Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:05:59.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of scale effects at transonic speeds: current practice and a gaze into the future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. B. Haines
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper reviews present practices in the prediction of scale effect at transonic speeds and considers how these may have to change in the future in the light of possible changes in wing design standards. Particular issues highlighted in the paper include the research that is needed to obtain the potential benefits that should come from the ability to test models at near-full-scale Reynolds numbers in cryogenic tunnels such as the ETW and second, the different experimental techniques that may have to be introduced if aerodynamic designers attempt to realise their long-held ambition of obtaining extensive laminar flow in flight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1039 , September 2000 , pp. 421 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1979 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Haines, A.B. Scale effect in transonic flow, 27th Lancheater memorial lecture, Aeronaut J, Aug/Sep 1987, 91, (907), pp 291–313.Google Scholar
2. Elsenaar, A., Binion, T.W. and Stanewsky, E. Reynolds number effects in transonic flow, AGARDograph AG-303, Dec 1988.Google Scholar
3. Laster, M.L. (Ed) Boundary layer simulation and control in wind tunnels, AGARD AR-228, April 1988.Google Scholar
4. Haines, A.B. Scale effects on aircraft and weapon aerodynamics, AGARDograph 323, July 1994.Google Scholar
5. Winter, K.G. and Gaudet, L. Turbulent boundary layer studies at high Reynolds numbers at Mach numbers between 0.2 and 2.8, ARC R&M,3712, Dec 1970.Google Scholar
6. Paterson, J.H., Macwilkinson, D.G. and Blackerby, W.T. A survey of drag prediction techniques applicable to subsonic and transonic aircraft design, AGARD, Paper No 1, CP-124, April 1973.Google Scholar
7. Gaudet, L. and Winter, K.G. Measurements of the drag of some characteristic aircraft excrescences immersed in turbulent boundary layers, AGARD, Paper No 4, CP-124, April 1973.Google Scholar
8. Green, J.E., Weeks, D.J. and Brooman, J.W.F. Prediction of turbulent boundary layers and wakes in compressible flow by a lag-entrainment method, ARC R&M3791, 1973.Google Scholar
9. Gamble, H.E. Some effects of Reynolds number on a cambered wing at high subsonic Mach numbers, ARC,CP-105, 1952.Google Scholar
10. Fulker, J.L. and Ashill, P.R. A study of the factors influencing shock- induced separation on swept wings, RAE,TR 83088, Dec 1983.Google Scholar
11. Green, J.E. A discussion of viscous-inviscid interactions at transonic speeds, RAE, TR 72050, Feb 1972.Google Scholar
12. Lynch, F.T. Commercial transports — aerodynamic design for cruise performance efficiency, Douglas Paper 7026, Transonic Perspective Symposium, NASA Ames Research Center, Feb 1981.Google Scholar
13. Hackett, K.C., Rees, P.H. and Chu, J.K. Aerodynamic design optimisation applied to civil transports with underwing mounted engines, ICAS 98-2.4.1, Sep 1998.Google Scholar
14. Haines, A.B. Experience in the use of a viscous simulation methodology for tests in transonic tunnels, AIAA-90-1414, June 1990.Google Scholar
15. Haines, A.B. Know your flow: the key to better prediction and successful innovation, AIAA-98-0221, Jan 1998.Google Scholar
16. Prieur, J., Tizard, J.A. and Bouis, X. Technical excellence and productivity - the ETW challenge, Proceedings of ‘Wind tunnels and wind tunnel test techniques', CEAS Conference, Southampton, UK, Sep 1992.Google Scholar
17. Saunders, T.B. The European transonic tunnel wind tunnel - testing at flight Reynolds numbers, AIAA-96-0227, Jan 1996.Google Scholar
18. Gloss, B.B. Current status and some future test directions for the US National Transonic Facility, Proceedings of ‘Wind tunnels and wind tunnel test techniques', CEAS conference, Southampton, UK, Sep 1992.Google Scholar
19. Angeli, T, Hawker, M. and Balden, T. Results from the first exploratory co-operative test campaigns performed by Aerospatiale Aircraft Business, British Aerospace Airbus and Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus in ETW, CEAS conference, Cambridge, UK, April 1997.Google Scholar
20. Laster, M.L., Stanewsky, E., Sinclair, D.W. and Sickles, W.L. Reynolds number scaling at transonic speeds, AIAA-98-2878, June 1998.Google Scholar
21. Hackett, K.C., Burnells, S. and Ashill, P.R. Aerodynamic scale effects on a transport - aircraft at high subsonic speed, AIAA-99-0305, Jan 1999.Google Scholar
22. Mabey, D.G. A review of rigid body response on sting-supported models at high angles of incidence, Prog in Aerospace Sciences, 1991, 28, pp 133–170.Google Scholar
23. Schimanski, D. and Hefer, G. Recent aspects of high Reynolds number data quality and capabilities at the European transonic windtunnel, AIAA-00-0292, Jan 2000.Google Scholar
24. Stanewsky, E. and Basler, D. Experimental evidence of buffet onset and penetration on a supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds, AGARD, CP-483, Paper No 4, 1988.Google Scholar
25. Mabey, D.G. A review of scale effects in unsteady aerodynamics, Prog in Aerospace Sciences, 1991, 28, pp 273–321.Google Scholar
26. Green, J.E. Modern Developments in fluid mechanics - an addendum, Second Goldstein lecture, Aeronaut J, March 1992, 96, (953), pp 69–86.Google Scholar
27. Green, J.E. A discussion of viscous-inviscid interactions at transonic speeds, RAE Tech Report 72050, Feb 1972 Google Scholar
28. Wong, P.W.C. and Maina, M. Study of wind tunnel simulation methodology for HLFC wings, CEAS/DragNet Conference 2000, June 2000.Google Scholar
29. Thompson, B.G.Y. A three-parameter family of mean velocity profiles for incompressible turbulent boundary layers with distributed suction and small pressure gradient, R&M, 3622, 1970.Google Scholar
30. Henne, P.A. and Gregg, R.D. A new aerofoil concept, J Aircr, May 1991, 28, (5).Google Scholar