5.

WING AND TAILPLANE DESIGN

5.1 Maximum Lift Coefficient

The maximum lift coefficient of the airplane CL,max depends upon many factors. Only the
most important of these will be considered in this study and they are listed below.

a) Airfoil maximum lift coefficient cl,max :

b) Wing aspect ratio, taper ratio and sweepback angle.
c) Trailing edge flap design and deflection angle.
d) Leading edge flap design and deflection angle.

The methods to be used to estimate CL,max for the various configurations of a wing are
found in the USAF Stability and Control DATCOM (Ref. 5-1) the appropriate sections of
which are reproduced in the Appendices to this handbook The material presented below
directs the reader to the appropriate sections where the pertinent data may be found, and
summarizes the procedure.

The airfoil sections to be considered will be those of the NACA four and five digit
airfoils along with the 6-series laminar flow airfoils. These are described in Abbot, et al
(Ref. 5-2) and in the book by Abbott and von Doenhoff (Ref. 5-3), as well as in
DATCOM (Ref. 5-1) and given here in Appendix A. The characteristics of wing
planforms and the definitions associated with them are given in DATCOM (Ref. 5-1) and
are presented in Appendix B.

There was a resurgence of airfoil development in the 1960s and 1970s following a long
hiatus in the two decades following the Second World War. NASA launched a concerted
effort to develop new airfoil sections that would have improved performance at high
subsonic Mach numbers. In particular, designs were sought that would delay the drag
divergence Mach number and maintain reasonable drag coefficients at the turbulent flow
conditions typical of high speed flight while retaining acceptable maximum lift and stall
characteristics at the low speeds typical of landing. This research led to the so-called
supercritical airfoil, one that has a distinctive shape compared to standard airfoils. A
description of these developments is given by Harris (Ref. 5-4). Airframe manufacturers
are also actively engaged in this work, but their results are proprietary, and hence
unavailable. Newly developed NASA airfoils are described in a number of reports not
readily available outside of the aerospace industry. McCormick (Ref. 5-5) also describes
some of the newer airfoils. However, no other single report exists which collects and
summarizes a wide range of NACA airfoil results as does Ref. 5-2. For these reasons,
and for reasons of expediency, it is suggested that NACA airfoils be used.

5.2 Wings at Angle of Attack

A great deal of theoretical and experimental work has been done toward the development
of airfoil sections. Theoretical airfoil design is hampered by the existence of viscous
effects in the form of a "boundary layer" of low-energy air between the airfoil surface and

79
the free stream. This boundary layer affects chiefly the section drag and maximum lift
characteristics but also has minor effects on lift-curve slope, angle of attack for zero lift,
and section pitching-moment coefficient.

Since the boundary layer is influenced by surface roughness, surface curvature, pressure
gradient, heat transfer between the surface and the boundary layer, and viscous
interaction with the free stream it is apparent that no simple theoretical considerations can
accurately predict all the airfoil characteristics. For these reasons, experimental data are
always preferable to theoretical calculations. Airfoils have been optimized for many
specific characteristics, including: high maximum lift, low drag at low lift coefficients,
low drag at high lift coefficients, low pitching moments, low drag in the transonic region,
and favorable lift characteristics beyond the critical Mach number. Optimization of an
airfoil in one direction usually compromises it in another. Thus, low-drag airfoils have
poor high-lift characteristics, and high-lift airfoils have low critical Mach numbers.

It is apparent from the above that any generalized charts for airfoil section characteristics,
including the ones in this handbook, must be used with caution. Included in Appendix C
are tabulated NACA experimental and theoretical data presented in DATCOM (Ref. 5-1).
Table 4.1.1-A of Appendix C summarizes experimental data for the NACA four- and
five-digit airfoils. Table 4.1.1-B gives corresponding data for the NACA 6-series airfoils.
The data are for smooth leading-edge conditions and 9 x 106 Reynolds number.

Information is presented in those tables on the following airfoil characteristics:

1. Angle of attack at zero lift, α 0

2. Moment coefficient at zero lift, cm,0
3. Lift-curve slope, cl,α
4. Aerodynamic center location in percent chord, a.c.
5. Angle of attack for maximum lift coefficient, α cl ,max
6. Maximum lift coefficient, cl ,max
7. Angle of attack at which the lift curve deviates from linear
variation, a0

From these first five quantities the approximate section lift-curve shape can be
synthesized, as illustrated in Fig. 5-1.

5.3 Airfoil Selection

The airfoil selected for your design depends upon the cruising speed which in turn is
related to the powerplant chosen. If the selected powerplant is a turboprop the speed
range for cruise will be in the range of 250 to 350 mph. The average wing/airfoil
thickness ratio can be from 13 to 15% for such aircraft. A larger thickness ratio is
generally chosen for the root chord than for the tip chord, in order to provide a deep
section at the root to reduce the bending stresses acting there. The tip chord thickness
ratio is made smaller to provide an average value which optimizes cl,max, and typically lies
in the range of 13% to 15%.

80
  

 


cl
,a

α 0 0
α 0

α cl,max
α
Figure 5-1 Schematic diagram showing the five elements of the airfoil lift curve

It is recommended that the airfoil selected be chosen both on the value of cl,max and upon
the post stall variation of cl with angle of attack. An abrupt drop in section lift coefficient
is to be avoided, and the airfoil with the smallest decrease in cl for angles of attack above
the stall is highly desirable, even at the expense of a smaller value of cl,max. In the 1930's
and 40's designers chose wings which used the NACA 2412 at the root and the 4412 at
the tip. The NACA 23012 or 23015 airfoils have higher maximum lift but these airfoils
exhibit a large loss in cl beyond the stall. The NACA 6-series have smaller leading edge
radii than the 4- and 5- digit series and the maximum thickness moves aft as the second
digit of the 6-series increases. The maximum thickness of the 4- and 5-digit airfoils is at
30% chord. The position of the maximum thickness of the 63, 64 and 65 series is located
progressively aft. The 63 series airfoils might be considered for the turboprop aircraft.
The NACA 63-215 is a suggested airfoil section because of its favorable stall
characteristics. It is advisable to investigate those airfoil sections used by the competition
(market survey aircraft) as justification for your choice of airfoil.

The turbofan aircraft will typically cruise at high subsonic Mach number, typically in the
range of 0.74<Mcruise<0.80. The upper limit chosen is to avoid the drag rise associated
with the transonic speed regime. The average wing thickness will be in the 9% to 12%
range, the lower value associated with relatively unswept wings and the higher value with
the moderately swept (Λ c/4 > 35o) wings. The NACA 64-2xx or the 64-4xx series airfoils
might prove satisfactory for these aircraft. Again it is suggested that your market survey
be utilized to glean information. As mentioned previously in Chapter 2, the range of
thickness-to-chord ratio, t/c, for commercial airliners lies in the range 1.63A< t/c <2.25A,
where t/c is measured in %.

In order to facilitate the airfoil selection process the pertinent sections of DATCOM (Ref.
5-1) are presented in the Appendices A and C and are presented below with comments.
The stall characteristics of airfoils have been correlated in by an airfoil height parameter

81
∆ y which is shown in Fig. 2.2.1-8 in Appendix A. The value of ∆ y naturally increases
(linearly) with airfoil thickness ratio and depends upon the NACA airfoil family.

A summary of cl characteristics of various airfoils is given in Tables 4.1.1-1A and 4.1.1.-

1B of Appendix C. Included are values of α 0, cm,0, cl,α , xac /c, α cl,max, cl,max and α 0,
where α 0 is the angle of attack at which the cl vs α curve deviates from a straight line.
The values of cm,0 are observed to increase significantly with the design lift coefficient
(the third digit in the 6-series airfoil) and these large negative values are to be avoided in
the high speed designs because they tend to put the aircraft in a dive and/or twist the wing
to negative angles of attack. A design lift coefficient of 0.2 is preferred to one of 0.4 for
this reason. Appendix C (Section 4.1 of Ref. 5-1) need not be used alone for airfoil
selection purposes; Refs. 2 and 3 may also be consulted.

The airfoil selection must be made before proceeding further and the value of cl,max
corresponding to M = 0.2, Re,c = 9 x 106, and standard roughness noted. On the basis of
your market survey you should also select the wing aspect ratio A, the taper ratio λ , and
the sweepback angle of the quarter chord line Λ c/4. The following guidelines are
suggested:

Engine speed in cruise Λ c/4 λ A

Turboprop V=300 mph 0o 0.5 7 to 11
Turbofan M=0.8 25o to 35o 0.33 6 to 9

5.4 Compressibility Effects on Airfoils

Consider a typical airfoil, the NASA 642-015, a symmetric section with 15% thickness.
The theoretical inviscid surface velocity distribution is shown in Fig. 5-2 (Refs. 5-2 and
5-3). Two distributions are illustrated, one for zero angle of attack where cl =0, and one
for moderate angle of attack where cl =0.22. Because the section is symmetric the zero
angle of attack case has exactly the same velocity distribution on both the upper and
lower surfaces. As a result the pressure distributions are also identical on both surfaces
and therefore the net lift is also zero. However, in the moderate angle of attack case the
upper surface of the airfoil has a consistently higher velocity on the upper than on the
lower surface resulting in lower pressures on the upper than on the lower surface so that a
net lift force is produced. Note that the square of the velocity is plotted since this quantity
is proportional to the pressure; the difference between the upper and lower surface curves
is basically the net pressure force.

In the lifting case shown in Fig. 5-2, the upper surface velocity is approximately 26%
greater than the free stream velocity. Therefore as the free stream Mach number
approaches 0.8, the velocity on the upper surface approaches the sonic value, i.e. M=1.
Thus the surface of the airfoil starts to feel compressibility effects before the free stream
would suggest they are important. We may define the critical Mach number for an airfoil
as that free stream Mach number at which the velocity at some point on the surface of the
airfoil reaches the sonic value. For the airfoil considered the critical Mach number
Mcrit=0.78 for cl=0 and Mcrit=0.79 for cl=0.22. Ref. 5-2 presents graphs of Mcrit as a

82
function of free stream Mach number M for a wide variety of NACA airfoils. We will
make use of this material when we estimate drag in Chapter 7. Research into means of
delaying the onset of compressibility effects led to the development of the “supercritical”
airfoil (Ref. 5-6) by Richard Whitcomb, a NASA researcher who also pioneered the “area
rule” that prompted a “coke-bottle” shape for fuselages that reduced transonic drag.

(v/V)2

x/c

Figure 5-2 Theoretical velocity distribution on upper and lower surfaces of a

symmetric airfoil for zero lift and moderate lift angles of attack

Since speed is of importance in air transport modern airliners are designed to cruise as
close to sonic speed as is possible without undue drag penalty. Note that though there is
continuing interest in supersonic transports, the generation of ground-level pressure
disturbances (“sonic booms”) has limited the supersonic portions of flight to those over
the sea. As a consequence, supersonic transports are very specialized vehicles and their
design is outside the scope of this handbook. As just pointed out, flight at Mach numbers
above 0.65 results in regions of supersonic flow developing over the wing. The
deceleration of the supersonic flow to subsonic values over the aft sections of the wing
produces shock waves which disturb the boundary layer flow there and can cause
substantial flow separation with the concomitant penalty of increased drag. A schematic
illustration of the flow field and pressure distributions over conventional and supercritical
airfoils, as presented in Ref. 5-4, is shown in Fig. 5-3.

The supercritical airfoil has a flatter upper surface designed to provide a smoother
deceleration of the supersonic flow so that a weaker shock wave is produced than on the
conventional airfoil. The evolution of the shape of the supercritical airfoils is shown in
Fig. 5-4.

83
Figure 5-3 The flow field and pressure distribution over conventional and
supercritical airfoils (from Ref. 5-4)

Figure 5-4 Evolution of the shape of typical supercritical airfoils (Ref. 5-4)

84
The extent of drag reduction possible is shown in Fig. 5-5 for a 13.5% thick slotted
supercritical airfoil, an 11% thick integral supercritical airfoil, and a 12% thick
conventional NACA 641-212 low-drag airfoil.

Figure 5-5 Drag coefficient as a function of Mach number for two supercritical
airfoils and one conventional airfoil as presented in Ref. 5-4

The slotted supercritical airfoil displays a larger drag coefficient because of the skin
friction on the larger wetted surface area caused by incorporating the slot. The major
improvement provided by the supercritical airfoil design is found to be in delaying the
onset of the drag divergence Mach number from MDD=0.7 for the conventional airfoil to
MDD=0.8 for the supercritical airfoils. The drag divergence Mach number is defined as
that Mach number where the derivative of the drag coefficient with respect to Mach
number has a particular value; NASA uses 10% as its criterion, i.e. dcd/dM=0.10. Thus
the use of supercritical airfoils on the wings of modern airliners has provided substantial
performance increases. These wing designs are so valuable that aircraft manufacturers
consider them proprietary and detailed information on them is not made readily available.
As a consequence, for the present purposes of determining the lifting characteristics of
the airplane being designed, the NACA airfoils will be considered satisfactory. The issue
of the drag reductions possible will be treated in Chapter 7.

There are some additional benefits of the supercritical airfoil in that the lift is preserved
and even augmented at the higher free stream Mach numbers possible. This is shown in
Fig. 5-6 where the normal force coefficient for the integral supercritical airfoil and the

85
NACA 641-212 conventional airfoil is shown as a function of free stream Mach number.
However, there is an increase in pitching moment, as shown in Fig. 5-6, that turns out to
be not as much of a trim drag penalty for swept-wing aircraft fitted with supercritical
airfoils as the optimum wing twist increases as the Mach number increases. This
increased wing twist alleviates the penalty arising from increased pitching moment
coefficient.

Figure 5-6 The normal force coefficients for a supercritical and a conventional
airfoil as a function of free stream Mach numbers, from Ref. 5-4

5.4 Determination of Wing Lift Curve Slope

The three-dimensional lift-curve slope of conventional wings CLα is given, per radian, by
the following equation:

CLα 2π
= 1/ 2
A  A β  tan 2 Λ c / 2  
2 2
(5-1)
2 +  2 1 + + 4
 κ  β 2  

Thus CLα is a function of wing aspect ratio, mid-chord sweep angle Λ c/2, Mach number,
and airfoil section (defined parallel to the free stream) lift-curve slope. The factor κ in
the figure is the ratio of the actual two-dimensional (i.e., airfoil) lift-curve slope (per
radian) at the appropriate Mach number to the theoretical value at that Mach number,
[(clα ) Μ ]/ [2π / β ]. Note that the theoretical correction for subsonic compressibility
is ( clα )M = clα /β , so in the absence of an experimental value for (clα )M the value

86
for κ = clα /2π , that is, the ratio of the actual low-speed airfoil lift-curve slope to that of
the airfoil in ideal incompressible flow will suffice. The section lift-curve slope (per
degree) is obtained from Table 4.1.1-A or Table 4.1.1-B of Appendix C and β is the
Prandtl-Glauert factor

β = 1− M 2

A sweep-conversion formula, from which the mid-chord sweep for any straight-tapered
wing may be determined, is given as follows:

2  1− λ 
tan Λ1/ 2 c = tan Λ LE −  
A  1+ λ 

where λ is the taper ratio, ct/cr. An equation which relates the sweepback angle of the
leading edge to any other constant percent chord line (n = %c/100), for trapezoidal wing
planforms, is given by
4n  1 − λ 
tan Λ LE = tan Λ nc +  
A 1+ λ 

For example, if the quarter chord sweepback angle is known, (n = 1/4 = 0.25) the
sweepback angle of the leading edge is easily determined. In a similar fashion, once the
sweepback angle of the leading edge is known, the sweepback angle of any other
constant percent chord line can be easily found:

4n  1 − λ 
tan Λ nc = tan Λ LE −  
A 1+ λ 

5.5 Wing Maximum Lift

Section 4.1.3.4 of DATCOM (Ref. 5-1), given in Appendix D, presents methods of
rapidly estimating the maximum lift and angle of attack for maximum lift of wings at
subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic speeds. At subsonic speeds a distinction
is made between low and high aspect ratio wings. This is because two different sets of
parameters are required to describe the wing characteristics in the two aspect ratio
regimes. Specifically, the maximum lift of high aspect ratio wings at subsonic speeds is
directly related to the maximum lift of the wing airfoil sections. Wing planform shape
does influence the maximum lift obtainable, but its effect is distinctly subordinate to the
influence of the section characteristics. For low aspect ratio wings, on the other hand,
wing maximum lift is primarily related to planform shape, while the airfoil section
characteristics are secondary. For the above reasons, an accurate description of the
maximum lift characteristics of wings at subsonic speeds requires the development of
separate charts based on different parameters for the high and low aspect ratio regimes.
We are concerned with high aspect ratio wings so only the portion of DATCOM pertinent
to such wings is presented here.

87
5.6 Subsonic Maximum Lift of High-Aspect-Ratio Wings
For high-aspect-ratio wings, the three-dimensional maximum lift and stalling
characteristics are, to a first approximation, determined by section properties which, for
NACA sections are presented in Appendix C (see Section 4.1.1.4 of DATCOM, Ref. 5-1,
for methods for dealing with non-standard airfoils). There are, however, certain three-
dimensional effects that may become important. These include the spanwise variations
of induced camber and angle of attack, respectively, and the effect of spanwise pressure
gradient on the boundary layer. Because of these effects, the stall of three-dimensional
wings, even untwisted wings of constant airfoil section, usually starts at some spanwise
station and rapidly spreads with increasing angle of attack. Highly tapered wings tend to
stall at the tips, while untapered wings tend to stall at the root.

On swept wings the induced effects combine to promote stall at the tip. The induced
camber at the tip is negative and the induced angle of attack is high. The spanwise
pressure gradient tends to draw the boundary layer from the wing root to the tip. All of
these factors promote separation at the wing tip and suppress it at the root. It is therefore
almost impossible to prevent tip separation at high angles of attack on highly swept
wings. Regardless of where the separation first appears, it is the type of separation that
determines the maximum lift. Trailing-edge separation, which is characteristic of thick
wings, always results in a loss in maximum lift compared to the airfoil-section maximum
lift. Leading-edge separation, where the flow rolls up into a spanwise vortex, as on thin
swept wings, results in an increase in lift. The magnitude of the increase is related to the
strength of the leading-edge vortex. These effects are illustrated by the variations of
maximum lift with wing thickness at high sweep angles.

Reynolds number variation has only a slight effect on the maximum lift of wings with
very sharp leading edges that separate from the leading edge. Very thick wings are
sensitive to Reynolds number in the same way as thick two-dimensional sections.
Certain intermediate wings separate from either the leading edge or the trailing edge,
depending on the Reynolds number. Caution must be used in extrapolating low Reynolds
number data to high Reynolds number in these cases. Slats, flaps, and other devices may
be used to modify or control flow separation. Mach number effects on the maximum lift
of unswept, thick wings are quite severe, and start at M ~ 0.2. This is to be expected from
the analogy with section characteristics. For swept wings the losses due to Mach number
are much less than they are for straight wings of a given thickness.

It must be recognized that the maximum lift of the wing alone, as given in this Section,
may be substantially altered by interference effects. The addition of fuselages, nacelles,
pylons, and other protuberances can markedly change the aerodynamic characteristics of
a given configuration near the stall. Interference effects of this type are discussed in
Section 4.3.1.4 of DATCOM (Ref. 5-1).

5.7 DATCOM Method for Untwisted, Constant-Section Wings

88
An empirically derived method, based on experimental data, for predicting the subsonic
maximum lift and the angle of attack for maximum lift of high-aspect-ratio, untwisted,
constant-section (symmetrical or cambered) wings is given. The development follows the
DATCOM method given in Appendix D. The equations and directions for using the
charts are as follows:
C 
CL max =  L max  cl max + ∆CL max
 cl max 
CL max
α CL max = + α 0 + ∆αCL max
CLα

The first term on the right side of the first equation is the maximum lift coefficient at M =
0.2, and the second term is the lift increment to be added for Mach numbers between 0.2
and 0.6. Here CL,max / cl ,max is obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-21a, where cl max is the section
maximum lift coefficient at M = 0.2 obtained from Table 4.1.1-A, and ∆CL max is a Mach
number correction obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-22. In the second of the two equations CLα
is the wing lift-curve slope, for the Mach number under consideration, obtained
previously from Eq. (5-1), α 0 is the wing zero-lift angle of attack (same as the airfoil
zero-lift angle of attack), again for the Mach number under consideration, obtained from
Table 4.1.1-A or Table 4.1.1-B, and ∆α CL max is valid for all Mach numbers up to 0.6 and is
obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-21b. For cruise Mach numbers greater than 0.6, no general
empirical correlation is readily available, so the low speed value is used. For preliminary
design purposes this increment is not of great importance since flight under normal
conditions will not involve maximum lift at the cruise speed.

The leading-edge parameter ∆ y, which does not explicitly appear in the equations, must
be used in reading values from the charts. The value of ∆ y is expressed in percent chord
and is obtained or approximated with the aid of Fig.2.2.1-8 in Appendix A. In
calculating ∆α CL max the value of CLmax calculated from Equation 1 is used as the numerator
of the first term of Equation 2. Sample problems are carried out in Appendix D; the
appropriate one to consider is sample problem 1 which uses Method 2 for subsonic
speeds.

5.8 DATCOM Method for Twisted Wings with Varying Airfoil Sections
High-aspect-ratio wings are often twisted along a spanwise axis and have varying airfoil
sections, in order to obtain favorable stalling characteristics. A span-load approach that
is generally used gives reasonable results for unswept, high-aspect-ratio wings. The
method does not, however, give good results for swept wings because of the strong
spanwise flow on swept wings. The method is given in some detail in Appendix D and
proceeds as follows (referring to sketch a in Appendix D):

1. Plot the section lift coefficient cl max for the given wing as a function of

89
 spanwise station for the appropriate Reynolds number and Mach number.
2. Using any appropriate theoretical wing-span-loading method, plot the lift
coefficient as a function of span position and angle of attack.
3. The angle of attack and spanwise position for initial stall is determined by the
angle of attack at which the curves of steps 1 and 2 become tangent.

The integrated value of the curve of Step 2 approximates the maximum lift coefficient of
the wing. For high-aspect-ratio swept wings with twist, it is suggested that maximum-lift
values be estimated by comparison with tests of similar configurations from the literature.

5.9 Determination of Wing Maximum Lift in the Cruise Configuration

The DATCOM approach has been described in Section 5.7 from which we find

C 
CL max =  L max  cl max + ∆CL max
 cl max 

This relation is applicable provided that:

4
A>
(C1 + 1) cos Λ LE

where C1 is obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-24 of Appendix D. This equation applies to

untwisted constant section wings which is not strictly applicable because the wings
designed should have anywhere between 3 to 5 degrees of washout, and even greater
amounts if a highly tapered straight wing is used. For example, the Lockheed Viking
SA-3 has a straight wing, a taper ratio of 0.3, and uses 11o of washout. Turboprop or
turbofan transport aircraft generally use wings that are considered to be of high aspect
ratio and will meet the condition required of the equation. Review the market survey for
reasonable values of wing aspect ratio.

Recall that the ratio CL max / cl max is obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-21a while the value of clmax
has been determined previously. The Mach number correction to CLmax, namely ∆ CLmax ,
is obtained from Fig. 4.1.3.4-22 as a function of Mach number, ∆ y , and leading edge
sweepback angle. A plot of CLmax vs Mach number in the range 0.2<M<0.6 should be
made and used in the determination of minimum flying speed in the performance section
of the report.

5.10 Determination Of CL,max For The Take-Off And Landing Configurations

It is suggested that reasonable values of the T. E. (trailing edge) and L. E. (leading edge)
flap layouts be chosen based on the market survey aircraft and for deflections the
guidelines given below should be considered:

Condition Typical Flap Deflection (in degrees)

90
 Take off 15<δ TE<25; δ <20
LE

Landing 40<δ TE<50 or 60; δ LE<20

The procedure for estimating the increment of ∆ CLmax for the wing with flaps deflected is
given in DATCOM Section 6.1.4.3. In order to use the results given there it is first
necessary to estimate the airfoil section value of ∆ clmax due to flap deflection. Section
6.1.1.3 of DATCOM, which appears in Appendix E, is used for this. The material
(graphs, equations) necessary to carry out these calculations are contained herein. A
curve of section lift coefficient versus angle of attack is given in Sketch (a) of Appendix
E. The sketch shows the relevant sections of DATCOM used in producing the curve. A
good description of high lift devices and control surfaces and their placement on the
wings is given in Torenbeek (Ref. 5-6, pp. 252-262). An illustration of the general effect
of different high-lift devices on the section maximum lift coefficient is shown in Fig. 5-7.
Each of these devices has different drag penalties associated with their operation and this
will be addressed in Chapter 7.

Note that the value of clmax for the chosen design is known from the work done
previously, namely the airfoil selection process. It is seen that clmax with flaps deflected is
given simply as the sum (clmax)δ flap=0 + ∆ clmax, flap

cl,max

91
 Figure 5-7 The general effect of various high-lift devices and combinations on the
airfoil section maximum lift coefficient cl,max
5.11 Airfoil with Trailing-Edge Flaps
An empirical method for predicting airfoil maximum lift increments for plain, split, and
slotted flaps is presented in Figs. 6.1.1.3-12 and 6.1.1.3-13. The maximum lift increment
is given by

∆cl max = k1k2 k3 ( ∆cl max ) base

where (∆ clmax)base is the section maximum lift increment for 25 percent-chord flaps at the
reference flap-deflection angle from Fig. 6.1.1.3-12a, k1 is a factor accounting for flap-
chord-to-airfoil-chord ratios other than 0.25 from Fig. 6.1.1.3-12b, k2 is a factor
accounting for flap deflections other than the reference values from Fig. 6.1.1.3-13a, and
k3 is a factor accounting for flap motion as a function of flap deflection from Fig. 6.1.1.3-
13b. Sample problems are given in Appendix E.

5.12 Airfoil with Leading-Edge Slats or Flaps

A method has been developed for predicting the stall of thin airfoils with leading-edge
flaps or slats. Modern airliners generally are equipped with slats since they are relatively
simple and provide lift augmentation with little drag penalty. When leading edge flaps are
used they are generally Krueger flaps (see Torenbeek, Ref. 5-7), and the approach
presented is not applicable to them. The estimation method, which is presented in
Appendix E, is based on the assumption that the flapped and unflapped airfoils stall when
the respective pressure distribution about the noses are the same. This method is carried
out with the aid of Figs. 6.1.1.3-14, -15, and -16 in Appendix E. It should not be used for
slat deflections greater than 20o or slat-chord-to-airfoil-chord ratios greater than 0.20.
Sample problems are given in Appendix E.

5.13 Determination of ∆ Cl,Max for the Wing

The increment in maximum lift coefficient for the wing due to the trailing edge flap
deflection is given in Section 6.1.4.3 of DATCOM, Ref. 5-1, by the following equation:

SWf
∆CL ,max = ∆cl ,max KΛ
S

where ∆ cl,max is obtained as described previously. The quantity SWf /S is the ratio of wing
area affected by the trailing edge flap deflection (including both port and starboard
wings) to the total wing area as shown in the sketch in Appendix B (from DATCOM
page 2.2.2-2), and the quantity λ = ct /cr is the taper ratio, i.e., the ratio of the tip chord to
the root chord. The other quantities are given as follows:

92
 SWf  2 − ( 1 − λ ) ( ηi + ηo )  ( ηo − ηi )
=
S ( 1+ λ )
b
SWf =   cr  2 − ( 1 − λ ) ( ηi + ηo )  ( ηo − ηi )
2
b b
S =   ( cr + ct ) =   cr ( 1 + λ )
2 2
K Λ = ( 1 − 0.08cos 2 Λ c / 4 ) cos3 / 4 Λc / 4
CL ,max = CL,max δ + ( ∆CL ,max ) δ
f =0 f

 y 
η = 
b/2

It should be noted that the flap deflection angles and all dimensions are measured in
planes parallel or perpendicular to the plane of symmetry.

The increment in maximum lift coefficient due to leading edge slat deflection, based on
the wing reference area is given by
2
 c / c  b 
∆CL ,max = 1.28  f   slat  cos 2 Λc / 4
 0.18   be 

In this equation cf /c is the ratio of the leading edge slat chord to the wing chord, bslat /be is
the ratio of the total slat span to the exposed wing span. For a segmented leading edge
slat bslat is the sum of all the segment spans, and Λ c/4 is the sweep angle of the quarter-
chord line.

Two values of the total CL,max should be calculated; one for take off and the other for
landing.

5.14 Sample Calculation

A sample problem for the trailing edge flap is given for a wing-flap configuration
described as follows:

A = 5.1 λ = 0.383 Λ c/4 = 46o

NACA 64210 airfoil t/c = 0.72 (streamwise)
Single-slotted flap cf /c = 0.258 δ f = 15.6o
6
Sf /S = 0.378 Re,l = 6.0 x 10

Compute (figure and equation numbers refer to DATCOM results found in Appendix E)

(∆ cl,max)base= 1.045 (Fig. 6.1.1.3-12a)

93
 k1 = 1.010 (Fig. 6.1.1.3-12b)
k2 = 0.605 (Fig. 6.1.1.3-13a)
(flap angle)/(reference flap angle) = 15.6/45
=0.347
k3 = 0.445 (Fig.6.1.1.3-13b)
(∆ cl,max) = k1k2k3(∆ cl,max)base
= (1.010)(0.605)(0.445)(1.045)
= 0.284 (Eq. 6.1.1.3-a)
KΛ = 0.730
Solution:
∆ CL,max = ∆ cl,max(Sf /S)KΛ = (0.284) (0.378) (0.730) = 0.0784 (based on S)

This compares with a test value of 0.075.

5.15 Presentation of Maximum Lift Coefficient Results

The format in Table 5-1 is suggested for presenting the results of the study to determine
the maximum lift coefficients. Note that the numerical values shown in the sample table
are merely representative of a typical design. There should also be presented a planform
view of the wing showing the location of flaps and other control devices (for example,
see Fig. 7-27 in Torenbeek, Ref. 5-7)

Table 5-1 Summary of Estimated Values of CL,max

Airfoil Choice : NACA 64,-212 (ROOT)

Aspect Ratio
Taper Ratio
Flap Type (cf /c)
Spanwise Extent (η i and η o)
Rated Area (SWf /S)
NACA 64,-209 (TIP)
: A = 6.25
: λ = .333
: Fowler, (23%)
: 16.4% and 76.0%
: 0.53

Configuration δ flap, trailing edge δ flap ,leading CL,max CL,max

in degrees in degrees low speed cruise speed
M=0.2 M=0.8
Cruise 0 0 1.23 0.99
Take-off 25 0 1.64 -
Landing 40 20 1.92 -

5.16 Tailplane Design

The vertical and horizontal tails are primarily stability and control appendages and a
simplified approach for sizing the horizontal tail is given in Appendix K. This method is
provided for reference purposes and need not be treated in the design report. Instead, the
market survey aircraft will be used as a guide for the choice of the tail configuration. It is
important to determine the following tail surface characteristics from the market survey

94
information:

Sv - the area of the vertical tail

lv - the distance from the aerodynamic center of the vertical tail
to the center of gravity of the aircraft (see p. 294 in
Torenbeek)
Sh - the area of the horizontal tail
lh - the distance from the aerodynamic center of the horizontal
tail to the center of gravity of the aircraft

These properties are used to form the characteristic parameters for the tail surfaces: the
volume coefficient of the vertical tail

Sv l v
Vv =
Sc

and the volume coefficient of the horizontal tail

Shl h
Vh =
Sc

where S is the wing area and c is the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) of the wing.
Discussion of these ratios along with representative values may be found in Torenbeek
(Ref. 5-5, pp. 326-339). The tail surface areas are obtained by considering the reasonable
extrapolation of the leading and trailing edges in to the fuselage centerline, as is done for
the wing. Tail areas are typically in the range of 0.2 < Sh/S < 0.35 and 0.15 < Sv/S <0.25.

The horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are generally highly swept in order to make their
effective moment arms as long as possible, while also helping to maintain their critical
Mach numbers higher than that of the wing. The airfoils for the tail surfaces are generally
symmetrical sections so as to produce the same force magnitude for a given deflection
angle. At the same time, the airfoils for the tail surfaces have thickness ratios smaller than
that of the wing to also help keep the critical Mach number of the tail surfaces higher
than that of the wing. The thinner sections are practical because they save weight and are
possible because of the smaller aerodynamic loads they experience. The aerodynamic
center for a tail surface may be taken as the 1/4 chord point of the mean aerodynamic
chord of the surface in question. The center of gravity position of the market survey
aircraft may be approximately located at the 1/5 chord point of the MAC of the wing.

A tabular presentation of the data for the market survey aircraft should include aircraft
designation, take-off weight, wing area, MAC of the wing, tail areas, length of the
fuselage, the lengths lv and lh, the MAC of the vertical and horizontal tails, and the
vertical and horizontal volume coefficients. The results should be examined for trends in
the variation of Vv and Vh, (for example, how do they vary with take-off weight?), and
values should be selected for the design aircraft taking any of these variations into
account. Having values for Vv, Vh, S, c , and fuselage length for the design aircraft it is

95
then possible to first find Svlv and Shlh. The values for lv and lh for the market survey
together with the associated fuselage length should permit an estimate for lv and lh for the
design aircraft to be made. Finally the areas Sv and Sh for the design aircraft may be
determined. The sweepback angle, aspect ratio, taper ratio, and airfoil section may be
chosen by using the market survey results as a guide.

The airplane has how been sized completely and once the wing location is determined by
the methods presented in Chapter 6, a full three-view CAD diagram can be generated to
illustrate the overall design.

5.17 Wingtip Treatments

As described in the discussion of flow over finite wings in Appendix L, the trailing
vortex sheet induces a swirling component into the flow field in the vicinity of the wing.
At the same time it was demonstrated that the distribution of lift across the span
influences the induced drag arising as a result of the trailing vortex sheet. The downwash
at the lifting line tilts the velocity vector down by an amount equal to the induced angle
of attack, tan-1(w/V). This then tilts the lift vector away from the normal to the free stream
velocity producing a force component in the drag direction, and that component is the
induced drag. Increasing the aspect ratio factor of the wing reduces the induced drag
since the induced drag coefficient is
c2
cD , i = L
π eA

The aspect ratio is A=b2/S so the induced drag is proportional to the square of the span
loading

2
c 
cD , i ~  L 
b

Although this effect is beneficial it has drawbacks; increasing the span for the same lift
effectively makes the wing more slender in planform leading to increased bending
moment at the root of the wing. The increased bending moment must be countered by a
strengthened structure which typically involves additional weight. By the same token,
increased span can be a limiting factor in ground operations of commercial aircraft. Thus,
the desire to improve the efficiency of aircraft by reducing wing drag has inherent
limitations that must be considered.

The current rapid rise in fuel costs has made the search for drag reduction techniques
even more important. Because induced drag is a large fraction of the total drag for
subsonic aircraft, on the order of 50%, modifications of the spanwise lift distributions
which reduce induced drag are desirable. Two wing tip treatments have received
substantial attention from airplane manufacturers and operators: winglets and raked wing

96
tips. These two types of wing tips are shown schematically in Fig. 5-8. The winglet case
presents a non-planar wing because the tips of the wing are not in the plane of the major
portion of the wing. The raked wing tip presents a case of leading and trailing edges
which are not straight although the wing remains planar.

(a) winglet (b) Raked tip

Figure 5-8 Two popular wing tip treatments: (a) winglet and (b) raked tip

5.17.1 Winglets The flow around the tips of a finite wing involves a whirling
motion caused by the difference in pressure between the upper and lower surfaces of the
wing, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 5- 9. Therefore there is an inboard flow on the
upper surface and an outboard flow on the lower surface. The swirling flow downstream
of the trailing edge of the wing organizes, that is, “rolls up” itself into two concentrated
trailing vortices after a distance on the order of the wingspan. It seems clear that
preventing this motion would increase the total lift produced and a simple solution would
appear to be the placement of endplates at each wing tip to block the cross-flow. This
solution however mainly introduces increased drag due to the increased surface area
thereby any benefit it might appear to have in improving lift. A more sophisticated
exploitation of the three-dimensional flow field itself can indeed reduce the induced drag
produced by the wing downwash.

In much the same way that a sailboat may be sailed against the wind by appropriate
pointing of the sail, the placement of a winglet in such a fashion as to actually produce a
negative drag force, that is, a thrust would be a distinct advantage. A view of the flow
looking down on the upper surface of the wing with a winglet mounted vertically on the
tip is shown in Fig. 5-10.

97
 Inboard flow on top of wing

Outboard flow on bottom of wing

(a)

(b)

Vortex roll-up
region

Trailing vortex Trailing vortex

Figure 5-9 Schematic illustration of the flow over a finite lifting wing: (a) a front
view looking at the leading edge and showing the cross-flow velocity components
produced by the higher pressures on the bottom wing surface and lower pressures
on the top wing surface; (b) a top view looking down on the wing illustrating the
velocity on the top surface (solid arrows) and on the bottom surface (dashed
arrows).

The resultant force in the flight direction produced by the three-dimensional flow on the
winglet is given by

 cos β 
Fx ,winglet = L  sin β − 
 L/D 

This force is a thrust force so that the drag of the wing is reduced. The actual design of
the winglet is rather complicated and tends to have superior performance only in the

98
vicinity of the design point chosen, for example, the cruise condition. Discussion of
winglets may be found in current textbooks on aerodynamics, for example Refs. 5-5 and
5-7. Early research on winglets applied to subsonic jet transports is reported in Ref. 5-8
and current research is described in Ref. 5-9. An interesting general discussion of the
subject is presented by Jones in Ref. 5-10.

V
VR β
L

D
winglet

Figure 5-10 View looking down on the upper surface of the port wing showing
the resultant velocity VR producing a resultant force R on the vertically
mounted winglet, here represented as a simple flat plate. The magnitude of the
angle β is exaggerated for clarity

The important design variables for the winglet are

• the leading edge sweep angle of the winglet

• the cant angle measured between the vertical and the plane of the winglet
• the toe-in angle measured between the flight direction and the winglet root

The winglet doesn’t add the additional wing root bending moment that would be
developed if the span was merely increased by the height of the winglet which is a
benefit. On the other hand, there are local forces and moments at the winglet junction
with the wing and these tend to add some weight to the wing. Note that the action of the
winglet is tied to properly exploiting the induced whirling flow generated by the finite
wing so a winglet may be employed above the wing, below the wing, or both. The
performance of a winglet is difficult to generalize in the preliminary design process and
consideration of winglets is typically left to later detail design stages. As a consequence
winglets will not be part of the design procedures carried out here, although in

99
recognition of their fairly widespread use they may be employed on configuration
concept drawings, using market survey information as a guide.

5.17.2 Raked Wing Tips Boeing has been prominent in the application of raked
wing tips to their latest aircraft rather than winglets. The efforts at modifying the wing
tips are aimed at altering the spanwise loading in order to achieve reduced induced drag.
The idea may be broadly understood as taking a wing of given span and then increasing
the span to achieve the corresponding reduction in the induced drag coefficient. This
extended wing tip may be bent up to fashion a winglet or swept back further to form a
raked wing tip. The details of the flow resulting from such changes are important to
determining whether worthwhile improvements can be achieved. Of course, in addition to
any performance improvements which may accrue to the wing tip treatment the other
effects such as structural loading, weight implications, off-design performance, and the
like must be assessed. A detailed computational and experimental study of raked wing
tips is presented in Ref. 5-11. It is pointed out there that the trailing vortex sheet behind a
swept wing deforms rapidly and is not well described by classical wing theory as
described in Appendix L. Nonlinear effects and non-planar attributes of the trailing
vortex sheet must be treated by more sophisticated lifting surface methods. The
performance improvements accruing to raked wing tips, or to winglets, are difficult to
quantify in a general manner. Therefore, as in the case of winglets, such wing tip
treatments must be deferred to later stage detailed design evaluations

5.17 References

5-1. Hoak, D.E., et al: "USAF Stability and Control DATCOM", Flight Control
Division, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, April
1978.

5-2. Abbott, I.H., et al: "Summary of Airfoil Data", NACA Technical Report No. 824,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930090976_1993090976.pdf

5-3. Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff, A.E.: Theory of Wing Sections, Dover, NY, 1959.

5-4 Harris, C.D.: “NASA Supercritical Airfoils”, NASA Technical Paper 2969,
March, 1990. See also: http://hdl.handle.net/2002/13874

5-5. McCormick, B.H: Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics, Wiley, NY

1995.

5-6 Whitcomb, R.T. and Clark, L.R.: “An Airfoil Shape for Efficient Flight at
Supercritical Mach Numbers”, NASA TM X-1109, 1965

5-7. Torenbeek, E.: Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design, Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1982.

100
5-8 Bertin J.J. and Smith L.M.: Aerodynamics for Engineers, Third Edition, Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey, 1998

5-9 Flechner, S.G., Jacobs, P.F., and Whitcomb, R.T.: “A High Subsonic Speed Wind
Tunnel Investigation of Winglets on a Representative Second Generation Jet
Transport Wing,” NASA Technical Note TN-8264, July 1976

5-10 Lazos, B.S. and Visser, K.D.: “Aerodynamic Comparison of Hyper-Elliptic

Cambered Span (HECS) Wings with Conventional Configurations,” AIAA 2006-
3469, 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, San Francisco, 2006

5-11 Jones, R.T.: “Minimizing Induced Drag”, Soaring, October 1979, pp.26-29.

5-12 Vijgen, P.M.H.W., Van Dam, C.P., and Holmes, B.: “Sheared Wing-Tip
Aerodynamics”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 26, No. 3, March 1989, pp. 207-213

101
102