pu
Pr
am
27
28
30 31 32
33
er
ic
Vo um
ic
Ef
ie
TABLE
TITLE
eq
1I
Williams
l158
niques?
g ro un d- ba se d
Williams
t ec hn iq ue s
by
f le w t u rb u l en c
d y n am i
m o d el s
m et h o ds .
sub-
book.
issue.
c om me rc ia l
a pp li ca ti on s
dw
d es ig n p ro ce ss .
ib
it
definition
ep
al
phase.
ng
we
es
s.
empirical.
fl..
(±
p r e l inri
lift-to-drag
(LID)
g-
ng
ub
ni
L ev e
A ch ie ve d
Rat i!!.9. .002
Amazing
.004 7%
.010
B el o
A ve r a g
Ai rcraf 8-747 C-SA
3.5% (COp)
86
C-141 B-707
(drag)
DC-10-30 F-14
(COo)
F-15
(drag)
YF-16
(drag)
F-16
18
Dmin
F-18 Tomahawk
118
(drag) ±1.5%
(drag)
Tornado
(drag)
71
Alpha-Jet
(drag)
124
Butler
11
drag.
This
fe w i t h
i nc om pr es si bl e
flat
Swet Th
qu nt ty
and
13
0.0030
2.1.t
F i g ht e r / A t t a c k
C-SA,
A i r c r af t
2100
.5
F-86H
0.0032
F-4E/J.
(2)
(3)
a er od yn am i
c le an ne ss .
size
fico
0,
A IR CR A F
HODEL DESIGNATION
C HA R AC TE RI ST IC S
F IG HT ER /A TT A
G EO HE TR Y
AREAS
(SQ. F T . )
WING
TOTAL
EQUIVALENT FUSELAGE FINENESS RATIO
6.43 F-4E/J
5.88 8.16
F-84F
F-86H
5.92
313
1104
5.08
1186
4.57
F-IOOD
6.61
F-105D
F-14
14.5
1907
8.86
2046
9.28
3097
8.22
nd de
ed
1.02 (t/d)1.5
F-4/J,
component.
fico
zl
, 1
i.32824/R
-r a s i t io n
d ed ic at e
z on e
e ff or ts .
Prandtl-Schlicting:
(log where Karman-Schoenherr: (R
past,
th
at
on
,a
15).
methods. 154 f o
0.42/1n
c om pr es si bl e
example, Awet -S--
misc
sections.
Snodgrass
60/FR
0.0025
0.35/FR
Width
Height
19
-
-
(tic)
(t/c)2
(t/c)4
where
M ac Wi lk in so n
e t. al .
ts
correlations.
c he me ns ky l 2 , DATCOM
20
ha
d ev e o p e d
{1
components
Generally,
DATCOM
ar
c on st an ts !
DCAMBER where
1/ ,r
o n s id e e d
l at e r .
s in gl e m an uf ac tu re r
a ch ie v
c on si st en cy .
I-
CDBASE
(0.1
type,
p r e di ct i o n
m e t ho d
19
13
through
is
one,
MeR. Schemensky
is
report.
ncne
e'
of
where
(d/b)2]
seven,
Simon
---;;r;:R
between
a.
sweep, 1S
VE:u
is
meeting DOUGLAS-HESS
e va l u at io n
c r i te ri a
Th
ti
methods o rd e
wa
m et ho d
th
m et ho d
"cru
U SS AE RO -
e"
xt
mu
al in
rf
sheets methods
70
27
en
fe
s)
tr
sp
ir ra
N av ie r- St ok e c om pu te r
r es ou rc e
velocities
an
e qu at io n
anc
m at he ma ti ca l
In -' r;
th
by
press~rel11
70
and
models
flows
,and f'
ne
lO
se
l ea di ng -e dg e
o ll ow e
by
th
ela Axelson
n s d ev el op e
by
flow
Drag
that
a cc ur at el y
t.igh
transonf
typ
el
p re di ct e
ho
ge
ra
on
gu
ti
s.
rapid,
m in e
p ri ma ri l
by
30
craft,
(2)
Haack
ar
c on si de re d
(3)
1e
a1
by
fitting
r'
ratio
rcref
drag fe
~7
by t h i s
"'1
3.2.2
9, 1.00, 2.2.
CR
.3
00
AGARD reports
d b
168
103
34
e o m et r
ce ab
ty
i nv is ci d m et ho d
Hicks
dt1S
t w o- o i m en s
al
YS1S
le
obtain
agreement
con.put.at
g r i d resolutior.
body
p re ce di n
However,
when
r es ul t
show
h ig h- pe rf or ma nc e
f ig ht e
c on f i g u r a t i o
v+th
of
stations.
al
19705,
8-70
1960:;.
d i f f e r e n c ! ; i~
by
J b 0 u t 30%,
t'lach
p re d i c
:h
C on c o rd e
by 81
2-1/25(,
a1
(Sect
by
Peterson Tendeland
S ys te m- ' si
e 1 i i ne r
38
si
ld
fi ur
io
(volume)2/(length)4 Lift-dependent
-1)(lift)2/(lifting
induced:
;s
Fi g.
39
cb
length)2
w,
sontr
d is pl ac em en t
form
d:-d9.
or
du
t hi ck ne s
to
drag,
Iy
ignored19, (±1%)
longitudinal well
within
an
81.
d ep e n de n
upon
area the
55
fOI'
for w i n g s .
PA
sources area
purposes.
placed
t r a ns v e rs e
c om p o ne nt s
downstream drag
comb
40
me
ro
crossflow
er
al
s om ew ha t i nd ep en de nt l
eco by
rf method
fOI'
~Jith
slender X8-70 i s r e m a r k a b Iy
Bonner d e r i v e d by
10 h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d
than
pressure. L i t - I nd u c e
D ra g
currently
1974,
28),
edges, su
bl
w hi l
sonlC
th
h a r ac t e ri s i c
14
e va lu at io n
p ro gr a
10
c ru is e
c on fi gu ra ti on .
subsontc
,116.
NASA
76
Barger
hi
45
.2
R2
Rubbert
F i g s . 30
Th
c om pl e
c an ar d- wi ng -f us e1 ag e
waves
if
tpe
4,
~i
ca
er
nd
ul
~i
6S
~1iddleton
al
lI
str
tons
ig
f ig ht e
c on fi gu ra ti on s
13
through
2.5.
th
Tomase
e xp a s e
48
a1 e1
(eFn)
~l
and
5,
speed.
la er
167)
rt cl
49
u1
15
mo
hi
im
73
at th
73 CF0
tantamount
tlme
tent
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1983.
77 70 A.IL, 7)
03 07 E.
K., " A e ro d n a m i
P r e li m i na r
A n a ly s i s
Ana ys
In Las
Brown, Vegas,
"Uncertainty
S.W.,
November
NV,
Buckner,
18
Li.n.,
D.R.,
tow,
1981.
J.K.,
J.B.,
A er o y n m i
Te ti
19)
YF-IG
Wind
w it h A p e n i x
20 vii-xv.
Carlson,
H.W.,
Carlson, ~e di g- dg
hr st
21
1500,
fo an M i l l e r . Super
23
ne
Carlson, E ff ec t
Walkley,
NASA
27
R. .• an
Wings
D-3685,
Arb+trary
C on fi gu ra ti on s. "
Caughey,
F D A - 80 - 0 7 ,
Dv amt
1980.
Cenko, 28 AIPJl.-83-0007.
.,
0-7713,
K.B.,
Wing Subsonic
1982.
Carmichael, NASA
D.S.,
IIPAr~ AI
l\.erospJce
oo wa d,
F.A.,
A I . ~ ! ~ - 8 1 - 1 2 5 5 J u n e 1981.
( Li mi te d P er sp ec ti v _ u e l A e r o d y n a m i cs
S c ie n ce s
C om pu ta ti on a
A er od yn am ic s, " niv
~ ; e e t 1 n S ' . ,R e n
Wind Tunnels
I nt eg ra ti on , 1983.
A I A A - 8 3 -1 3 6 8
19th
J.M.,
" T r a n so ni c
A ir cr a f t
"F
H.L.,
Characteristlcs
of
Dvorak,
F.A., Woodward,
F i r mi n
M .C , P .
F.A.,
39
S ci en c e s
nd
t · 1 ee t i ng ,J a n ua r
"Future
Computer
Gaudet,
nd
A GA RD - P -1 24 . 1 97 3 , pp
in
1 98 3
K.G., 4-12.
E T A L "Pre l i m i n a r y
P.B.,
"Computat
Grellmann,
49 0)
Hahn,
H.W.,
"Compute
X-
Flow.
7,
R.V.,
J.L.,
Dynsmi Predi
.,
A e r o d y n a mi c s , 1 I A l AA - 8 1 - 1 0 1 4
el
1981.
c t i o n, "
ig
O•
or
Ai r c r a f t ,
II
81
.•
I \j r~ , la n D es ig n, " A IA P. -7 8 - 14 7 K u l f a n , R.M.,
78)
A F~ DL -T R- 78 -
J an ua r
Yoshihara,
A pr i
1 97 8
H.,
to
1978.
ig
er
c r ~ t, "
AP
79
1983. D.S.,
P r e d i c t i o n of F e b r u a r y 1981. L e y m a n , C.S.
an
S ci en ti st , V ol .
M ar kh am ,
.,
eR rc -A il
1 97 9
Simulation,"
W.• tr
lu Vl ed
~1.,
221-228.
AlAA
D y na mi c s, " A IA A -8 1 -0 9 91 R 81l)
5-52.
mf rs
7,
1 98 3
H e f t 1.
H.,
14-11.
t · 1a cH i lk in s on , D . G. , B -I a ck e rb y . W.T., Phase Fe ru
Tunnel
97
87
II
":aske\'I,
wi
I'SC
A I J \A · - 8 1- 0 2 S2 , J a . nu a r y 1 9 8 1
L.
97
Middleton,
W.O.,
"A
S.G.,
1982.
77 lUI)
Propu s i
103) 1974.
Murman,
st
E.M.,
io
R.O.,
irc
sig
T.
J.L.,
Aircraft,
in
li
58
P.L,
73
,N
4,1983.
1980.
81 et
7)
R.B.,
Jackson,
M.W.,
M.,
"v
ndTu
el
as
em
ts
,"
H.S.,
1958. 142)
Meeting, Factors
144) ru
Ev
De t e r n r i n
Tinoco,
E.N.,
Conf
1 98 0 82 00
2 .4 7 ) T jo n ne l an d
]48)
Tomasetti
E.,
urat
ua
on
Higher n s ; ' A lA A- 79 -0 27 4R ,
s po r t
ati
0-
,"
80 01
cie
71
1972.
qu
J.,
,"
24-30.
., J.,
wi
,·
82
8.
Drag,
62
<:::9
......-=:::
C LE A
W IN G R E E RE NC E
CON~IGURATION
mo
.' A ER OD YN AM I R E E RE NC E C O N F I G UR A T IO N
.~
W ln g b od V m od e w i n lC . . . Ind " ' r en e
.....-:::::
w - h ro u no
P RO PU LS IO N R EF ER EN C CONFIGURATION
Wi
mo
wi
wn
C AN D D A NO C O N F IG U R A T I O N Wi n ac e e .
S OL AT E TEST
N AC EL L
In
mo c .n d d .
blown nOIl ..
1,5%
CRUISE
ScparatJnn)
(Cruise)
lncompressjble
FRICTION
5Oi.
Compressihle
CTIP'IHI
f i g u r e 2.
Tr
Ai
il 0.8)
20
Probable Error .....
Conceptual Development
Preliminary Design
F i g u r e 3.
Design
in 3)
65
F li g
ig
Te
2%
N um b e o f occurrences
10
D e v ia t io n f ro m f a r in g p er ce n
Es ma ed
of
-6
3.0
e r1 a
w' "9 wong/body ,"CIUd
w,n9
"9
eng,nlt il'lst." ct.e
Zero-11ft..
eody
-lift..
%V'O
wove
d....
tmpC." o9'" EMg'''1t
inst'""
l,.,t..IZ.,.fe,rcnC&
ctt.e
I~Ok~
'fl-
..
nd""l
~~?// ise
60sl
Ol,.croft.
F'lops
M~
lnuS"oue
5.
sl..,,,c
d~lt..o
Olrlintt.t'
Ty ic
Ai
S I! Z . . O e
voroob1e
d !Z .l t. o
s\.~,I< ..
"t.P'Qt."9·!~ b'J"'bCl'"
af
ra
ea
ow
!;w....
'"'9"t.. .. ,.
tangential total drag
-L
no rrna
pressu drag
lu e- epen en
Figure
6.
n,
68
ra
E/
.005 ".:
..,.
•004
.oo'}
.$"")(
fk
.()02
.OOl
C'f'.
0.(XJ20 0.0030 0.0040.......____ __~0.0050.......______~ 0.0060
.....
~200 ee
.....
'" C>.
100 50
40 20
:J
t:. BOMBERS TRANSPORTS R EA R- LO AD IN G TRANSPORTS
3 4 5 T OT A
F i g u r e 8.
W E TT E
S ub so ni c P ar as i t
10-
FT
D ra g- B om be r/ T ra ns po r
.\..0 004-0 ....
lX:A·~-·
O·
05
+>
Q)
4Q)
So
tt
:::::s
cr
--
V>
------_.
tt Q)
So
tt Q)
V> ttl
So
tt
+> Q) r-r-
:::::s
cr
-' 1=UC.H"i
.1 (OIJ~I~TlOt-JS:
R .
..
----
.0
gu
9.
bs ni
ra it
71
g- ig te /A ta
.2
r---------------------------------~------
.0
1.4
F-84F
1.2L-----~------_+------~------~----~--~ .0 .6 .8 .4 .2 .0
72
.4
.2
fe le
.6
or
.4
.2 -.
.0
..
~ ~ ~ : ; ~ i - - 1t ;: i ~ - ~
.:.~--j-· ..~ - L ~ i - - _ J g · > ~ I ~ : : 0 : ~ } . : ~ L _
10
STATION
M A X IM U ~
(~
T H C KN ES S
Aeq.~
2.0r-------------------------------------~
1.8
1.6
m1EGA
1.4
1.2
F-IOOD
INLETS}
~OZZLES
1.0L-------IL.....:-----'------'-----&----""'-~
00044
Ka~rr. r. c;J. t. SpaJGoro~-C:o
.0
--
-
P;-ar,Cl.-:': \\ ;; ·' -G,"
:-,(~;
t.l.C:.lo"1.io
("1
003f
00032
OJ
.002';
£'.2.
b.6
7.
7.
Figure
Fl.ow,
76
.9
12
OO?I,
~
•
t--- " " ' " " " - r - - - . . : -·.
'=':
l~~
60
~~
IT
r~I-
vv '"''
300
RN
5.
ki
F ri c i o ~!
10
I nc o p r s si bl e
- Ji l i n
Re
77
p ee ds . 6)
40
:-
6C
711
d/
-.:
.lOO
:l
150 .170
......
7"'1
0.182 V.182
7"
x' .333 .o
;.
:51-
1' I~
,J'
.004 1/
f:'"
.003
r1'1
L_
.~
.003
DO
Pexpt.
F u s e l a g e Profile
Drag-Bodies t,
21,
evol
.006
= = =1 -
_ _ _ _ _ j
1.2
CD IT
:::
c1.1
1.0
i6
ZO
aL
1.7
1.6
1.5
.... 1.4 c: '"0
.L.
Q.
1.3
Figure 18. aL
122)
81
CD (Wing-body
~C IB CL IB
-r
CDr.!?
is
lift_
CD i:
the.)ret12al )~
drag
Lnn..ull rrofile
the
drag
CD gp
CD
KCL
coefficient
drag
du
to
lift
IN
is
'"'0
L\
Lerro
>C ~R
PB
WI PANA
S E NT R O P
S EC O N D D R DE R R U L
USSAERO-B
.4
:::i l-
.2 L.I.J
LIL.I.J
-0.2
r .
. , 0.06
0.00 C O EF F C IE N
O F D RA G
114-_~ Theoretica Blowin CO=C
L
Dr8g (1.3 Counls
-0.002
NOTE: NP
FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE
WING
TOTAL'; -0.006
31)
-c
85
CDr.
c~
~~J.L
MeRor·
MA
.0
MB
Re
122)
1.0
.8
..--
.:»:
.6
.4
.2
.0
.06
08
.1
.1
.20
.2
T7 :6
r.s..
I IG I < .. I I N C )
VGK
2.0
.02
0.01
0.6
0.8
0.8
..
76 007 X/C
G.OCII
.!!!
oco.
T.
.!!!!
DlTA
ot__ ~~.S~---L--~0~.'~-~====~O~.7::::~==~_:-~~ HUIISFR
M N r W 1 JI .I G O O T G lc *( "T -. I[ S '( C ~ ' O i J r r I T ' S Ie.
£ A C ' W GlOII[TR,
_[SOlo
MlA.5uItUI["'frl ".OM
"rn.oo
T1ST\
0.004 I'fRFECT
COIIRELATIOIIo"-.,.
CI
0.002
II
T O O £V : O .D O
070L--
_~
07
ITO L _ _
O.lXlO95 _ _
0.85
Moo MtAS
':'CO.
MU
_ _
SUPE PO TION
TH
OF DRAG
NALY IS
Drag
SKIN FRICTION
LIFT (WAVE
Figure
ic
il
VORTEX)
fRICTI
COEFFICIEN
IN TURaULEN
fL
TRANSHR
"uon
SCHlICHTN'
CItUISE
~LO· __
------IO~J~-------~IO~·~--------JIO """
DS
IUMIU 'IG.
z·,
0.28
TEST·THEOR LE -216 IN
0.24 XP RI ENTA
DATA
0.20
0.16
0.12
0.08
0.04
CD
30
COMPARISON TUNNEL ODEL
