Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T12:09:50.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Compressibility on the Maximum Lift Coefficient of Aerofoils at Subsonic Airspeeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

L. R. Wootton
L. R. Wootton*
Affiliation:
Aerodynamics Division, National Physical Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been known that compressibility affects the maximum lift coefficient at Mach numbers as low as 0·15. A schematic flight envelope (Fig. 1) shows that there are two main phenomena to be considered; the effects of compressibility on the low speed stall, and on the high subsonic speed stall.

In the low speed stall regime there is, in general, a decrease of the maximum lift coefficient with increasing Mach number which is appreciable even at typical aircraft landing speeds. A knowledge of the lift boundary throughout the envelope is necessary if allowances are to be made for gusts and if a safe rough-air performance is to be determined.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 71 , Issue 679 , July 1967 , pp. 476 - 486
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1967

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.Squire, H. B. Some Aerodynamic Aspects of Rotor Blade Design. Journ Helicopter Ass. of GB, Oct-Dec 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Payne, P. R.Helicopter Dynamics and Aerodynamics. Pitman, London, 1959.Google Scholar
3.Racisz, S. F. Effects of Independent Variations of Mach Number and Reynolds Number on the Maximum Lift Coefficients of Four NACA 6-Series Airfoil Sections. NACA TN 2824, Nov 1952.Google Scholar
4.Mccullough, G. B. and Gault, D. E. Examples of Three Representative Types of Airfoil-Section Stall at Low Speed. NACA TN 2502, Sept 1951.Google Scholar
5.Palme, H. O. Summary of Stalling Characteristics and Maximum Lift of Wings at Low Speeds. SAAB TN 15, April 1953.Google Scholar
6.JrLoftin, L. K. and Bursnall, W. J. The Effects of Variations in Reynolds Number between 3·0 X 106 and 25·0 X 106 upon the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Number of NACA 6-Series Airfoil Sections. NACA Re port 964, 1950.Google Scholar
7.Ward, J. W.The Behaviour and Effects of Laminar Separation Bubbles on Aerofoils in Incompressible Flow. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Dec 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Tani, I. Critical Survey of Published Theories on the Mechanism of Leading-Edge Stall. Aeronautical Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Report 367, June 1961.Google Scholar
9.Pearcey, H. H.Shock-Induced Separation and Its Pre vention by Design and Boundary Layer Control. Part IV. Boundary Layer and Flow Control. Edited by Lachmann, G. V., Vol 2. Pergamon Press, 1961.Google Scholar
10.Spreiter, J. R. and Steffen, P. J. Effect of Mach and Reynolds Numbers on Maximum Lift Coefficient. NACA TN 1044, March 1946.Google Scholar
11.Furlong, G. C. and Fitzpatrick, J. E. Effects of Mach Number up to 034 and Reynolds Number up to 8 X 106 on the Maximum Lift Coefficient of a Wing of NACA 66-Series Airfoil Section. NACA TN 2251, Dec 1950.Google Scholar
12.Stack, J., Fedziuk, H. A. and Cleary, H. E. Preliminary Investigation of the Effect of Compressibility on the Maximum Lift Coefficient. NACA ACR, Feb 1943.Google Scholar
13.Muse, T. C. Some Effects of Reynolds and Mach Numbers on the Lift of an NACA 0012 Rectangular Wing in the NACA 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel. NACA CB No 3E29, May 1943.Google Scholar
14.Graham, D. J., Nitzberg, G. E. and Olson, R. N. A Systematic Investigation of Pressure Distributions at High Speeds over Five Representative NACA Low Drag and Conventional Airfoil Sections. NACA Report 832, 1945.Google Scholar
15.Fitzpatrick, J. E. and Schneider, W. C. Effects of Mach Number Variation Between 0·07 and 0·34 and Reynolds Number Variation Between 0·97 X 106 and 8·10X106 on the Maximum Lift Coefficient of a Wing of NACA 64-210 Airfoil Sections. NACA TN 2753, Aug 1952.Google Scholar
16.Haines, A. B. Some Evidence Concerning Scale Effects on Low Speed Stalling Characteristics. Aircraft Research Assn Aero Memo 52, Nov 1964.Google Scholar
17.Furlong, G. C. and Fitzpatrick, J. E. Effects of Mach Number and Reynolds Number on the Maximum Lift Coefficient of a Wing of NACA 230-Series Airfoil Sections. NACATN 1299, May 1947.Google Scholar
18.Gault, D. E. A Correlation of Low Speed Airfoil-Section Stalling Characteristics with Reynolds Number and Air foil Geometry. NACA TN 3963, March 1957.Google Scholar
19.Beavan, J. A., Sargent, R., North, R. J. and Burrows, P. M. Measurements of Maximum Lift on 19 Aerofoil Sections at High Mach Number. ARC 11084, ARC R and M 2678, Dec 1947.Google Scholar
North, R. J. and Burrows, P. M. Measurement of the Maximum Lift of a Further 7 Aerofoils at High Mach Number. Addendum to ARC 11084, ARC 11 191—ARC, R and M 2678, Jan 1948.Google Scholar
20.Nissen, J. M. and Gadeberg, B. L. Effect of Mach and Reynolds Numbers on the Power-Off Maximum Lift Coefficients Obtainable on a P-39N-1 Airplane as Determined in Flight, NACA ACR 4F28, June 1944.Google Scholar
21.JrPearson, E. O., Evans, A. J. and JrWest, F. E. Effects of Compressibility on the Maximum Lift Characteristics and Spanwise Load Distribution of a 12-Foot-Span Fighter-Type Wing of NACA 230-Series Airfoil Sections. NACA ACR, Nov 1945.Google Scholar
22.Summers, J. L. and Graham, D. J. Effects of Systematic Changes of Trailing-Edge Angle and Leading-Edge Radius on the Variation with Mach Number of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 10-percent-Thick NACA Airfoil Section. NACA RM A9G18, Sept 1949.Google Scholar
23.Maki, R. L. and Hunton, L. W. An Investigation at Subsonic Speeds of Several Modifications to the Leading-Edge Region of the NACA 64A010 Airfoil Section Designed to Increase Maximum Lift. NACA TN 3871, Dec 1956.Google Scholar
24.JrStivers, L. S. Effects of Subsonic Mach Number on the Forces and Pressure Distributions of Four NACA 64A-Series Airfoil Sections at Angles of Attack as High as 28°. NACATN 3162, March 1954.Google Scholar
25.Summers, J. L. and Treon, S. L. The Effects of Amount and Type of Camber on the Variation with Mach Number of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 10-percent-Thick NACA 64A-Series Airfoil Section. NACA TN 2096, May 1950.Google Scholar
26. Royal Aeronautical Society. Data Sheets. Wings 01.01.07, Dec 1954.Google Scholar
27.Holmes, L. N. and Haines, A. B. A Summary of Two-Dimensional Tests, by the Boeing Airplane Company, on a Series of Related Aerofoils at High Subsonic Mach Number. RAE TN Aero 2056, June 1950.Google Scholar
28.Pearcey, H. H. and Rogers, E. W. E. Measurements of Maximum Lift on Two Aerofoil Sections at High Subsonic Speeds and a Rough Analysis of Earlier Results. ARC 14 802, April 1952.Google Scholar
29.Pearcey, H. H. and Holder, D. W. Simple Methods for the Prediction of Wing Buffeting Resulting from Bubble- Type Separation. NPL Aero Report 1024, ARC 23 884, July 1962.Google Scholar
30.Pearcey, H. H. and Faber, M. E. Detailed Observations made at High Incidences and at High Subsonic Mach Numbers on Goldstein 1442/1547 Aerofoil. ARC 13 531, FM 1498, Nov 1950.Google Scholar
31.Haines, A. B., Holder, D. W. and Pearcey, H. H. Scale Effects at High Subsonic and Transonic Speeds, and Methods for Fixing Boundary-Layer Transition in Model Experiments. ARC R and M 3012, Sept 1954.Google Scholar