z.
>
o
7.69
NACA TN No. 1316 Fig.
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
CM
VO
H0
*3 1.6
o
fi
1 ,U- 6
1,L = 1
Q1 6
,U " 1> el,L - 10
00
c 1 ,U = 7
1,L " 6
1
o
<a
P.
2.0
.3
1
H
ft
.2
43 3.0
.1 4.0
0 s; 4I 6 61 1C 12
Leading-edge angle, 6;, deg
Figure 3. - Variation of optimum biplane spacing with leading-
edge angles for several Mach numbers.
G4 . 4.*
6 .66 J.B
z
>
SS 30 35 40
Turning >&% T . deg
Htfure 4.- Frandtl-Keyer rolation for supcraonio Ho around corners. Haoh number. Muh wgla, and ratio of rtatio to total prowaro
M fanotiona of turning angle. w
692
>
NATIONAL ADVISORY
TTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
* .a ax 3 '^
"3.
,2.0 5tL= J.O
o
1 i . " lr" !*5 5
*"*1~^ vy
rf n ' E.O o
a 3
B
J A
_j ^* 9.0
a.
^ 3
/
3 n a 0Q V
L.-J
a a
" *^ >
/ s, a = 8
>
V 1.,
/
0k A
eP
,/
/
/
.a N v>
a 3^ / [/
/
r
3.0 .3*
a Xl
Xy
/
\
X ^E L B.6 \ "n: "/ /
*w
y
v\ /
1/ jT
*L.
o
5t n ^
o
0
5*
s
3.0
^
_ dP
,*<
5.0 /I 016
j*
\k
006
1^5*
'S^o n
5 0TB * B 10 ? 9 U 13 7 B 11
Edge aogla, , <teg TJpper-edga angle, er deg Lower-edge angle, 8^, deg Tralllng-edge angle, Bg. dag
{) Iffeot of varying all edge (b) Effeot of varying only (ot Effect or varying only (d) Effeot of varying only
angle ilaoltaneoiuly. upper-edfi* angle. Lower- iomeedge snglei. nUJiper- tralllng-edge anglae. lead-
dge angle, , 7-, ing-edge angle, 91, 10.
Figure 5.- Effect or varying edge angles on drag coefficient and lift-drag ratio of triangular-section biplanes.
Ul
l ATlMgLL anvjtMtv
COMMITTEE' FOR' AERONAUTICS
f
1 o\
<*
">
* Mplane, o = 7 e^
, Wplww, 6j, - , %, 10
/ - Dlamnid aliToll, 7
^fcis flat- iafa
/
y t
r
5^ M V
y
t
:
D
S
* yr / /
'/
*v 7
t
Ac
5 u /
z f
/
/
i4U
a 2. f-
y
.*
4>
/
/ i
f o
30Vi *
Y /i *Zi V J '* 8lf *T -^F"
*1
i
/ i
i
ii f
1.8
ft V .W
t 'T\ t
)W
It*
w tfs
V
ft/
if >
A /
IA\
>
r
04
i
H 9
no v
H
Z
0
I " 0
fro0
.63u UM .aJE \UHi a .6
Drag oomelnt, CQ
'A %' ,ie
Drag eoefflolnt, Op
. o
SrajI 00*1ETIoi.Hit. (In
Cl>) Q a S.O. (o) Ho 3 4.0.
Figure 6.- Goaparison of polar diagraM for ymti toal and an imiijuLi'loal biplane, a ayaBotrioal-dlaaood airfoil, and a thin flat
plate at, three Hull naben.
NACA FN No . 1316 F 1 9-
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
9
L
.24 (dee)
7
in
13
= 4o
. 20
a 3 {
V y
*
/
*/ 3
- I
/
5'
49
e /
0
rt 3< /
H .12 /
4
49
V 1.
>
l
>
Y
i
iJ .08
/
1 V >
l
. 04
1.
/ i Ou
0 0J
() .0(}4 .0138 .0 L2 .0 16 .0 SO .0'
Drag coefficient, CQ
Figure 7. Effect of increasing the lower-edge angles on polar
diagram of triangular-section biplanes. Free-stream Mach
number MQf 3.0j upper-edge angle ,, 7.
Fig. 8 NACA TN No. 1316
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
32
28 \
\ *._ ... - _
OJ.JJJ.cHie&| Vjj K y
\
\ Thin flat plate
24 \
\
\
\
20 \
\1
\
\
\ -
\
16
e = 7 4 \v
h L -
's.
I
p
tu
too" 'S.
X 's
H 12 -
^5. 5. \
//?
~~5 ^
--
V
/ / -
13 ^^
8 /1 f M f ^*
. ^ , ._ _;
70
/ 1 *'
'-*-
'
/
4
iff r
1/
/
/
0 V
0 12 3 4 5
Angle of attack, a, deg
Figure 8.- Effect of edge angles on lift-drag ratio of
biplanes, diamond airfoils, and a thin flat plate. (For
definition of edge angles, see fig, 1.) Free-stream
Mach number M, 3.0.
NACA TN No. 13 16 Fig. 9
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
JL *
v
Biplanes, g- = 7
Diamond airfoil, = 7
i. u \
\
43
c
oO
Vi
o
o
o v*Ls 10
6
n
u
o>
f v^--
o ^
I
h
4
7
.S
0
<3 L i3 5 i
AL c 6
Angle of attack, a, deg
Figure 9.- Effect of angle of attack on oenter of pressure of
two biplanes and a diamond airfoil (0- = e/c.) Free-
stream Mach number UQ, 3.0.
Flg. 10 NACA TN No. 1316
c
to
e
I
Biplane, e = 7 , eL = 10*
?,
Diamond alrfoll, 9 == 7oO
3 CLI r-a = 5
0
10
fl *
;
O.C
I 4>
O O
r*
4J Q
C O
e
0)
o
.04
o
n .02
4
Q)
o
o
60
-o 3
2
2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6
Free-stream Mach number, MQ
Figure 10- Variation of drag coefficient, center of pressure,
and lift-drag ratio with Mach number for biplane with
optimum spacing for free-stream Mach number M of 3.0,
(d/c - 0,15.) 0
NACA TN No. 1316 Fig. II
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Biplane, &v = 7 = 9L
,24 Biplane, 9^ = 7, 9L= 10
Diamond airfoil, 9 = 7
<
u
o
43
O
bO
at
.24
Lift coefficient, CL
Figure 11.- Relation between lift coefficient and loading
factor for upper airfoils of two biplanes and for a diamond
airfoil at free-stream Mach numbers MQ of 2.0 and 3.0.
Figs. 12, f3 NACA TN No. 1316
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
Shock
wave
Expansion L ^
region
Figur 12.- Sketch of single triangular airfoil with shock-
reflection surface. Free-stream Mach number MQ, 2.0.
(0)
Shock
wave
Expansion
region
NATIONAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS