CHARLES E.
JOBE
DIVISION
19970612 029
JULY 1984
DISTRIBUTION
Form Approved
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, Including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing date sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of Information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 222024302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (07040188), Washington, DC 20503.
12.
REPORT DATE
FINAL REPORT
JULY 1984
4.
JULY 1984
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
CHARLES E. JOBE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
AFWALTM884203
Drag prediction is the most important and challenging problem in aerodynamics. Experimental, empirical, analytical and
numerical approaches, singly and in concert, have addressed this problem with varying degrees of success (and notable
failures). This report reviews the published material on drag prediction through January 1984., The subject of wind tunnel to
flight drag correlation will be reviewed in a later report.
210
Drag Prediction
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
SAR
Standard Form 298IRev. 289)(EG)
AFWALTIM 84203
FOREWARD
Aeromechanics
WrightPatterson AFB,
Ohio.
Division,
Experimental,
concert,
empirical,
CHARLES E.
JOBE
a later report.
approved.
TOMMY '.
KENT,
Technical Manager
Chief,
Airframe Branch
MiAJ,
USAF
Aerodynamics and
1
4
5
6
6
7
Subsonic Drag
2.1
Empirical Correlations
2.1.1
Bomber/Transport Aircraft
2.1.2
Fighter/Attack Aircraft
2.2
Detailed Drag Estimates  Component Buildup
2.2.1
Friction Drag
2.2.2
Form Drag
2.2.3
Interference Drag
2.2.4
Camber Drag
2.2.5
Base Drag
2.2.6
Miscellaneous Drag
2.2.7
Drag Due to Lift
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
21
22
23
23
23
Transonic Drag
3.1
The Drag Rise
3.2
Detailed Drag Estimates  Component Buildup
3.2.1
ZeroLift Drag
3.2.2
Drag Due to Lift
3.3
Numerical Transonic Aerodynamics
30
30
31
31
33
33
Supersonic Drag
4.1
Friction Drag
4.2
Wave Drag
4.3
LiftInduced Drag
36
37
39
42
Numerical Aerodynamics
49
Bibliography
FIGURE
TITLE
Test Approach
10
11
12
13
Aerodynamic Cleanness
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ii
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Drag Polars,
34
35
36
37
LES 216
CDAF Configuration
iii
TABLE
TITLE
Drag Scatter
Aircraft Characteristics
iv
Fighter/Attack Geometry
INTRODUCTION
The stateoftheart in aircraft drag prediction was defined as of 1973
heavily on that work and attempts to update, to the extent possible, those
portions relevant to aircraft drag prediction at subsonic, transonic and
supersonic speeds.
scope of this chapter; as are drag due to speed brakes and fighter aircraft
weapons carriage.
"I.
161
in
How well do ground based estimates for drag polars and engine charac
and two
predictions are
An entire
symposium would be needed to address questions three and four unless the
simple answer that no single methodology is best for every situation is
accepted.
function of the time and care taken to include all the details and higherorder terms than it
"I.
niques?
2.
groundbased techniques?
3.
Are there areas where analytical prediction can be better than wind
Williams'
of increasing technical demands is also especially relevant to the understanding of drag prediction.
report describe drag prediction methods based on wind tunnel results from
models specifically constructed for the particular design project and guided
by aerodynamic theory, known as "wind tunnel to flight correlations."
Rooney 1 1 9 '
120
meticulous testing performed to correlate the wind tunnel and flight measured
aerodynamic drag of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.
discrepancies
These correlations and many others for all types of aircraft and
it
numerical aerodynamics,
will continue into the future due to the introduction of new computers,
faster, more accurate solution algorithms,
new turbulence models.
73
tolift at small angle of attack and supersonic wave drag for smooth slender
bodies, drag prediction is beyond the capability of current numerical aerodynamic methods.
The aerodynamics of the aerodynamic reference model 1 4 7 , usually a subscale wind tunnel wingbody model with flowthrough nacelles and reference
nozzles are considered initially.
aircraft development program,
The uncorrected airplane lift, drag, and pitching moment characteristics are
derived from tests of this model.
ences between the data from this model and the actual flight vehicle are discussed in the latter sections of this chapter.
combining these drag data,
book.
1.1
Drag
The resultant aerodynamic force caused by a flight vehicle's motion with
This
chapter; however, drag, the component of the total force that opposes motion
in the equilibrium flight path direction,
Thus,
Drag is produced by
the tangential (skin friction) and normal (pressure) forces acting on the
vehicle's surface due to relative fluid motion from a basic fluid mechanics
standpoint.
nents, depending on the phase of the design process, the aircraft mission and
configuration,
analyst.
empirical,
flight test thrust permitted in military engines of the same family can be an
order of magnitude greater than that permitted in engines slated for
commercial applications.
1.2
20'
106,
110,
entire design cycle of an aircraft as data from numerical methods ard wind
tunnel tests become available.
However,
design are made based on the best available information at many stages of the
design process.
1.2.1
16 7
design phase.
used to assess the relative merits of many design concepts against the mission
specifications generated by an apparent market opportunity or military
statement of operational need.
respect to future flight test data, is highest due to method error and
geometric uncertainty in the configuration definition 1 3 , Fig. 3.
Relative
Absolute accuracy
An overall drag
101,
Several
107,
122,
prototype data.
has been published by Rooney119 and Craig34 for the Tomahawk missile.
Theory, empirical methods,
Prob
lems have even arisen when these methods are applied to aircraft of the same
family from which the data base was generated.
15 8
particularly when wall effects, Reynolds number scaling and propulsion system
model data are included.
than one percent cannot be tolerated if drag prediction methods for the
smaller drag components are to be validated.
19
The
is seldom achieved,
correlations for each drag component are made and drag design charts are
constructed as a basis for the preliminary design empirical method.
The
ratio and matching engine cycle and thrust requirements are based on early
lifttodrag (L/D)
estimates.
order to assure that the propulsion system will provide the power necessary at
Misjudgements at this design stage
13
accurate force and moment model as early as possible in the design cycle is
clearly evident, from the following tables.
8
MDD
Rating
3%
.002
Amazing
5%
.004
Very Good
7%
.006
Average
10%
.010
Below Average
Most commercial aircraft flying today fit within this table; however, military
programs have been far less successful
This may be due,
TABLE I
Aircraft
DRAG SCATTER
Ref
B747
1%
C5A
3.5% (CDp)
C141
3.3% (drag)
86
B707
5%
(drag)
13
44
DC1030
(drag)
F14
1%
F15
20% (drag)
13
2% (drag)
(CDo)
86
118
173
YF16
5%
(drag)
18
F16
12%
(CDmin)
152
F18
20% (drag)
Tomahawk
1.5% (drag)
34
Tornado
3%
(drag) 1% (CDo)
71
AlphaJet
5%
(drag)
124
The table should not be read such that the data scatter is constant for a
given aircraft throughout the flight envelope.
representative of the cruise condition.
study of the
XB70 flight test data, clearly demonstrates this point by showing the actual
number of occurrences of scatter and the estimated scatter plotted against
Mach number.
in a rootsumsquare calculation.
Performance estimates for military aircraft are more accurate than Table
1 indicates,
since the major problems occur when one attempts to isolate the
Current
obtain useful correlations for the smaller drag components shown in Fig. 2.
These component correlations, necessary to develop accurate prediction
methods,
Flight test data are, however, not presently capable of resolving drag
into components.
is available.
Additional
This is
10
The relative size of each drag component varies with aircraft type and
flight condition.
drag breakdowns for four different aircraft types are shown in Fig. 5 from
Butler
19.
The drag breakdown also varies with aircraft range and purpose
components are mounted at incidence to each other so each is not at zero lift
simultaneously.
Butler
19
into components independent of, and dependent on, lift should be rejected and
drag could be estimated by compounding elements arising from different basic
causes associated with fluid dynamics as shown in Fig. 6.
Currently, each manufacturer has a methodology, or drag handbook, by
which a thorough drag estimate is made.
drag handbook.
sources for fundamental drag level prediction; however, total drag comparisons,
between prediction and test, require accurate flight data and expert
161
Subsonic Drag
The aircraft drag at subsonic speeds,
11
The accuracy of the drag divergence Mach number, MDD prediction varies
widely with configuration.
flight test data indicates that MDD cannot be accurately predicted while
Henne, Dahlin and Peavey 5 7 conclude that a substantial capability exists for
the determination of drag divergence Mach number for transport type
tries.
geome
94
Their correlation
was not accurate for the Boeing 747 or the F111A/TACT aircraft, however.
2.1
Empirical Correlations
(C.R.
James)
These
correlations are traditionally based on wind tunnel and flight test data from
older, successful aircraft.
transport or
fighter, etc.) being designed in order to form trends and extrapolations with
confidence.
The
similar to the new design, usually produces the most accurate drag prediction.
Correlations of flight test data based on aircraft geometry provide
insight as to the relative importance of factors influencing subsonic minimum
drag.
fighter/attack.
bomber/transport and
values of Cfe with incompressible flat plate turbulent flow skin friction
12
general,
friction.
Form drag
results from flow over curved surfaces and flow separation induced by viscous
effects.
to wetted area:
Cfe = D
Cf
q Swet
where
D = Minimum drag,
lb
Bomber/Transport Aircraft
The relationship of Cfe and f to wetted area is illustrated in Fig. 8.
Experimental points derived from flight tests of several transport and bombers
are indicated.
Wetted areas vary from approximately 5800 square feet for the
coefficients vary from 0.0027 for the C5A to 0.0060 for the C130.
The
variation in Cfe reflects factors which influence form and interference drag
as well as Reynold's number effects resulting from variations in aircraft
size.
For example, the three turboprop military transports (Br 941, C130,
These air
Interference
effects of nacelles and propeller slip streams also contribute to the higher
13
drag levels.
aerodynamic cleanness,
size, operates at higher Reynolds numbers and has the lowest Cfe of the
transports evaluated.
cleanness and very low aftbody drag increment, despite its military upsweep.
2.1.1_
Fighter/Attack Aircraft
In table
slightly over 1100 square feet for the F84G to approximately 2100 square feet
for the F4E.
Equivalent fuselage fineness ratios vary from about 4.5 for the
Cfe, and
(2)
(3)
(1) relative
aerodynamic cleanness.
The ratio of
14
TABLE 2
AIRCRAFT CHARACTERISTICS
FIGHTER/ATTACK
MODEL
DESIGNATION
GEOMETRY
AREAS (SQ.
FT.)
EQUIVALENT
WING
TOTAL
FUSELAGE
REFERENCE
WETTED
FINENESS
RATIO
A7A
375
1691
6.43
F4E/J
530
2092
5.88
F8D
375
182.1
8.16
F84F
325
1257
5.92
F84G
260
1104
5.08
F86H
313
1186
4.57
F100D
400
1571
6.61
F105D
385
1907
8.86
F18
400
2046
9.28
F14
565
3097
8.22
14.5
Sreflects the fact that wing surface tolerances are normally held much
and protuberances,
penalties are smaller for the wing than for other components.
An important factor affecting fuselage drag is the degree of pressure or
form drag developed due to flow separation induced by viscous effects.
general,
In
A form factor,
FB = 1.0 2
FB,
1 +
1.5
7
3
.6(t/d) 3 (1M )
(t/d) 1.5
interference drag for wings and tails, protuberance and leakage drag, manufacturing tolerance effects, and surface roughness.
The lower
the
middle line by the data from the F105D with two inlets and one exit nozzle,
and the upper line by the data from the F4/J, F14 and F18 with two inlets
and two nozzles.
15
component.
2.
Calculate an area weighted mean length, Im, for the complete config
condition to be evaluated.
4.
13 to establish the
C
Cfi
Ico
x W x FB x Swet
craft is formed and more detailed drag prediction methods are used to assess
drag targets or design goals for each aircraft component.
consistent with the overall drag target previously determined since the total
configuration drag is the sum of the component drags including interference
effects.
16
The extent of
Fully turbulent
flow was usually assumed from the leading edge aft on fullscale flight
vehicles at altitudes below about twenty kilometers.
rigidity of newer composite materials may provide longer runs of laminar flow
on future flight vehicles.
on subscale wind tunnel models that are tested at lower Reynolds numbers.
The
2.2.1
15
Friction Drag
There exists little controversy concerning calculation of the average
It is
11 2
transition zone.
Transition takes place when the length Reynolds number nominally exceeds
3.5 x 105 to 106 for a flat plate.
1 23
often assumed to be onehalf million for many flows, although pressure gradients strongly influence the location of transition in the boundary layer.
It
Success in the
17
In Fig. 14
PrandtlSchlicting:
Cf =
0.455
(log Re).2.58
A
Re
widely used in the past, although Paterson 1 0 8 has shown that the KarmanSchoenherr formula is a good representation of existing test data (Fig.
15).
Both formulas have been used as the basis for aircraft drag prediction
methods.
6 3'
107,
135
109.
It is the formula
length will be less accurate (about 2% low) for highly swept delta wings.
strip method, where a reference length is calculated for each streamwise strip
of the wing, should be used.
63
Form Drag
Subsonic minimum drag is the sum of the friction, form and interference
example,
CD
Cf
wet *FF
Components Sref
+CD
* IF
Eq. 1
+D
Dcamber
Dbase
Dmisc
sections.
The prediction of the form drag, or FF, is dependent on empirical correlations as given by Hoerner
64,
tation of FF are:
for bodies:
FF = I + 60/FR3 + 0.0025 * FR
for nacelles:
FF = 1 + 0.35/FR
where FR =
Component Length
Width
Height
4
FF = I + K1 (t/c) + K(2 (t/c)2 + K13 (t/c)
where t/c is the streamwise thickness to chord ratio and the Ki depend on
airfoil series.
et.al.
86
skin friction drag and form drag) can be correlated for bodies of revolution
by the method of Young 169,
Fig.
16.
from four transport fuselages that are radical departures from the ideal body
of revolution, if the proper fineness ratio is used as shown in Fig.
17.
However, excess drag due to upsweep 9 3 , which may amount to ten percent of the
total cruise drag of military transport aircraft, is not apparent from these
correlations.
afterbodies for military airlifters has recently been published by Kolesar and
May72 to replace the method of Hahn, et.al. 5 0 .
Methods of estimating airfoil shape factors (or form factors) were also
compared by MacWilkinson,
et.al.
86
18,
correlations.
Formulas for computing the form factors for other aircraft components,
canopies,
64
, Schemensky 1 2 2 ,
20
Formally, the form drag follows the same dependence on Reynold's number
and Mlach number as the skin friction since the form factors are constant for a
given geometry in most drag prediction methods.
Hoerner
64
has developed
compressible form factors that explicitly account for Mach number effects by
transforming the appropriate thickness or slenderness ratio using the PrandtlGlauert transformation factor, (1  M
Interference Drag
Aerodynamic interference in aircraft is the change in flow over given
The
Generally,
important interference effects involve fluid dynamic phenomena that is far too
complex to be analyzed by existing computational methods.
Interference factors,
aircraft components,
the smaller components and are usually presented as plotted data for the major
components.
DATCOM6 3
21
compressibility effects.
are constants!
Camber Drag
2.2.4
This increment to the minimum drag accounts for camber and twist in the
in some drag accounting systems, the fact that all aircraft compo
wing, and,
nents are not mounted relative to each other to attain zero lift simultaneously.
K ( CL)
e
1e
CD
CAMBER
where
= 1/(7 * AR * K)
C :a
Often
In that
system, all changes in profile drag with lift are derived from experimental
data correlations and the basic profile drag is not incremented for camber
directly.
The method of Fig. 2 is most accurate when the aircraft designs are
closely related members of the same series, for example, transports from a
single manufacturer.
Thus, drag data reduced using one bookkeeping system may not include all
the interference,
drag buildup method assumes are included, unless extreme care is taken to
achieve consistency.
22
Base Drag
2.2.5
This term is a weak function of Mach number at low speed and is given by
Hoerner
64
as:
CDBASE =BASEE/RE
(0.1 + 0.1222M8 ) SBASE/SREF
It obviously gains significance with increasing Mach number, however,
it is
independent of lift and is often not correlated separately from the body drag.
2.2.6
Miscellaneous Drag
This term accounts for the differences between the corrected aerodynamic
reference model drag and the fullscale airplane drag due to surface irregularities, such as gaps, mismatches,
leakage due to pressurization.
type,
, and
tions, this would require the ability to determine accurately the variation,
with Reynolds and Mach numbers, of the drag forces due to viscous and pressure
effects of each aircraft component
2.2.7
an intractable task.
23
19,
of Simon 1 3 ].
from Schemensky
122
prediction methodology is
perhaps,
additional
(terms)
The following
regions one,
fCR.
illustrated
contained in
and is
is
a
It
is
given by
Ci =C2 / AR
for an elliptic lift
distribution spanwise.
ronelliptic loadings,
thus
C.
where e'
to e'
< 1.0 is
2 /T AR e'
An empirical modification
distribution results in
UL /n
'D
where
and d/b is
e = e'
[1.
AR e
 (d/b)
2]
N CL
Simon,
coefficient,
CL
as shown in
24
Fig.
R
71AR e
parameter,
The suction
1 22
with reattachment,
critical Mach number boundary that surface paneling methods are accurate and
can be applied.
a linearized form of the complete fluid dynamics equations of motion, and can
predict the lift coefficient for minimum drag and the variation of drag with
lift for complex,
140
meeting4; however, many new methods are currently in use; for example:
DOUGLASHESS 5 8 , 5,
165,
39,
130,
146
QUADPAN 1 7 1
USSAERO 4 1 ,
25
Drag predic
should be added as an
Basically, all newer panel methods use Green's theorem and assume an
algebraic form for the source and doublet singularity strengths on each of the
panels that are used to represent the surface of the aircraft.
methods 1 6, 26,
order methods
Higherorder
38 '
41,
so does
the computer time and cost, thus forcing the usual tradeoff between accuracy,
schedule and cost.
Panel methods have primarily been used as flow diagnostic tools31,
146 by
149
the impact of various types of boundary conditions 28, 142 , and the many
143,
146,
171
The calcu
lation of the induced drag from the velocity potential also presents problems.
The nearfield summation of pressure multiplied by the area projected in the
drag direction results in differences of large numbers and a loss of significant figures.
wake methods
68'
The optimum panel method primarily depends upon the skill of the user, the
computational resources available, the geometric configuration to be analyzed,
and the type and accuracy of the results desired.
26
Although, drag prediction results are not often published in the open
literature, two examples have been found to demonstrate the induced drag
prediction capabilities of panel methods.
The first, from Miller and Youngblood
98
The
16 5.
good, with the results favoring use of the higherorder PAN AIR method;
however,
placement of the canard wake, were also necessary to achieve these results 9 8 .
The second example is from Chen and Tinoco 3 1 .
AIR method in predicting the effects of engine power on the lift and drag of a
transport aircraft wing,
in Fig. 22.
the aircraft due to increasing the fan nozzle pressure ratio from "ram" to
"cruise" shows that the wing, the fuselage, and the strut all had favorable
contributions, while the nacelle was the only component that contributed to a
drag penalty.
was included,
When the lost lift was restored and the associated induced drag
the computed blowing drag was 1.3 drag counts.
27
NavierStokes equations
designed to conserve
computer resources by using only the equations necessary to analyze the flow
in each appropriate zone, have had limited success in predicting the fluid
velocities and pressure 1 11 and lift loss due to viscous effects7.
Drag
19 is an
and mathematical models are achieved for the complex separated flows that
occur in these regions
61.
For example,
, arid the initialstall lift coefficient, CLDB , coincide for thin wings,
CL1
122
The lower bound for region five is the lift coefficient at which leadingedge separation and subsequent reattachment occur  the bubbletype separations.
The upper bound is reached when stall occurs and the entire upper
flow separates completely from the wing and the drag rapidly increases.
The drag correlations developed by Schemensky1 2 2, Simon,
et.al.131
and
Axelson 4 can be used for rough estimates during the preliminary design phase,
but lack the logical and ccnsistent framework necessary for confident,
tailed design tradeoff studies.
de
region five varies with lift at a greater rate than in region one.
28
The
additional drag in region six is a separation drag increment that has been
correlated with the lift coefficient at drag break 1 3 1
Numerous symposia have been devoted to the prediction of viscousinviscid
interactions,
the lift and drag of three airfoils through stall by combining a twodimensional panel method, an integral boundarylayer method and an empirical
relationship for the pressure in the separated zone and wake recovery region.
Maskew, Rao,
and Dvorak 89 , also using a panel method with a simple wake model
with prescribed separation line and wake geometry, were able to predict the
pressure distribution over an aspect ratio six, 10' swept wing at 21' angle of
attack.
The subject of leadingedge separation from slender wings has recently
been summarized by Hitzel and Schmidt
62
the leadingedge vortex and recentlydeveloped Euler methods can predict the
flowfield and lift, but drag comparisons are not included.
The Pohlhamus
However,
rules for strakes were determined from extensive wind tunnel data bases.
29
A rapid,
strictly empirical method for determining the overall drag rise for preliminary design is presented, followed by a drag component buildup method to
assess drag targets for each aircraft component.
curve between these Mach numbers, where the drag may attain a maximum,
cannot
length) are primary parameters for expressing slenderness of major configuration elements.
In all air
total area aft of the inlet station to define the equivalent body shape.
30
the equivalent body and the difference between drag values at M = 1.20 and M =
0.80 is defined here as the drag rise.
Three generations of aircraft are shown:
craft, (2)
subsequent developments.
Most
of the data are taken from flight test results, although data for some aircraft (the NASA LFAX configurations and the XFY1,
wind tunnel tests.
Haack
12 6
lower limit.
The first generation supersonic aircraft with fineness ratios of the order of
7.0 had drag rise values about 60% higher than the SearsHaack limit, the
second generation about 50%, and the third, about 25%.
fineness ratio of 8.7 has a drag rise 200% higher than the SearsHaack lower
limit and the F18 with a fineness ratio of 9.5 is 225% above this limit.
3.2
3.2.1
24.
The skin friction drag may be computed by the methods of Section 2.2 at
nearly invariant over the small range of Mach number that is considered
transonic, unless the localized details of shock boundarylayer interactions
are considered.
31
While the form and interfe'rence drags are also computed by the methods of
Recall
that some form factors are constants over the entire subsonic range while
others are functions of both Reynolds and Mach numbers.
or drag divergence,
Thus,
the drag rise and the interference plus form drag are replaced by wave drag
beyond Mach one.
lhe decrease in critical Mach number with increasing lift for most
airfoils causes the subsonic drag polar to begin its rise earlier at higher
lift
coefficients.
The
drag rise due to lifting surfaces begins at Mc. while the drag rise due to all
cther components begins at ML
as correlated by Schemensky122
or interfer
167 .
curve fitting also do not account fei the pressure drag slope relationships
32
105
derived from transonic similarity theory
prediction is
3.2.2
, and so on.
Transonic drag
consistent art!
19,
where 0.95
<
ML1
<
1.00,
the induced
Section 2.2.
The drag rise for lifting surfaces from the previous section shifts the basic
polar, depending upon Mc,.
polar is
K, in
regions
prediction to extremely
This method is
based
the limiting
positions,
as shown in Fig.
25.
is
not calculated by
Numerical
Transonic Aerodynamics
145,
167,
168
The book,
edited by NixonI
05
describes steady transonic flow research from both an industry viewpoint and a
research viewpoint and includes recent advances in experimental
prediction methods.
techniques and
dynamics for the applied aerodynamicist engaged in the design of combat and
airlift
33
167
incremental drag due to small geometric changes precludes the use of drag as
an object function in minimization procedures.
boundarylayer separation is avoided, wave and vortex drag are minimized, and
the resulting geometry is acceptable.
Transonic flow is highly threedimensional and inherently nonlinear.
heirarchy of approximate equations,
equations, have been used to analyze these flows with varying degrees of
success 1 68 . Unfortunately,
This is a result of
Grid
resolution has been a primary cause for poor drag prediction using even the
full NavierStokes equations with various turbulence models
32
The theoretical and numerical bases for drag calculations based on the
approximate equations (transonic small disturbance, full potential and Euler)
have been questioned 1 0 3 ' 167,
The addition of a
34
Longo,
as shown in Fig.
have been obtained by substituting a finite volume Euler flow solver for the
inviscid method.
Dahlin and Peavey 57, also using the Bauer, Garabedian and Korn
Henne,
60
and nonconservative potential flow codes did not use drag as an evaluation
criteria since it was considered to be the least accurate quantity calculated
by the aerodynamic codes.
pressure distributions were found for configurations with low fineness ratio
bedies.
Henne,
could be correlated while drag level and compressibility drag increment could
not, for three high aspect ratio transporttype wings, as shown in Fig. 27.
Waggoner
1510
35
complex fuselage,
or canards,
capable of
stations.
With the possible exception of the development of a new transonic method
based on paneling technology 39,
small disturbance equations.
transformation capable of modeling the closelycoupled canardwing interactions typical of proposed highly maneuverable fighter configurations.
Drag
90
transonic
drag predictions are accurate and reliable enough for detailed design data.
4
Supersonic Draq
Somewhat contrary to the state of transonic drag prediction,
draq is
1970s,
supersonic
In the early
the supersonic transport and the B70 programs provided the impetus for
implementation of linearized super
10
'
11,
12
The dedicated,
Carlson 2 1 , Carmichael25
36
Harris
54
'
pioneering efforts
5
Middleton 9 7 ,
dictions produced by the current versions of these programs are excellent for
many slender supersonic configurations at low lift coefficients and are widely
used throughout the aircraft industry for preliminary design.
As shown in Fig. 5a, the supersonic cruise drag components are dramatically different from the subsonic cruise drag components.
differenc'
subsonic flow.
Friction Drag
The effects of compressibility and heat transfer must be accounted for at
supersonic speeds.
illustrating several
The corre
37
dependent.
however, small.
that compared with the later method of Winter and Gaudet, Michel's method
predicted lower aircraft drag directly by 21/2% C, (0.8% total drag) and
r
lower aircraft drag from extrapolation of the 1/45th scale model data by 5% CF
(1.5% total drag) for the Concorde.
acceptable,
However,
the
scatter in all data precluded changing skin friction prediction methods during
the Concorde design process.
etro
112
Peterson1,
13 7
1371F
and
The method has been programmed for many computers and forms
the skin friction module of the Integrated Supersonic Design and Analysis
Q7
System
Consistent use of the Sommer and Short method from the preliminary desicor:
phase through flight testing will improve drag correlations.
38
A considerable
amount of these data were reduced using the Sommer and Short method as a
basis.
Wave Drag
The wave drag produced by standing pressure waves that are not possible
The decomposition is a
result of the supersonic area rule method used for wave drag prediction and is
not permitted if nonlinear methods are used.
Liftdependent or induced:
D wave(M
1)(lift)2/(lifting length) 2
and must be added to the supersonic counterparts of the subsonic skin friction
drag and induced or vortex drag.
drag, liftdependent wave drag and volumedependent wave drag, are shown in
Fig. b.
39
is
is
small (2%)
55
,
well within the accuracy of the prediction capability for the body alone
28,
Fig.
6.
sources and doublets and sums the resulting pressure times the streamwise
component of area (nearfield method) obtains the sum of the vortex drag,
liftdependent and volumedependent wave drags.
but do not
Fig. 28,
placed a
identical to the induced drag for subsonic flow since the trailing
regardless of flight
fuselage, empennage,
nacelles,
areas as intersected by inclined Mach planes through the Von K~rm~n slenderbody formula (Fig.
28).
The wave drag due to lift and the vortex drag are,
Since
the fuselages of military aircraft are usually not slender, the use of the
Transfer Area Rule in this case would represent a greater violation of theory
than use of the Supersonic Area Rule.
Numerous comparisons of this theory with experimental data from the
slender XB70 and Supersonic Transport models 5 '
is remarkably accurate (less than 10% error in total drag) over a range of
Mach numbers from 1.2 to 3.0.
Bonner1 0 , using an integral similar to Von KArmAn's slender body formula
derived by Hayes,
This procedure,
distribution of lift.
41
nearfield method capable of obtaining both the vortex and liftdependent wave
drags must be used to supply the required lift distribution and lifting
surfaces are much less likely to satisfy the slenderness requirements.
distant point of view does,
however,
The
LiftInduced Drag
The drag due to lift, both wave and vortex, has conventionally been
calculated using the Mach Box method of Middleton and Carlson 96, currently
with many semiempirical modifications to alleviate known shortcomings 9 7 .
comprehensive review of this method, as of 1974,
is contained in Ref.
23 and
divides the zerothickness planform, often with the fuselage outline (Fig.
28), into rectangular panels whose diagonals are aligned with the freestream
Mach lines of the flow.
Alternatively,
parallel to the Mach lines and the Mach Diamond or Characteristic Box method
would result.
edges,
while the Characteristic Box gives better results for wings with
subsonic edges
8 1.
ACp,
either the camber surface slope for a known pressure distribution (wing design
case) or the lifting pressure coefficient in terms of known camber surface
slopes (lift analysis case).
can be combined in the design mode to determine optimum camber shapes for minimum
42
97
bomber models at typically higher cruise Mach numbers and lower design lift
coefficients are equally as accurate 1 0 '
Fig. 31.
The major unresolved drag prediction problem of thin, highly swept wings
typical of efficient supersonic flight is the evaluation of leadingedge
thrust or leadingedge suction.
43
in Fig. 32 is for M = 1.35, an offdesign condition for the M = 1.8 supercruiser configuration.
The leading edge thrust results from the low pressure induced by the hich
flow velocities around the leading edge from the stagnation point on the
undersurface of the wing to the upper surface.
wings typical of low subsonic flight speeds,
the drag from the pressure forces acting on the remainder of the airfoil
The thrust force diminishes with increasing speeds,
leadingedges are subsonic 1 6 3 .
'11 6
Thus,
conventionally been ignored for supersonic wing design and analysis at Mach
numbers approaching three 1 1 6 , with excellent results, as shown in Fig. 31.
The renewed interest in this phenomena resulted from the increased
sophistication in supersonic wing design required to achieve higher design
lift coefficients for the lower Mach numbers typical of proposed fighter
designs with sustained supersonic cruise capability1 6 4 .
ments also demand higher available lift coefficients and the attendant thickness and complex camber shapes to minimize drag.
The current complex of NASA computer programs
97
zerothickness wing design and analysis method provides the zero leadingedge
suction drag estimate since the low pressures do not have a forward facing
area to act upon.
entire leadingedge and has formed the spiral vortex sheets characteristic of
slender wings at higher angles of attack7 6 .
extended,
44
is
32),
Barger 22,
has been found to work well for wings with standard NASA airfoil
sections,
However,
the attain
able thrust forces predicted did not agree with those experimentally measured
on wings with sharp and varying leadingedge radii; large differences in both
levels and trends were evident
63.
upwash in the vicinity of the leading edge and the effect on the pressure
distribution.
It
difficult
values required.
vary from
impact on wing design and drag prediction have been extensively studied by
Carlson and Mack21.
Calculations using nearfield surfacepanel methods should predict the
full suction drag polar; however,
leadingedge paneling density.
sensitive to
insufficient for the accurate evaluation of this integral and the resulting
force will
rather
45
polar could be obtained by numerically averaging the zero and full leadingedge suction drag polars.
Drag polars calculated by two nearfield methods for Mach numbers of
1.196,
The skin
Considerable
scatter is evident in the zero lift drag which may be attributed to either the
skin friction estimate or, more likely, the zero lift wave drag predictions of
the nearfield methods.
with angle of attack was correctly predicted by the higherorder panel method,
PAN AIR 2 6 .
165
14 4
Mach Box method and the Woodward ConstantPressure panel method (USSAERO)
for
His modifications,
tangency surface boundary conditions and the corrected local value of Mach
number, cause the solution technique to become iterative.
The modifications
improve the zerolift wing wave drag prediction capability of linear theory
46
theory and the farfield slenderbody theory zero lift wave drag predictions
with their experimental data for a series of forebody models having various
degrees of nose droop.
Mach numbers of 1.2 and 1.47, but was erroneous at 1.8 for the cambered
models.
numbers of 1.47,
(SC3 )
has been proposed to regain wing performance for wings swept such that the
Mach number normal to the leading edge is transonic.
cd
paneling code9.
Bonner and Gingrich12 approach fighter wing design through the use of
var~iable camber and a design compromise between the transonic maneuver configuration and an optimum supersonic cruise design.
Experience then guided the selection of the compromise camber shape, followed
by alternating constrained optimizations at the supersonic and transonic
47
design points.
et.al.
1 64
Fig.
are opposite in sign and cancel most of the fuselage error  illustrating the
somewhat forgiving nature of linear aerodynamics.
son for each of the four wings is shown in Fig. 37.
bilities of linear theory are excellent for the complete configurations and
vary with slenderness and smoothness of the area distribution.
tolift comparisons ware equally as accurate; however,
The dragdue
Correction proce
48
constant development.
flow analyses,
blunt
fighter configurations.
An i7novative,
A large experimental
31
et.al.1
The
accuracy of the, resulting regression equations was only limited by the expanse
as shown by Johnson69 and
Numerical Aerodynamics
Here,
the tern
numerical aerodynamics
from the
is
The term
particularly with
110,
115,
121,
124,
125,
132,
(Ref.
167)
27,
29, 30,
42,
48, 53,
CFD
73,
79,
the prediction that CFD would supplant traditional wind tunnel tests within a
decade.
speed.
The pacing item in CFD technology at that time was computer size and
iA later article 3 0 recognized turbulence models to be a pacing item.
49
the problem of
Computer hardware
has advanced tremendously in the last decade 7 9 , as have flow simulations using
the Reynolds averaged NavierStokes equations.
Still,
the primary tool for design verification and a large portion of design
development work.
The fundamental
limitation of CFD during the last decade  turbulence modeling  remains the
pacing item.
5 2'
82, 87,
not known well enough to permit accurate mathematical modeling and flow
simulation.
and design optimization with drag as an objective function using CFD are even
further in the future.
Recent publications recognize the complementary roles of wind tunnels and
CFD7 3 , while the role of the lowerorder approximations (linear, potential,
Euler) is often understated.
schedule,
79
, 9.
124,
to provide accurate, timely, costeffective design dataII0,121,
50
168
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Abercrombie, J.M., "Flight Test Verification of F15 Performance
Predictions," AGARDCP242, 1977, pp. 171  1713.
2) Aidala, P.V., Davis, W.H., and Mason, W.H., "Smart Aerodynamic
Optimization," AIAA831863, Applied Aerodynamic Conference, Danvers,
1983.
MA, July
51
Butler, S.F.J.,
1973, pp.
v.ixv.
21) Carlson, H.W., and Mack, R.J., "Estimation of Wing Nonlinear Aerodynamic
Characteristics at Supersonic Speeds," NASA TP1718, November 1980.
22) Carlson, H.W., Mack, R.J., and Barger, R.L., "Estimation of Attainable
LeadingEdge Thrust for Wings at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds," NASA TP
1500, October, 1979.
23) Carlson, H.W., and Miller, D.S., "Numerical Methods for the Design and
Analysis of Wings at Supersonic Speed," NASA TN D7713, December 1974.
24) Carlson, H.W., and Walkley, K.B., "A Computer Program for Wing Subsonic
Aerodynamic Performance Estimates Including Attainable Thrust and Vortex Lift
Effect," NASA CR3515, March 1982.
25) Carmichael, R.L., and Woodward, F.A., "An Integrated Approach to the
Analysis and Design of Wings and WingBody Combinations in Supersonic Flow,"
NASA TN D3685, October 1966.
26) Carmichael, R.L., and Erickson, L.L., "PAN AIR: A HigherOrder Panel
Method for Predicting Subsonic or Supersonic Linear Potential Flows About
Arhbitrary Configurations," AIAA8]1255, June 1981.
27) Caughey, D.A., "A (Limited) Perspective on Computational Aerodynamics,"
FDA8007, Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics Program  Cornell University, July
1980.
28) Cenko, A., "PAN AIR Applications to Complex Configurations,"
AiAA830007, Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno NV, January 1983.
29) Chapman, D.R., Mark, H., and Pirtle, M.W., "Computers vs. Wind Tunnels
for Aerodynamic Flow Simulations,' Astronautics and Aeronautics, April 1975,
pp. 2130.
30) Chapman, D.R., "Computational Aerodynamics Development and Outlook,"
AIAA790129R, 17th Aeros[ace Sciences Meeting, January 1.979.
52
31) Chen, A.W., and Tinoco, E.N., "PAN AIR Applications to AeroPropulsion
Integration," AIAA831368, 19th Joint Propulsion Conference, Seattle WA, June
1983.
32) Coakley, T.J., "Turbulence Modeling Methods for the Compressible
NavierStokes Equations," AIAA831693, 16th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conf.,
Danvers MA, July 1983.
33) Cooper, J.M., Hughes, D.L., and Rawlings, K., "Transonic Aircraft
Technology  FlightDerived Lift and Drag Characteristics," AFFTCTR12, July
1977.
34) Craig, R.E., and Reich, R.J., "Flight Test Aerodynamic Drag Characteristics Development and Assessment of Inflight Propulsion Analysis Methods for
AGM109 Cruise Missile," AIAA812423, AIAA/SETP/SFTE/SAE/ITEA/IEEE 1st Flight
Testing Conf., Las Vegas NV, November 1981.
35) Crosthwait, E.L., Kennon, I.G., Jr., and Roland, H.L.,
Design Methodology for AirInduction Systems," SEGTR671,
ETAL "Preliminary
January 1967.
53
57) Henne, P.A., Dahlin, J.A., and Peavey, C.C., "Applied Computational
Transonics  Capabilities and Limitations," Douglas Paper 7025, Transonic
Perspective Symposium NASA Ames, February 1981.
58) Hess, J.L., "A Higher Order Panel Method for ThreeDimensional Potential
Flow," Naval Air Development Center Report No. NADC 7716630, June 1979.
59) Hess, J.L. and Friedman, D.M., "An Improved Higher Order Panel Method for
ThreeDimensional Lifting Potential Flow," Naval Air Development Center Final
Report, NADC 7927760, December 1981.
60)
Hicks, R.M., "Transonic Wing Design Using PotentialFlow Codes Successes and Failures," 810565, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.,
54
1981.
61)
1979.
62) Hitzel, S.M., Schmidt, W., "Slender Wings with LeadingEdge Vortex
Separation  A Challenge for PanelMethods and EulerCodes," AIAA830562,
21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno NV, January 1983.
63)
Hoak, D.E.,
64)
Hoerner,
S.F.,
1965.
65) Hopps, R.H., and Danforth, E.C.B., "Correlation of Wind Tunnel And Flight
Test Data for the Lockheed L1011 Tristar Airplane," AGARDCP242, 1977, pp.
211  2112.
66) Hunt, B.L., Gowadia, N.S., "Determination of Thrust and
ThrottleDependent Drag for Fighter Aircraft," AIAA811692, Aircraft Systems
and Technology Conference, Dayton OH, August 1981.
67) Jackson, C.M., Jr., and Smith, R.S., "A Method for Determining the Total
Drag of a Pointed Body of Revolution in Supersonic Flow with Turbulent
Boundary Layer," NASA TN D5046, March 1969.
68) James, R.M., "An Investigation of Induced Drag for Field Calculation
Methods for Planar Distributions," MDC J7046, December 1975.
69) Johnson, J. Kenneth, "Accuracies and Limitations of a Statistical Method
for Computing Lift and Drag Due to Lift of Fighter Type WingBody Configurations," AFFDL/FXMTM7346, August 1973.
70) Kjelgaard, S.O., "Evaluation of a Surface Panel Method Coupled with
Several Boundary Layer Analyses," AIAA83O011, 21st Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno NV, January 1983.
71) Knaus, A., "A Technique to Determine Lift and Drag Polars in Flight," J.
Aircraft, Vol. 20, July 1983, pp. 587593.
72) Kolesar, C.E., and May, F.W., "An Aftbody Drag Prediction Technique for
Military Airlifters," AIAA831787, Applied Aerodynamics Conf., Danvers MA,
July 1983.
73) Korkegi, R.H., "The Impact of CFD on Development Test Facilities  A
National Research Council Projection," AIAA831764, 16th Fluid and Plasma
Dynamics Conf., Danvers MA, July 1983.
74) Kuhlman, J.M., and Ku, T.J., "Numerical Optimization Techniques for Bound
Circulation Distribution for Minimum Induced Drag of Nonplanar Wings:
Computer Program Documentation," NASA CR3458, August 1981.
75) Kulfan, R.M., "Application of Hypersonic Favorable Aerodynamic Interference Concepts to Supersonic Aircraft," AIAA781458, Aircraft Systems and
Technology Conference, August 1978.
76) Kulfan, R.M., "Wing Geometry Effects on LeadingEdge Vorticies,"
AIAA791872 Aircraft Systems and Technology Meeting, NY, August 1979.
55
77) Kulfan, R.M., and Sigaila, A., "Real Flow Limitations in Supersonic
irplane Design," AIAA78147, January 1978.
78) Kulfan, R.M., Yoshihara, H., Lord, B.J., and Friebel, G.O., "Application
of Supersonic Favorable Aerodynamic Interference to Fighter Type Aircraft,"
AFFDLTR7833, April 1978.
79) Kutler, P., "A Perspective of Theoretical ano Applied Computational Fluid
Dynamics," AIAA830037, 21st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno NV, January
1983.
80) Landrum, E.J., and Miller, D.S., "Assessment of Analytic Methods for the
Prediction of Supersonic Flow over Bodies," AIAA800071R, AIAA Journal,
February 1981.
81) Leyman, C.S. and Markham, T., "Prediction of Supersonic Aircraft
Aerodynamic Characteristics," AGARDLS67, May 1974, pp. 51  552.
82) Liepmann, H.W., "The Rise and Fall of Ideas in Turbulence," American
Scientist, Vol. 67, MarchApril 1979, pp. 221228.
83) Lomax, H., "Some Prospects for the Future of Computational Fluid
Dynamics," AIAA81O991R, AIAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 8, August 1982.
84) Longo, J., Schmidt, W., and Jameson,
Simulation," Z. Flugwiss Wettraumforsh.7,
85) Lotz, M., and Friedel, H., "Analysis of Error Sources in Predicted Flight
Performance," Performance Prediction Methods, AGARDCP242, 1977, pp. 141 14il.
86) MacWilkinson, D.G., Blackerby, W.T., and Paterson, J.H., "Correlation of
Full Scale Drag Prediction with Flight Measurements on the C141A Aircraft Phase I!, Wind Tunnel Test, Analysis, and Prediction Techniques.
Volume I Drag Predictions, Wind Tunnel Data Analysis and Correlation," NASA CR2333,
February 1974.
87) Marvin, J.G., "Turbulence Modeling for Computational Aerodynamics,"
AiAA820164, 20th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando FL, January 1982.
88) Naskew, B., "Prediction of Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics  A Case
for LowOrder Panel Methods," AIAA810252, January 1981.
89) Maskew, B., Rao, B.M., and Dvorak, F.M., "Prediction of Aerodynamic
Characteristics for Winos with Extensive Separations," AGARDCP291, February
11381, pp. 311  3115.
90) Mason, W.H., "WingCanard Aerodynamics at Transonic Speeds  Fundamental
Considerations on Minimum Drag Span Loads," AIAA820097, 20th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting, January 1982.
91) Mason, W.H., "SC3 A Wing Concept for Supersonic Maneuvering,"
AIAA83.1858, July 1983.
56
92) Mason, W.H., and Rosen, B.S., "The COREL and W12SC3 Computer Programs for
Supersonic Wing Design and Analysis," NASA CR3676, 1983.
93) McCluney, B. and Marshall, J.,
Aircraft Engineering, October 1967,
94) McGreer, T., and Shevell, R.S., "A Method for Estimating the Compressibility Drag of an Airplane," SUDAAR 535, January 1983.
95) McKinney, L. Wayne, Editor, "Wind Tunnel/Flight Correlation  1981," NASA
Miniworkshop Series, NASA Publication 2225, November 1981.
96) Middleton W.D., and Carlson, H.W., "Numerical method of Estimating and
Optimizing Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Arbitrary Planform
Wings," J. Aircraft, JulyAugust 1965.
97) Middleton, W.D., and Lundry, J.L., "A System for Aerodynamic Design and
Analysis of Supersonic Aircraft," NASA CR3351, December 1980.
98) Miller, S.G., and Youngblood, D.B., "Applications of USSAEROB and the
PAN AIR Production Code to the CDAF Model  A Canard/Wing Configuration,"
AIAA831829, Applied Aerodynamics Conf., Danvers MA, July 1983.
99) Miranda, L.R., "A Perspective of Computational Aerodynamics from the
Viewpoint of Airplane Design Applications," AIAA820018, Orlando FL, January
1982.
100) Miranda, L.R., Elliott, R.D., and Baker, W.M., "A Generalized Vortex
Lattice Method for Subsonic and Supersonic Flow Applications," NASA CR2865,
December 1977.
101) Morris, S.J., Neums, W.P., and Bailey, R.O., "A Simplified Analysis of
Propulsion Installation Losses for Computerized Aircraft Design," NASA TM
X73,136, August 1976.
102) Murillo, L.E., and McMasters, J.H., "A Method for Predicting LowSpeed
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Transport Aircraft," AIAA831845, Applied
Aerodynamics Conf., Danvers MA, July 1983.
103) Murman, E.M., and Cole, J.D., "Inviscid Drag at Transonic Speeds,"
AIAA74540, 7th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Palo Alto CA, June
1974.
104) Nelson, D.W., Gornstein, R.J., and Dornfeld, G.M., "Prediction of
Maneuvering Drag Polars Including Elasticity Effects for AFTIF111,"
AIAA811658, August 1981.
105) Nixon, D., Transonic Aerodynamics,
Aeronautics, AIAA, NY, 1982.
Vol.
81,
106) Norton, D.A., "Airplane Drag Prediction," Annals New York Academy of
Sciences, 1968, pp. 306328.
57
107) O'Conner, W.M., "Lift and Drag Prediction in Computer Aided Design,"
Vols. I and II, ASD/XR738, April 1973.
108) Paterson, J.H., "Scaling Effects on Drag Prediction," AGARDLS3710,
June 1970, pp. 41  412.
109) Paterson, J.H., MacWilkinson, D.G., and Blackerby, W.T., "A Survey of
Drag Prediction Techniques Applicable to Subsonic and Transonic Aircraft
Design," AGARDCP124, 1973, pp. 11  138.
110) Perrier, P., "Computational Fluid Dynamics Around Complete Aircraft
Configurations," ICAS Paper 82.6.11, 13th Congress of the International
Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Seattle WA, August 1982.
111) Paynter, G.C., Vaidyanathan, T.S., Maskew, B., and Dvorak, F.A.,
"Experience with Hybrid Aerodynamic Methods," AIAA831819, Applied
Aerodynamics Conference, Danvers MA, July 1983.
112) Peterson, J.B., "A Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Results
for the Compressible TurbulentBoundaryLayer Skin Friction with Zero Pressure
Gradient," NASA TN D1795, March 1963.
113) Peterson, J.B., Jr., "Wind Tunnel/Flight Correlation Program on
XB.701," NASA CP2225, November 1981.
114) Pittman, J.L., "Preliminary Supersonic Analysis Methods Including High
Angle of Attack," AIAA820938, AIAA/ASME 3rd Joint Thermophysics, Fluids,
Plasma, and Heat Transfer Conference, St. Louis MO, June 1982, J. Aircraft,
Vol. 20, No. 9, September 1983, pp. 784790.
115) PoissonQuinton, P., "From Wind Tunnel to Flight, the Rule of the
Laboratory in Aerospace Design," J. Aircraft, MayJune 1968, pp. 193214.
116) Robins, A.W., Carlson, H.W., and Mack, R.J., "Supersonic Wings with
Significant LeadingEdge Thrust at Cruise," NASA TP1632, April 1980.
117) Rodi, W., "Progress in Turbulence Modeling for Incompressible Flows,"
AIAA810045, 19th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1981.
118) Rooney, E.C., "Development of Techniques to Measure InFlight Drag of a
U.S. Navy Fighter Airplane and Correlation of Flight Measured Drag with Wind
Tunnel Data," AGARDCP124, October 1973.
119) Rooney, E.C., and Craig, R.E., "Development of Techniques and
Correlation of Results to Accurately Establish the Lift/Drag Characteristics
of an Air Breathing Missile from Analytical Predictions, Subscale and Full
Scale Wind Tunnel Tests and Flight Tests," Performance Prediction Methods,
AGARDCP242, 1977, pp. 161  1618.
120) Rooney, E.C., Craig, R.E., and Lauer, R.F., "Correlation of Full Scale
Wind Tunnel and Flight Measured Aerodynamic Drag," AIAA77996, AIAA/SAE 13th
Propulsion Conf., Orlando FL, July 1977.
58
Schlichting, H.,
1968.
New
124) Schmidt, W., "Advanced Numerical Methods for Analysis and Design in
Aircraft Aerodynamics," Int. J. of Vehicle Design, Technological Advances in
Vehicle Design Series, SP6, Applications of New Techniques for Analysis and
Design of Aircraft Structures, 1983, pp. 237.
125) Schmidt, W., Jameson, A., "Euler Solvers as an Analysis Tool for
Aircraft Aerodynamics," Recent Advances in Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol.
4, 1983.
126) Sears, W.R., "On Projectiles of Minimum Wave Drag," Quarterly Journal of
Applied Mathematics, January 1947, pp. 361366.
127) Shankar, V. and Goebel, T., "A Numerical Transformation Solution
Procedure for Closely Coupled CanardWing Transonic Flows," AIAA830502,
Aerospace Sciences Mtg, Reno NV, January 1983.
21st
J.J., "Prediction of
132) Smelt, R., "The Role of Wind Tunnels in Future Aircraft Development,"
The Aeronautical Journal, November 1978, pp. 467475.
133) Smith, A.M.O.,
November 1981.
134) Smith, K.G., "Methods and Charts for Estimating Skin Friction Drag in
Wind Tunnnel Tests with Zero Heat Transfer," Technical Note No. AERO 2980,
Royal Aircraft Establishment, Ministry of Aviation, London, United Kingdom,
August 1964.
135) Snodgrass, R.R., "A Computerized Method for Predicting Drag and Lift
for Aeronautical Systems," ASDENFTM761, October 1976.
59
136) Sommer, S.C., and Short, B.J., "FreeFlight Measurements of lurbuientBoundaryLayer Skin Friction in the Presence of Severe Aerodynamic Heating at
Mach Numbers from 2.8 to 7.0," NACA TN3391, March 1955.
137) Sorrells, R.B., Jackson, M.W., and Czarnecki, K.R., "Measurement by Wake
Momentum Surveys at Mach 1.61 and 2.01 of Turbulent BoundaryLayer Skin
Friction on Five Swept Wings," NASA TN D3764, December 1966.
138) Stallings, R.L., Jr., and Lamb, M., "Wind Tunnel Measurements and
Comparison with Flight of the Boundary Layer and Heat Transfer on a Hollow
Cylinder at Mach 3," NASA TP 1789, December 1980.
139) Stancil, R.T., "Improved Wave Drag Predictions Using Modified Linear
Theory," Journal of Aircraft, January 1979, pp. 4146.
140) Sytsma, H.S., Hewitt, B.L., and Rubbert, P.E., "A Comparison of Panel
Methods for Subsonic Flow Computation," AGARDAG241, February 1979.
141) Tendeland, T., "Effects of Mach Number and Wall Temperature Ratio on
Turbulent Heat Transfer at Mach Numbers from 3 to 5," NACA TN 4236, April
2958.
142) Thomas, J.L and Miller, D.S., "Numerical Comparisons of Panel Methods at
Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds," AIAA790404, 17th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, New Orleans LA, January 1979.
143) Thomas, J.L., Luckring, J.M., and Sellers, W.L. III, "Evaluation of
Factors Determining the Accuracy of Linearized Subsonic Panel Methods,"
AIAA831821, Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Danvers MS, July 1983.
144) Tinoco, E.N., Johnson, F.T., and Freeman, L.M., "Application of a Higher
Order Panel Method to Realistic Supersonic Configurations," AIAA790274R,
January 1980.
145) Tinoco, E.N., and Rubbert, P.E., "Experience, Issues, and Opportunities
4n Steady Transonics," AEROB8111P82006, Computational Methods in Potential
Aerodynamics (ICTS) Short Course, Amalf, Italy, MayJune 1982.
146) Tinoco, E.N., and Rubbert, P.E., "Panel Methods: PANAIR," AEROB8111P82005, Computational Methods in Potential Aerodynamics Short Course, Amalf,
Italy, MayJune 1982.
247) Tjonneland, E., Paynter, G., and May, F., "Progress Toward Airframe/
Propulsion Design Analysis," Paper 8, AGARD Flight Mechanics panel Symposium
on Sustained Supersonic Cruise/Maneuver, Brussels, Belgium, October 1983.
248) Tomasetti, T.A., "Statistical Determination of the Lift and Drag of
Fighter Aircraft," GAM/AE/731, June 1972.
149)
Towne, M.C., et. al., "PAN AIR Modeling Studies," AIAA831830,
Aerodynamics Conf., Danvers MA, July 1983.
60
Applied
May 1982.
152) Webb, T.S., Kent, D.R., and Webb, J.B., "Correlation of F16 Aerodynamics and Performance Predictions with Early Flight Test Results,"
AGARDCP242, 1977, pp. 191  1917.
153) White, F.M., and Christoph, G.H., "A Simple New Analysis of Compressible
Turbulent TwoDimensional Skin Friction under Arbitrary Conditions,"
AFFDLTR70133, February 1971.
154) White, F.M., and Christoph, G.H., "Rapid Engineering Calculation of
TwoDimensional Turbulent Skin Friction," AFFDLTR72136, Sup. 1, November
1972.
155) White, F.M., Lessman, R.C., and Christoph, G.H., "A Simplified Approach
to the Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers in Two and Three Dimensions,"
AFFDLTR136, November 1972.
156) Williams, J., "Ground/Flight Test Techniques and Correlation,"
AGARDCP339, October 1982.
157) Williams, J., "Technical Evaluation Report on the Flight Mechanics Panel
Symposium on Ground/Flight Test Techniques and Correlation," AGARDAR191,
June 1983.
Also AGARDCP339, October 1982.
158) Williams, J., "Synthesis of Responses to AGARDFMP Questionnaire on
Prediction Techniques and Flight Correlation," AGARDCP339, 1982, pp. 241
2430.
159) Williams, J.,
tion," AGARDLS56,
Performance
162) Wood, R.M., Dollyhigh, S.M., and Miller, D.S., "An Initial Look at the
Supersonic Aerodynamics of TwinFuselage Aircraft Concepts," ICAS821.8.3,
13th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences with
AiAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Conference, Seattle WA, August 1982.
163) Wood, R.M. and Miller, D.S., "Experimental Investigation of LeadingEdge
Thrust at Supersonic Speeds," NASA TP2204, September 1983.
164) Wood, R.M., Miller, D.S., Hahne, D.E., Niedling, L., and Klein, J.,
"Status Review of a Supersonically Biased Fighter WingDesign Study,"
AIAA831857, Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Danvers MA, July 1983.
61
165) Woodward, F.A., "Development of the Triplet Singularity for the Analysis
of Wings and Bodies in Supersonic Flow," NASA CR3466, September 1981.
166) Wu, J.C., Hackett, J.E., Lilley, D.E., "A Generalized WakeIntegral
Approach for Drag Determination in ThreeDimensional Flows," AIAA790279,
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, New Orleans LA, January 1979.
167) Yoshihara, H., "Special Course on Subsonic/Transonic Aerodynamic
Interference for Aircraft," AGARDR712, May 1983.
168) Yoshihara, H. and Spee, B.M., "Applied Computational Transonic
Aerodynamics," AGARDAG266, August 1982.
169) Young, A.D., "The Calculation of the Total and Skin Friction Drags of
Bodies of Revolution at Zero Incidence," A.R.C. R&M 1874, April 1939.
170) Young, A.D., Patterson, J.H.,
Drag," AGARDAG264, July 1981.
"Aircraft Excrescence
171) Youngren, H.H., Bouchard, E.E., Coopersmith, R.M., and Miranda, L.R.,
"Comparison of Panel Method Formulation and its Influence on the Development
of QUADPAN, an Advanced Low Order Method," AIAA831827, Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, Danvers MA, July 1983.
172) Yu, N.J., Chen, H.C., Samant, S.S., and Rubbert, P.E., "Inviscid Drag
Calculations for Transonic Flows," AIAA831928, Computational Fluid Dynamics
Conference, Danvers MA, July 1983, pp. 283292.
173)
Friedman,
Dec 1983.
L.M.,
62
AERODYNAMIC REFERENCE
CONFIGURATION
0 WIng/body model with flow~thmugh
nacellas and toleernce nozzle,
PROPULSION REFERENCE
CONFIGURATION
* Wing/body model with blown
nace list and retorenc# nozzle$
CANDIDATE NOZZLE
CONFIGURATION
*Wing/body model with blown
fiacelles and candidate nozzle$
ISOLATED NACELLE
TEST
*Candidate nozzl.,
Figure 1.
Test Approach
63
CDp
+
"CIDp
CD,1
D
. A
+ 0.5%
1,5%
315.
CRUISET
(Wae, Shoc ,
Separation)
&
LF
INTERFERENCE
EXCRESCENCE
ROUGHNESS
CD (cruise)
'incompres
PRESSURE
FRICTION
5M%1N
Compressible
Cp "CD
Figure 2.
Ible
M = 0.8)
64
" 4
20
Probable
Error
12o
,
15
!0
Aloho
Oe.
Ex C'
2%
Conceptual
Development
Figure 3.
Design
Preliminary
Design
Ref.
65
13)
Flight Test
Number of
10L
occurrences
Deviation from
fairing, percent
0
of CD

/Estimated uncertainty
in CrD
l..
1.5
3.0
Figure
4.
About
(From Arnaiz,
66
Ref.
3)
Number.
W.T, 9 /body
tf~'flstV'
body
Wing9
Fin'
IFin'Zrit
body
zcno  lift
~ngric
wove dra
Zero
5
Ir
.'
it
l ift
wave arms
irSLm
II
 caeai
~~Lift
I
dept'd9
L~fde~nLiftr0
a Cruise drag
oryf.
acis~ aircraft
I~i
basic aircraft
Bs~OTr'.
Flops
Flops
LfLdpcr'dY't.
Lift  deperiaeri'l
LiftdLpe"klet/
r0
drag
drag
b Takeolf drag
AGOq M.0 a
A~rbuS
Figure 5.
ASO
M=2 Z
b,72
M.Z 0
56s
M.2 0
Iste~ratto slender
Sitr'de
delto
variable. Swee~p
delto oiriir'er
16t'odte.s'
bo"'be'
strike.
Typical Aircraft
Drag Breakdowns
61
'~t~tP.
tangential
friction drag
total
drag
viscous
form drag
anormalke
pressure
drag
]
vortex drag
iliftdependent
]
wave drag
inviscid
 wave
Figure 6.
(from Butler,

volumedependent
19;
68
Ref.
81)
wave drag
*F4E/J
.005
.004
N

*~7A
'~
.002
0C
Fiur
c69
7.
EqivlntSknFrcto
Cf= 0.*0020
0.0030
0.0040
0.0050
0.0060
u.
<200
100
C133
C5A
<C130
S50
C141
~40
30
Bi941
S20
DC8
B,
B727
, B737
S0 10
A BOMBERS
0 TRANSPORTS
3 4 5 7 10
REARLOADING
TRANSPORTS
20 304050
00
Figure 8.
et al,
70
Ref.
109)
4)6
a)44

~F~
1.52".0
3'.0
71
4.0
2.2
F4E/J
2.0
1.8
F.18
Cfe
Cfico
F10SD
1.6/
F84G
SF84E .
A7A
.F100D
1.4
F84F
1.2
2.0
2.2
I
2.4
2.6
2.8
Figure 10.
72
3.0
2.4
2.2
11.
7I
21.2
1.28
4f
Fiur
WF
:...
Eqialn
73
Bod
Shape'1.9
~A
AI&XIMU,
AREA STATION
ROOT CHORD
MAXIMUM THICKNESS
=
S
)f/(
*Aeq
equiv
Zf
Aeq
Af + Ac
Figure 12.
+ A, 
Ai
74
2.0
1.8
F4E/J
2,2
F14 *
F18
1.6
2,1
F105D
OMEGA
1.4
1.4
~A7A
1.2
F86H
F8D
F100D
oF84G
/ZF
SINLETS,
NOZZLES
1.0
2.0
I
2.2
I
2.4
2.6
2.8
Figure 13.
Aerodynamic Cleanness
75
3.0
Spak.r,
0040,
0010~~~

' "

P .:ar,
FKa.ct
U c t:  S
S t. 2.!.C :, .:1
, V:: .t , '  O u c
G adL
_______
" "
0 03 2
002
_?
6. 6
004
_ ..
I.
. .
. . .
. 
X..... i7T......
7
i .
.:.
P
C.
Figure 14.
__
et al,
76
'Ref.
86)
Sc''kh
0.
60
70
80
90
120
R NX 10
Figure 15.
41 .9
A4
1Ab
140
1601
rManln
200
77
2500
400
0
J& 150
) .170
006
0 .182
X".333
I
I IT
Ac~
.004
.003
*~~
.00
Figure
'
.001I
16.
.0021
.003
.0
.0
(from MacWilkinson,
78
Ref. 85l)
006
~

ax

O0GTransport
___


1 ::A
ZA Transport2
Tanpor
t '3
C'
~*
I.1
~d
O*Transport 4
NOTES:
11
L0)
J 76
B.12
..
..
1.2max
T
I

__....
.
max
AD
+2dFlt.
I +
C
.
Test, N
.86
ma
C_______
20
Figure 17.
40
50
60 70 80
100
R Nx 106 Based on Fuselage Length
(from MIacWilkinson,
79
et al, Ref.
M~ 0.70
86)
200
300
400
500
C)NACA 63006
1.7
'ni
63000Re.9
1.6~654015
1.61.
6501
K7
1.5
C
Q
11
r~039Ts
Vicu0Ter
Sue4elct
18 ~
~~
ifolSae2atr
Figure
808
Aio
7
CL
5
6
MCR
4
13
MCRo
MLI
ML2
MACH NUMBER
Figure 19.
Schemensky,
Ref.
81
122)
c/L
LA
CDIB
CD (Wingbody)
/
CLIB
NCL2
K(CLCL,) 2
CD
CD CDO
is
CDo
is
is
'he theoretical
K(CLCTB
C" 0)is
ACD7B is
LCi is
is
the lift
CDo
drag coefficient
drag due to lift
KCLO 2
CLRe
for C
>C
1
(from Simon,
also CLDB
the intermediate
Figure 20.
Ref.
et al,
82
131)
also L\CDPB
i6
MACH NUMBER
0.6 
0.4
0.2
LU
LI
0.0
0.20.00
Figure 21.
0.02
COEFFICIENT OF DRAG
0.04
et al,
83
Ref.
98)
0.06
0020.00
BODY
CD
 0.002
CD~D
FNPR)
0.004
/TOTAL?
I
Figure 22.
&CD
NOTE:
FAVORABLEBL
'UNF BLE(Cruise
VOR
//
0.0004
o+C~
WING
Blowing Drag
.001Experimental
013
lc L
0.002
0.006
Components
84
21)
CD
(Ram FNPR)
4T.
~ Z AF.
IB
'FI~
%I

_0
IT ;"
/piL
.'i
S
A21
7
Ia
Figure 23.
__
__
_4.Fi:.FOG
85
14I 1.0
ML2
CDD
C D
CL
.3 A II) vrCMR
CDRCfLAVE
D.FRiCTION
1.0
NRo
MACH NUMBER
Figure 24.
(from Schemensky,
Ref.
86
122)
1.0
.8
3
.6
CL
.4
EXPERIMENT

.2
ESTIMATE
FLOWZONE 3
F5
KI
0
.02
.04
.06
.08
.10
.12
.14
CD
Figure 25.
F5 CL versus
Ref.
(from Axelson,
87
CD; M
4)
0.9
.16
.18
.20
.22
CL.
0.8
0.6
CAST7 /
M_.076
BGKJ (NCI
.
VGK
Dofoil
0.2.
2.0
2.0
CDK
0.02
! I
r11
0.01
SCL
0.2
0.4
0.6
08
02
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.12
0.14
Figure 26.
et al, Ref.
88
84)
nw
0=00 YR
I.I~
bAA
L ~A/.~N pO
00
MACH NUM~tR
ffiP4C N *DO,
p~i
TWODvFP(IfE.JC, "k
FO UAL GIL~rTWV
100t
*rw~w
CAL
CULA70".
'WO
O~k
Amso urrh40e
o ULAUM)EuWpS
r*Ok *IZLM
00
0 7
0,0
07
fl.vO8o
.0
Nu
Figure 27.
tA t
9D
Cs
.D
MELAS
Drag u
Ut
(friton
tci
drageo,
Dra
ef
Cl
~MEAN
FRICTION
COEFFICIENT IN TURPULIENT
ZERO
HEAT
..
FLOW
TRANSFER
SPALDING ANDCHII
WI
VNTER
AND GAUDET
PRAN[TL. SCULICHTIIS
0SI,
/
REYNOLDS
SA
C I
NUNMER
FIG. 23
Figure 29.
(from Leyman,
et al, Ref.
91
81)
COMPARISON
___________TESTTHEORY
MACH
0.8
0.24

1.8
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
THEORETICAL ESTIMATE
0.20
0.16
CL
0.12
0.08
0.04
Figure 30.
0.00)4
0.006
0.008
0.016 (90.020
0.024
CD
0.028
0.032
0,036
92
0.040
0.044
.03
M .72.7
2.7
M=2.6
.02
CD
.01
0
EXPERIMENT

THEORY
I
Figure 31.
.I
.2
I..II
.1
CL
.2
93
116)
.1
.2
0.600
'e000. 'b"
theocD'
0 L E red = 0.2%
0.50
4,0...0
;()0
.'
0.0 153
'
*
'0
"
0.0382/de
0.40 
0.30 
0.20
/.
,,
oz
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
CD
Figure 32.
(from Middleton,
et al, Ref.
94
97)
LES 216
0.14
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.00
0.04
COEFFICIENT OFDRAG
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.6
0.4
S0.20.0
4.2
0.00
0.02
0.04
OFDRAG
COEFFICIENT
0z
.4
S0.2
0.0
.0.2.7
0.00
Figure 33.
(from
I
0.02
0,06
0.04
COEFFICIENT OFDRAG
Drag Polars,
Miller,
CDAF Configuration
et al,
95
Ref.
98)
0.08
0.6
 1.62
TRANSITION FIXED
TEST
RE/FT = 2 x 106DAr
CD
0.4CL
FNCOREL DRAG
PREDICTION
" 0.0122
rPTMA
0 .4
LOCUS O F
des
CL
CLX TAN
ED0.3[
(aa)
IUNCAMBEREDIF
NG
0.22
0.1
0.01
ESTIMATED
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
C
0.06
CDOCD
4.1
Figur.e
34.
(from
SC
Drag Performance
Mason,
Ref.
96
91)
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
,o07
,
TEST
0 ELLIPTICAL
LE
RM L9 D07
o WEDGE LE
PREDICTION
SAAREA RULE + CDF
 FULL POTENTIAL + CDF
.0,6
.0.5
.014
M 1.92'"
T/C
..1.9
LINEAR THEORY
0_ ............................
0.08
CDMIN
.0.3
........
0

.0.2
I
.2
.4
Figure 35.
.6
.8
1.0
1.2
TANE/TAN p
1.4
(from Bonner,
et al, Ref.
97
12)
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
4
" 8%
02
F'O
"
...
.022
Re.
2.0 x 100I/T
.
.
IFUSELAGE
+ VERT. TAIL +
CRANKED WING
700/660
.020L
700
. _ F.016 ~
INNER PANEL
21.0%
FUSELAGE ALONE
NE:
_I
__
S.6
Figure
36.
1.8
(from Wood,
et al,
Ref.
98
164)
 i
.034
'   ....
2 S
COOFTx
10.3%
,.
.030
.026
5.5%
_j_
.022
V.
1.6
C00
2
..
0.. .
2.0
2.2
MACH
 Re  2.0u x

.030
6 FT


I r

4.8%
. 022
1.6
NOTE:
...
1.8
.034
xS
.026
"
1.8
2.0MACH
Figure 37.
(from Wood,
et al,
99
Ref.
164)
2.2