111

Additional Aerodynamic Considerations

Compressibility

With the exception of Gas Dynamics, almost all of the fluid

mechanics taken by a UC undergraduate has been for
incompressible flows. In addition, Gas Dynamics is devoted
mostly to supersonic flow theory, i.e., shock and expansion waves.
While these types of phenomena are important and will be
discussed in more detail later, there exists a real gap in knowledge
between the incompressible and supersonic flows.

A great deal can be done in this regime by utilizing thin airfoil

theory, in which the governing equations can be written:

∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ
β 2
+ 2 =0 (11.1)
∂x 2
∂y

where β ≡ 1 − M ∞ .
2

Equation (11.1) reduces directly to the Laplace equation for

incompressible flows.

However, a simple transformation exists that allows us to take the

flow governed by Eq. (11.1) and transform it into a flow about an
“equivalent” incompressible body. The major details of this
approach can be found in the Anderson text. However, a
compressibility correction can be established from this approach
such that if we know the pressure coefficient on an airfoil in an
incompressible flow, C p o , we can obtain the pressure coefficient
on the same airfoil in a compressible flow via:
 112

C PO
CP = (11.2)
1− M 2
∞

This is known as the Prandtl-Glauret Rule.

As fortune would have it, since lift and drag are related to the
pressure coefficient, the same sort of correction holds for C l and
Cm .
C lO
Cl = (11.3)
1− M 2
∞

C mO
Cm = (11.4)
1− M 2
∞

Two higher order corrections to the Prandtl-Glauret rule exist:

The Karman-Tsien Rule

C PO
CP =
M ∞2 C PO
1− M + 2
∞
1 + 1 − M ∞2 2

and Laitone’s Rule

C PO
CP =
γ −1 2 
M ∞2 1 + M∞ 
1 − M ∞2 +  2  C PO
1 − M ∞2 2
 113

Critical Mach Number

These corrections are appropriate until the start of transonic flow,

around Mach 0.85. The critical Mach number, M cr , is the
freestream Mach number at which the local Mach number at some
point on the airfoil becomes sonic.
 114

The corresponding pressure coefficient is known as the critical

pressure coefficient, C P cr .

An estimate for C P cr can be found in a round about manner. We

start with the general equation for the pressure coefficient:

2  pA 
CP, A =  − 1  (11.5)
γM ∞2  p∞ 

pA
and use isentropic relations to replace with an expression in
p∞
terms of M A and M ∞ . We can then set M A to sonic and get the
relationship between the critical Mach number and pressure
coefficient.

γ
 
  1 + γ − 1 M 2  γ −1 
2  2
cr 

C P cr =   − 1 (11.6)
γM cr2   1 + γ − 1  
  
 2  
 

However, this relation only matches possible critical Mach

numbers and pressure coefficients, since it is only an isentropic
relationship for the pressure coefficient. The way it can be used is
to introduce a given airfoil and find its most negative pressure
coefficient. If this is done at incompressible conditions, the
Prandtl-Glauret rule can be used to map the variation of that C P
with Mach number. The two curves meet at M cr .
 115

Consider the following figure

Which demonstrates the goodness of thin airfoils, i.e., smaller

magnitude negative C P and hence a higher M cr .
 116

Drag Divergence Mach Number

The M cr is an important demarcation line after which the drag

begins to rise, however, a second point of more rapid drag rise is
the drag divergence Mach number, M drag − divergence , as illustrated in
the figure below:

Thin Airfoils
Clearly the M cr and M drag − divergence imply that thin airfoils are
useful. The trend for recent high performance aircraft is shown in
the figure below:
 117

This argument also explains why wing sweep is useful, that is, as
sweep angle, Ω , increases from zero, the effective chord seen by a
streamline increases, but the airfoil thickness does not, thereby
reducing the effective thickness to chord ratio and creating a
thinner wing.
 118

Area Ruling

In the early 1950s Küchemann recognized that wing sweep results

in 3D flow about a wing that is very different from that of an
infinite wing, since the flow tends toward the wing root. However,
the fuselage requires that the flow return to parallel, hence,
compression waves form which leads to a serious increase in drag.

Whitcomb recognized this problem and related it to ballistic

experience that showed smooth cross sectional area is important
for reduced drag. His basic idea, Whitcomb’s area rule, was to
pinch an aircraft fuselage so that its cross sectional area would
vary smoothly as the wing was encountered.

The resultant “coke bottle” fuselage shape can have as much 2x

reduction in drag over a non-area ruled shape.
 119

Supercritical Airfoils

The basic approach of sweep and thickness reduction is to increase

M cr . However, another approach can be taken: increase
M drag − divergence directly. Although this happens with an increase in
M cr it can also happen independently if the airfoil is designed
such that the velocity does not increase substantially in the
supersonic region, resulting in a weaker recompression shock and
less loss and overall drag. Airfoils of this type are called
supercritical and are characteristically very flat on top as shown in
the figure below:
 120

Dihedral

Clearly many factors enter into the choice of the wing and airfoil
section. Some based on the desired flow regime, others because of
structural considerations. Yet another complication comes about
because of stability and control issues. Examples of this are
dihedral and anhedral. A wing with dihedral has a positive angle
with respect to the horizon:

Dihedral angle

In a roll, the aircraft looks like this

As it rolls clockwise, the higher vertical force of the right wing

tends to induce a counter-clockwise rotation to return the aircraft to
straight and level. This enhances the stability of the aircraft but
makes it “harder” to turn.

The opposite is true for an aircraft with anhedral.

Perhaps the most famous example of this type is the gull winged
F4U Corsair used by the Marines in World War II.

In a clockwise roll the left wing produces the vertical force and this
tends to enhance the roll characteristics of the aircraft making it
more maneuverable but less stable.
 121

NACA Series Nomenclature

4 digit series NACA XXXX

Max camber in
hundredths of chord

Max thickness in
Location of max camber hundredths of chord
in tenths of chord

NACA 4412
Max camber 0.04c 4% camber
Max camber location 0.4c 40% chord
Max thickness 0.12c 12% thick

5 digit series NACA X XX XX

x3/2= design lift
coefficient in tenths

Max thickness in
/2=Location of max camber hundredths of chord
from LE in hundreths of

NACA 23012
Design C l in tenths 0.3
Max camber location 0.15c 15% chord
Max thickness 0.12c 12% thick
 122

6 digit series NACA 6X-X XX

Location of minimum pressure

in tenths of chord from LE
Max thickness in
Design lift hundredths of chord
NACA 65-218
coefficient in

Design C l in tenths 0.2

Min pressure location 0.5c 50% chord
Max thickness 0.18c 18% thick
 123

Estimate of 3D Wing Drag

You now have all the tools to estimate the drag on a three-
dimensional wing.

Induced Drag – Use the finite wing theory to calculate the

drag due to lift as well as the induced angle of attack.

Skin Friction Drag – Use XFOIL to calculate the given wing

section at the effective angle of attack as determined above. This
provides a distribution of C f that can then be integrated over the
surface.

Wave Drag – Use compressible flow theory to compute

shocks and expansion waves about your airfoil. Then compute
surface pressures and the associate drag force.

C L2
C DA/ C = C D,e +
πeAR

Total Aircraft Drag

Induced Drag
Parasite Drag
Profile + Wave
Drag

Wave Drag
Profile Drag
Cd f + CdP
Friction + Pressure