Base D r a g and Thick Trailing Edges
SIGHARD F. HOERNER*
Air Materiel
ABSTRACT
The negative pressure originating behind the flat base of pro-
jectiles presents a drag component t h a t is consequently termed
"base drag." As illustrated in Fig. 1, the same kind of drag
exists for every elongated body the flow around which is sepa-
rated from its rear side, such as airfoil sections, the trailing edges
of which are cut off or thickened. The same type of drag is also
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750
found behind certain sheet-metal joints. It is possible to corre-
late all the various base drags with each other by considering the
effect of the boundary layer originating from the forebodies.
Analyzing competent measurements, simple formulas are found
with which to calculate the drag of tail turrets and blunt trailing
wing edges. In the case of thicker sections, such as are used for
the blade roots of propellers, the lift is also affected, and the lift-
drag ratio can be improved remarkably by thickening the trailing
edge. At supersonic speeds the base drag approaches the nat-
ural limit as given by zero pressure (vacuum). Depending upon
the body shape, the base pressure assumes an approximately
constant percentage of the theoretical limit.
SYMBOLS
y =
coordinate across direction of flow
i length of bodies in direction of flow
c = wing chord
h = height or thickness of trailing edge
d = diameter of the base or supporting rod, respectively
D = maximum body diameter
s = thickness of the boundary layer
V = local velocity within boundary layer
V = velocity of flow or flight 2
g. = dynamic pressure 0.5p V
= area to which the drag coefficient is referred
s noticeably increase t h e boundary-layer thickness,
c f
— coefficient indicating drag due to skin friction and
surface protuberances
CDB = base drag, based upon base area
CD = body drag, based upon maximum cross-section area
CDO = profile drag coefficient, based upon wing area
Ap = static pressure difference
B = subscript indicating the base
In several figures, a " d o t " is used as a subscript, indicating the
drag coefficient based upon the frontal area. CDP is eventually
used instead of CDO.
(1) B A S E D R A G OF T H R E E - D I M E N S I O N A L BODIES
(A) Mechanism of Base Drag
B Y EXAMINING T H E F L O W PATTERN a r o u n d and
hind the base of a projectile (Fig. l a ) , it is found
be-
to be t h a t of a jet p u m p . T h e j e t — t h a t is, the outer
flow—placed like a t u b e around t h e space behind t h e
base, mixes with t h e dead air and tries to p u m p it away.
However, since there is no supply from which additional
air can be drawn, t h e p u m p has no delivery, and its
Received October 17, 1949.
* Dr.-Ing. habil. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
622
Command
only effect is to reduce the static pressure on the body
base.
T h e base drag of projectiles is often quoted to be
around CDB = 0.2, equivalent to a base pressure
&PB/Q = —0.2. However, by studying available
pressure or drag measurements, t h e base pressure is
recognized to depend largely upon t h e length of the
forebody, t h e ratio of base to body diameter, and the
surface conditions of t h e projectile.
T h e base pressure is proportional to the dynamic
pressure of the outside flow. Evidently, however, t h e
b o u n d a r y layer existing a t t h e end of t h e forebody
serves as an insulation sheet, reducing t h e effective
dynamic pressure of t h e j e t - p u m p mechanism. T h e
boundary-layer thickness is proportional to the drag
originating from the surface of the forebody. Conse-
quently, in Fig. 2, the drag coefficient
CfB = DskJq SB = Cf(S/SB) (1)
is chosen as the parameter upon which the base drag is
considered to depend. I n this equation, Cf indicates
the skin drag of the forebody, which includes not only
the friction drag b u t also any additional pressure-drag
components originating from the surface, such as the
drag of driving bands or other protuberances.
I n supersonic cases, the wave drag is n o t to be in-
cluded in Cf, This kind of drag generally does n o t
since t h e equivalent m o m e n t u m is generally carried
sideways b y t h e respective shock waves. Of course,
there remains some reduction in dynamic pressure be-
hind a shock wave. Between M = 1 a n d 2, however,
this loss is relatively small—that is, in t h e order of less
t h a n 10 per cent—when considering projectile bodies
with pointed and slender noses. Therefore, b y evalu-
ating supersonic tests, 1 6 ' 20' 21 the wave drag was en-
tirely neglected.
T h e available experiments on projectiles and fuselages
(Fig. l b ) , as plotted in Fig. 2, show approximately
CDB = 0 . 0 2 9 / V C ^
As far as t h e tests were extended, t h e base pressure
(2)
varies between ApB/q = —0.03 a n d —0.30. F r o m
analysis, t h e thickness of t h e b o u n d a r y layer a t t h e end
of a projectile is found to be, roughly,
s/D = CfB (3)
valid for small drag coefficients. Consider, for example,
t h e case with CfB = 1, with t h e b o u n d a r y layer extend-
 BASE DRAG AND T H I C K T R A I L I N G EDGES 623

0.029/A3
<k\ TVojec-fci le "Body ACD = I - G> (4)
^ry^A/l/ip with Co indicating t h e original skin drag of t h e body
^^AAJJ[/A with d —» 0. Fig. 3 presents measurements on a smooth
and slender streamline body, t h e trailing end of which
h) Fmclaqe wC4k Cut-Off TVeuUVij Enol was cut off in steps. 2 Fig. 4 shows t h e drag increment
A Co, depending on the diameter ratio d/D. Curves,
yvvA/ANAA/^-^**
according to Eq. (4), seem to interpret t h e measured
< &
values sufficiently well.
cjTv/oJPi'wenlionctl SaaiCon wrHt HatBas* All this consideration of boat-tailing assumes, how-
ever, a flow p a t t e r n a t t a c h e d to t h e sides of t h e tail.
I n cases where t h e tail is too short and t h e flow is
E Vo*tut<S+vre*t
separated from its flanks, t h e whole cross-section area
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750

of the body has to be considered as base and t h e proper

d) AiVfoil Section wtyk Thick TrculiVig EFdqe drag has to be determined according to E q . (2). R o u n d -

6.4 /Calc illation According to Eqvah'on 4*

th d/D»I(AJL/Jt) aW Cj,= 0.066
er She**-Me-M Teint Q.
Li V -D>- v - 7 07
fill

FIG. 1. Several cases of base drag. 0.10 t

m
o.o2 -1-rtT' $ & . • WLBodyY.T^to'.'Rtfl
1*
• AVA TU510* [ Fuselage "bodies wi±h
o T>VL T*= MO1 ) Cvt-Off End, "Ref %
A •Behrnd Cone + Cylinder atM=|.S6,'Re-f 16 i A

010
x
4
Guidoma "Wojec-fciles at M=i, Tfe-P 10
Aberdeen Cone+CyltWet (H=«|.15('R«m 0.0I EE^^fli'f^ —^
1 1 1
0.1 oh 0.(0 «« 10
0.15
CDB Based Upon Base Area F I G . 3. Drag of a fuselage body, the end of which is cut off.

\
CIO
V 0.019
Empirical Function : ^ D * - .77^- ^ J Fusetaqe M y , t 0 =* D; C*.*0J>S
/ Cr— ^ ^ _q x -from IWsurcDi'rtvAbtmonl-&U J,
0.05\ "^—H^^1 f + f r»m Force fleowroweni* 5 ""*

""*' '*" ' "^Jjf A Pressure Measufevnervts Ttef 2

0.1 o,*t 0.6 o.2

$k\n-T>ra.q Coefficient Qfl 0.25 I Equation C^)
A
P IG. 2 . Drag originating from the base of three-dimensional
bodies, depending upon their skin drag.
0.10
V I
ing outside and, around the base for a thickness equal C* = °*y
1 ¥• 0.10
to approximately two-thirds of t h e base diameter. 0.0s A1
0.15"
Here, it seems t h a t the effect of the "jet p u m p " — t h a t /
is, t h e a m o u n t of negative base pressure—is reduced to /
one-tenth of t h a t near to CfB = 0. 0.10
(B) Effect of Boat-Tailing
I n the case of bodies, such as in Fig. l b , where t h e 0.0S
YT^
/ V
base diameter is smaller t h a n the m a x i m u m diameter of
t h e body, the mechanism of the base drag remains essen-
tially the same as in t h e case of Fig. l a . Referring the
M* f
0 0.2 04 06 ot o '•*£&
base drag to t h e m a x i m u m cross section of t h e body D
and with CfB = CD (D/d) \ from Eq. (2), F I G . 4. Base drag behind boat-tailed bodies of revolution.
 624 JOURNAL OF THE A E R O N A U T I C A L
« Pendulum Method at *RS 6- 10*
0.10 o Fovce Meason weirts ,1* s 4- • 10*
Tewtrcctive CaUvtaKon w»ih:
0J5 tX.Aq,-aa[l-0)j.)*]
Doe to Change in RowTb.'fciem
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750
\ effect is thus improved. Consequently, the partial
F I G . 5. Drag of spheres at Reynolds Numbers above the critical,
depending upon the diameter of the supporting rod.
ing the blunt end of a fuselage, for instance, affects the
base drag only as far as the round edge is able to lead
the flow somewhat farther into the dead space. Refer-
ence 2 indicates a reduction of base drag coefficient
(CDB = 0.04 to 0.06) by ACDB = 0.005 to 0.010 upon
adding a half sphere to the cut-off end of a fuselage
body. This result applies, however, to a smooth body
only. If one considers a real airplane fuselage with a
coefficient two or three times as high (CD = 0.1 to 0.2),
the effect of rounding the blunt end is expected to be
hardly noticeable.
Besides the experiments in reference 2, there are
also some points included in Fig. 4 measured behind a
tube. A collar was attached to the rear end of this
tube, and pressure measurements were made within the
dead space behind the collar. The tests show that the
theory, according to Eq. (2), also holds true in this
special case with d/D > 1.
The fuselage of a military airplane has a drag coeffi-
cient of the order of CD = 0.15 when accounting for
the usual surface irregularities and protrusions. The
base drag caused by cutting off or thickening the trail-
ing end amounts to ACD = 0.09 for d/D = 1 (case like
Fig. la). In order to accommodate a tail turret, how-
ever, a diameter ratio d/D = 0.5 may be sufficient.
The corresponding amount of drag ACD is less than
0.01, which is comparatively small—that is, in the
order of 6 per cent of the fuselage drag.
(C) Effect of Supporting Rod
In order to support projectile models in wind tunnels,
a sting is usually used leading from downstream to the
S C I E N C E S - O C T O B E R , 19 50
base. From measurements on spheres, as plotted in
Fig. 5, it is known that such a rod affects the drag re-
markably as far as Reynolds Numbers above the critical
are concerned. At first, one assumes that the drag is
reduced because a portion of the rear surface of the
sphere and the corresponding amount of base drag is
covered or cut out by the rod. A tentative calcula-
tion, however, accounting for this effect does not
check the actual drag reduction. Evidently, the
flow pattern of the sphere is changed because of the
addition of the rod. The cross section of the ''jet
pump," as described above, is changed from a circular
to a ring-shaped form, and, as outlined later, the pump
flow separation still existing behind the sphere at super-
critical Reynolds Numbers and the corresponding pres-
sure drag are reduced.
The base drag behind projectiles and similar bodies
is different from that of the sphere; the separation is
fixed at the sharp edge of the base. Starting from
d/D = 1, a ring-shaped base area is formed upon de-
creasing the rod diameter. The corresponding flow
pattern can be considered as a two-dimensional one,
and the drag can be properly calculated from Eq. (9).
At d/D = 0, however, Eq. (2) for three-dimensional
base drag has to be applied. Between this point and
the two-dimensional curve one has to guess as to the
course of the base pressure. Tentative calculations,
the thickness of the boundary layer and the effective
dynamic pressure of the /'jet pump" being considered,
0/h
U3.5Dj Sx-loS^ Cp=o.oo3; Cf#=0.o3
*3
0 €
OX °4> 0,6 ^4Jr
-c.f
-0.3
T
-ok
F I G . 6. Variation of base pressure due to rear supporting rod.
 BASE DRAG AND T H I C K T R A I L I N G EDGES 625

when considering the "base" of a sheet-metal joint. By

"Boundary Layer I s * i.l a*A .=. 2.6 »Vi. introducing h/s = 0.2/CfB into Eq. (7), the following re-
sults :

CDB = 0.1/</Cf] (9)

This function is plotted in Fig. 8, together with the ex-
perimental points as taken from Fig. 7.
(3) CHARACTERISTICS OF THICK TRAILING EDGES

(A) Drag at Trailing Edge of Two-Dimensional Bodies

Fig. 8 presents the available measurements on the
additional drag, originating from airfoils, the trailing
edges of which are either thickened (Fig. lc) or cut
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750

off (Fig. Id), thus forming a surface equivalent to the

F I G . 7. Drag of a sheet-metal joint; experimental points from base of projectiles. Considering such tests, the value
reference 5. CfB is found from
CfB — 2 Cf{c/h) (10)
suggest a slight increase of the negative amount of base
pressure upon increasing the rod diameter beyond with Cf indicating the skin drag proper to all of the body
d/D = 0.1. Model tests, especially in high-speed and in front of the base—that is, including any super ve-
supersonic wind tunnels, usually employ rods heavier locity effects and the drag of surface roughness and
than according to this permissible ratio. protuberances. For most of the experiments at
Considering the base-pressure coefficient ACD in the smaller CfB values,
upper part of Fig. 6, the variation is not so great as that
of the pressure coefficient. Contrary to Fig. 5, how- CDB = 0.135/^C,fB (11)
ever, there is no decrease of base drag to be expected as At the same coefficient CfBi if one compares Figs. 2
far as diameter ratios smaller than 0.5 are concerned. and 8, the pressure difference behind the trailing edge
of airfoils appears to be at least three times as high as
(2) DRAG OF SHEET-METAL JOINTS
the base pressure of three-dimensional bodies. This
The flow pattern behind the sharp-edged sheet-metal difference can be understood upon studying the veloc-
joint, as shown in Fig. le, is similar to that past the ity distribution across the wake behind the body.
thick trailing edge of an airfoil section (Fig. Id). In Assume a boundary layer, with a distribution as given
both cases, the corresponding pressure drag is, by prin- in Eq. (5), as arriving at the edge of the base, and the
ciple, the same kind as that originating from the base of character of this distribution may be more or less main-
a projectile. tained upon entering the space behind the base, as far
The general distribution of the velocity across a as the two-dimensional case is concerned. In the three-
turbulent boundary layer is
„ / 7 = (y/s)(l/60rl/7) (5)
The drag of a small body, placed within the boundary CoeffCc»«*\is "based UponfeeiSftArea. V n
layer, is proportional to the effective or average dy-
namic pressure qel corresponding to its height h. 0.6
Cut-Off otThi'ck*n*d
qe/q = 0.7 (h/s)l/> (6)
r
Edge.
0.5 • AVA i / c * 1W «"* lO.S^'Ref 6
o Tokyo 0Mrt»Vfoit"Rfrf 7
Consequently, in Fig. 7, the drag of sheet-metal joints, a Munich 24/2 AiVfoiI Tfcf9
similar to that in Fig. le, follows more or less accu- o.± A WL 0018 AiVfoU ftef 8
* Dormer *R<xi Sections Ttef '0
rately the y 3 power of h as far as the range of h/s < x i h e e t - M « t a ( Joints "Re* 5"
1 is concerned. o.s T AVA to-ter Tonnel Tte-f I (
0.155 + MKA T'RpH52 / , R-io c , / M«o.5

CD = 0.18 </h/s (7) Dl 4 .c-.

0.(0
This trend is proved by many other measurements on
various surface protuberances. 5 0J / A. x x.

With the velocity distribution as given in Eq. (5), the

skin-drag coefficient of one side of a plane plate is
approximately 0.1 o*£f- o.& *$ />0 72 t*<^«
F I G . 8. Drag due to thickened or cut-off trailing edge of airfoil
Cf = 0.2 (s/l); C,B = 0.2 (s/h) (8) sections.
 626 JOURNAL OF THE A E R O N A U T I C A L S C I E N C E S —OCTOBER, 1950

dimensional case, however, t h e boundary-layer m a t e -

a) 1-dimensional ?Laie
rial is transferred from a ring-shaped t o a circular cross
section. In doing this b y velocity and volume, it is
found b y mathematical means t h a t t h e power in E q .
(5) is changed from 1/Q to VV Consequently, the dis-
1>) i-DiWrmawal wM TbrhHibn tribution of t h e dynamic pressure is changed from t h e
y 3 to t h e Vi.5 power of t h e distance or the radius, re-
spectively. Confirming this trend, t h e power in E q .
(2) is y 2 as compared to 1/3 in Eqs. (9) and (11). A t
the same time, the magnitude of the average dynamic
pressure within the b o u n d a r y layer is reduced to
roughly one-third of t h a t in t h e two-dimensional case.
FIG. 9. Flow pattern past various plates. In (b), ApB/q = 0.8. M o s t of t h e difference in base drag is t h u s sufficiently
explained.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750

I n Fig. 8, most of t h e measurements on airfoil sec-

tions show somewhat higher drag coefficients [Eq.
aozo (11)] t h a n the sheet-metal joints [Eq. (9)]. This
0.115 difference is probably attributable to the flowT p a t t e r n .
K T h e mixing of the outer flow with air from t h e dead
space behind t h e base does not proceed so smoothly as
illustrated in Fig. l a . Instead, t h e p a t t e r n is more
irregular, forming bigger vortices, intruding deeper
into the space once in a while, and carrying away air
particles in lumps. Behind two-dimensional bodies,
0M0
the flow usually assumes t h e regular stable p a t t e r n of
the von K a r m a n vortex-street, as illustrated in Fig. 9a.
'tyx>m • Munich 24(5,rlt-M06l'Re49
Because of t h e vigorous and extended up-and-down
o.ooS movement of this street, the exchange of m o m e n t u m
between t h e outer flow and t h e air particles in t h e dead
space is intensified. On the other hand, in t h e case
of t h e sheet-metal joints, a n y larger vortex m o v e m e n t
is slowed down and more or less suppressed b y the wall
0 / 2 3 4 % £ i"- along which the m o v e m e n t takes place. Experiments
c in a water tunnel 1 2 prove t h a t in the absence of t h e
F I G . 10. Profile drag, at CL = 0, of airfoil sections, the trailing
edges of which are cut off or thickened. vortex s t r e e t — t h a t is, with a flow p a t t e r n as illustrated
in Fig. 9b—the drag coefficient of a plate is reduced
from approximately 2.0 to 1.5. This means a reduc-
tion of the negative ''base" pressure from Ap/q «
—1.3 to —0.8. Approximately t h e same ratio is found
in Fig. 8 between the respective two curves (constants
0.135 and 0.10).
T h e base-drag coefficients in Eqs. (9) and (11) are
converted into profile-drag coefficients b y multiplying
t h e m with h/c.
0.10 (h\h ^ 0.135 (h\/% , _
</CD </CD
where CDw = CfB (h/c) indicates the profile drag of t h e
section for h/c = 0. Fig. 10 (like Fig. 8) shows a
transition of the experimental points from one of t h e
calculated curves to t h e other. Obviously, for small
values of h—that is, as long as t h e edge is thinner t h a n
roughly one or one-half times t h e boundary-layer thick-
ness—a regular vortex street does not originate.
I £ i g to /i n*h /e (B) Effects of Trailing Edge on Lift
I n t h e case of wings, thickening the trailing edge not
F I G . 11. Increase in maximum lift due to thickness of trailing
edge. only affects t h e drag b u t also the lift. As evident from
 BASE DRAG AND
Fig. 11, t h e thick edge works similar to a split flap,
increasing t h e m a x i m u m lift approximately b y
ACL = 4(A/<0
This effect is in the order of one-third of t h a t of an
ordinary split flap deflected to 90°. Combining Eqs.
(9) and (13), t h e efficiency of a n airplane is given b y
CL K
cL .»+4
cD
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750
For conventional values, such as CL max. = 1-4, CD min. =
0.025, and CDw = 0.01, this equation has its m a x i m u m
between h/c = (0 and 0.4) per cent. This means,
with h/c = 0.4 per cent, t h e ratio CL maxJCD min. is
a b o u t the same as a t h = 0. Four-tenths per cent is
considered permissible, and the corresponding thick-
ness of t h e trailing wing edge of any airplane is found
to be between y 8 and 1 in., depending upon the size of
wing and plane.
T h e effect of a blunt trailing edge on the lift-curve
slope is similar in relative magnitude to t h a t upon t h e
m a x i m u m lift.7- 8 This effect m a y be i m p o r t a n t in t h e
case of control surfaces.
Fig. 12 suggests another application of t h e thick
trailing edge. T h e lift characteristics of a 40 per cent
thick section are remarkably improved above CL = 0.4
when using a thick trailing edge; the m a x i m u m lift/
drag ratio is increased, by some 100 per cent. Such
sections—that is, profiles with high thickness ratios—
are employed a t the blade roots of propellers. I t ap-
pears to be favorable, in this case, to manufacture t h e
trailing edge with h/t in the order of 20 per cent. I n
this way, the minimum drag is not necessarily increased.
T h e flow past thick sections is usually somewhat de-
tached from the trailing edge. Consequently, thick-
ening this edge means filling out the dead space. T h e
experiments in reference 14 lead one to assume a slight
reduction of drag with h/t = 10 per cent or h/c = 4
per cent, for a 40 per cent thick profile. Such sections
m a y be especially advantageous in the case of turbo-
prop engines, where the combustion air usually is t a k e n
in between and around the blade roots.
(4) B A S E D R A G AT S U P E R S O N I C S P E E D S
At first there is no fundamental change to be ex-
pected in the mechanism of the ''jet p u m p " because
of approaching and exceeding the speed of sound. T h e
negative base pressure finds a n a t u r a l limit, however,
as t h e condition of vacuum is reached. T h e so-defined
m a x i m u m amount of base-pressure and base-drag co-
efficient is a function of the M a c h N u m b e r .
1.42
QDB max. — (15)
(-) - yM2
\ Q / max.
T H I C K T R A I L I N G E D G E S 627
(13)
(14)
FIG. 12. Lift and drag of a 40 per cent thick airfoil with two
different thickness ratios of the trailing edge. 14 ^ 4 = 4 ; c =
5.9 in.; Reff. = 5 X 105.
with the constant y = 1.405. As shown in Fig. 13, this
upper limit is never likely to be encountered b y a n y base
pressure in t h e subsonic field. A t supersonic M a c h
Numbers, however, the theoretical limit comes down
remarkably. A series of base-pressure measurements
carried out on projectiles and similar bodies suggests a
certain percentage of the theoretical a m o u n t
L>DB — 0.5 Co 0.7/M2 (16)
Of course, this drag is true only for a certain boundary-
layer thickness—that is, for a specific value CfB as used
in Fig. 2 and E q . (9). I n the case of Eq. (16) the cor-
rect subsonic value of CDB is in the order of CDB =
0.25.
Experiments recently published in reference 19 con-
firm t h e hypothesis as expressed in Eq. (16). Further-
more, these tests are remarkable because t h e y are t h e
only known ones extending through the speed of sound.
I n t h e vicinity of M = 0.9, t h e tests show a minimum
in the order of CDB = 0.08. Considering t h e flow
p a t t e r n proper for this M a c h Number, the low
base-pressure difference can be explained when as-
suming t h a t between McrU. and M = 1 most of t h e
drag is caused b y flow separation. Correspondingly,
t h e effective dynamic pressure of the "jet p u m p " mech-
anism is highly reduced. I n order t o account for
CDB = 0.08, it is sufficient to assume in Fig. 2 a fore-
body drag-coefficient CfB = 0.15. T h e flow p a t t e r n
changes rapidly, however, when approaching M = 1.
Here, the loss of dynamic m o m e n t u m , as equivalent
to the drag of t h e forebody, is evidently shifted from t h e
b o u n d a r y layer into t h e outer space. W i t h most of t h e
m o m e n t u m being carried away from the body by means
of pressure waves, the dynamic pressure is not remark-
ably reduced to a n y extent around t h e base, and, as
done before when evaluating t h e experiments of refer-
ence 1 in Fig. 2, only the "skin d r a g " of t h e forebody is
to be considered as affecting the base pressure.
W h e n t h e subsonic base drag of a n y body is known,
it is possible to estimate t h e course it will take when
approaching t h e upper theoretical limit [Eq. (15)].
 (4) At supersonic speeds the base drag is related
06 _L to the maximum possible pressure differential, which
Q* \ Mafttwwwt PotsibU Beu« Dt-ag; C M m M = ' £~ is that between vacuum and the ambient pressure
OS (Fig. 13). The supersonic drag behind any body can be
estimated (Fig. 14) when the subsonic coefficient is
0/t known.
"Base Prtwure
y Bed mot Cones *Reff6 REFERENCES
0.3
K^
^m + -Rocket Tests Ifcf iq 1
Bach, Druckverteilungsmessungen an Geschossmodellen (Pres-
sure Distribution Measurements on Projectile Models), Report
0.1
• \
k± ZWB U M 6057 (Aachen 1945); Trans. A.T.I. 2457, CADO,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.
2
Kosin and Lehmann, Ein Beitrag zur Aerodynamik des
OJ Rumpfes (Contribution to the Aerodynamics of Fuselages), Jahr-
buch D Luftfahrtforschung, p. I 241, 1942.
3
Winter and Jaklitsch, Ueber die zusaetzliche Sogwirkung
0 / 2 3 4- 5 6 C\ 7 grosser Klappenausschlaege bei Duesenkuehlern (About the Suction
F I G . 13. Base-drag coefficient at supersonic speeds. Behind Radiator Flaps), ZWB Tech. Berichte, p. 309, 1944.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS on February 7, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.1750

4
Hoerner, Versuche mit Kugeln betreffend Kennzahl Turbulenz
und Ob erflaechenbes chaffenheit (Experiments with Spheres),
10 Luftfahrtforschung, p. 42, 1935; Trans., N.A.C.A. T.M. No. 777.
r -lML Q^~ 5
Wieghardt, Erhoehung des turbulenten Reibungswiderstandes
C*»J* y durch Oberflaechenstoerungen (Drag Due to Surface Protuberances),
x / o-
1 Jahrbuch D Luftfahrtforschung, 1943; or ZWB Report FB 1563.
6
u / t Prandtl and Betz, Ergebnisse AVA Goettingen, Vol. I l l ,

ok
X

// JO*
X
r -

•
] 4>
p. 82.
7
Okamoto, Effects of Cutting Away the Trailing Edge . . . ,
J» Aeronautical Institute, Tokyo University, Report No. 131, 1935.
/ 8
Swaty, Beeinflussung der Beizahlen des Profits 0018 durch
o.l
L
tf
if
- ft 2. -a£
\i 4

-0.6 "08 "to "A2 -M.

i
OS
5

~*6
Kuerzungen an der Hinterkante (Variation of the Characteristics
of 0018 Airfoil Section Due to Cutting Off Its Trailing Edge),
Jahrbuch D Luftfahrtforschung, p. I 58,1940.
9
^Subsonic 'base Pressure. rb Engelhardt, Impulsmessungen an einem Fluegel mit veraender-
licher Hinterkantendicke (Momentum Measurements Behind a
FIG. 14. Function, assisting in estimating the base drag of any-
body. Wing with Variable Thickness of the Trailing Edge), Aero. Lab.
Tech. University Munich, Report No. 4,1944.
10
Goldmann, Widerstandsmessungen an drei Staeben (Drag
In order to assist in such estimating, Fig. 14 was pre- Measurements on Three Rods), Wind-Tunnel Report Dornier
pared. Including data as found for plates, the rear No. 13,1937.
side of which can also be considered as base, three ex- 11
Drescher and Schwenk, Untersuchung dicker Profile im
perimental points are available. From these points, Wasserkanal (Experiments with Thick Profiles in the Water
the zero point, and the upper limit as given by CDB -*- Tunnel), Report AVA Goettingen No. B 4 4 / J / 1 7 , 1944.
12
Hoerner, Verschiedene Messungen (Various Experiments),
CDB max. = 1, a curve is defined which permits one to Fieseler Water-Tunnel, Report No. 2,1939.
make reasonable estimates of the base drag at super- 13
Petrikat, Einfluss der Hinterkantenausbildung bei Streben
sonic speeds. und Tragfluegeln (Influence of the Trailing Edge on the Character-
Comparing the base drag to the wave drag as originat- istics of Struts and Wings), Fieseler Water-Tunnel Report No. 21,
ing from the rear of double cones and double-wedge sec- 1940.
14
Junkers, Profiles with Blunt Trailing Edges, Results from
tions, limiting Mach Numbers are found beyond which
Junkers Wind-Tunnel, No. D. 7053,1941.
single cones or wedges, with half the nose angle and 15
Gruschwitz and Schrenk, Ueber eine einfache Moeglichkeit
flat base, are superior as to their total drag over the zur Auftriebserhoehung von Tragfluegeln (Simple Device for In-
double shapes. For a 10 per cent thick wedge section, creasing Maximum Lift), Zeitschr Flugtechnik Motorluftsch,
for example, this point is reached between M = 2 and 3. No. 20,1932.
16
Erdmann, Widerstandsbestimmung von Kegeln und Kugeln
aus der Druckverteilung bei Ueberschallgeschwindigkeit (Determina-
RESULTS tion of Drag from Pressure Distribution on Cones and Spheres),
(1) The base drags of projectiles and of fuselages Lilienthal Report No. 139/2, p. 28.
17
Wenzinger and Harris, Wind-Tunnel Investigation of N.A.
with blunt or cut-off trailing end are a distinct function C.A. 23012, 23021, and 23030 Airfoils with Various Sizes of Split
of the forebody drag (Figs. 2 and 8). Flaps, N.A.C.A. T.R. No. 668,1939.
(2) From the drag characteristics of sheet-metal 18
Charters, Some Ballistic Contributions to Aerodynamics,
joints (Fig. 7), it is possible to calculate the drag orig- Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, p. 155, 1947.
19
inating from the blunt or cut-off trailing edge of airfoil Hill and Alpher, Base Pressure at Supersonic Velocities,
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, p. 153, 1949.
sections (Figs. 8 and 10). 20
Ferri, Supersonic Tunnel Tests of Projectiles in Germany and
(3) A thick trailing edge is suitable to improve the Italy, N.A.C.A. Wartime Report L-152, 1945.
lift and the lift/drag ratio of thicker airfoil sections 21
Charters and Turetski, Determination of Base Pressure from
(Fig. 12). Such sections have practical interest for the Free-Flight Data, Ballistic Research Laboratory, Report No.
blade roots of propellers. 653,1948.
628