Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:23:15.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Design features which influence flow separations on aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

D. G. Mabey
D. G. Mabey*
Affiliation:
Dynamics Laboratory, Royal Aerospace Establishment, Bedford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Features of aircraft which influence flow separations, and hence the onset of buffeting, should be always of interest to an aerodynamicist. The present compilation of such features is based on notes made during a visit to the USAF Aircraft Museum in Dayton, Ohio. Although two low-speed aircraft with high aspect ratio wings are considered, the emphasis is primarily on transonic and supersonic military aircraft, with wings of lower aspect ratio.

Some recommendations are made to stimulate research into improved methods to control flow separation, particularly for future transonic and supersonic aircraft.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 92 , Issue 920 , December 1988 , pp. 409 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1988 

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. Anon. CAS 353M (Spanish built JU 52) pilot’s notes. (Copy held by RAE Bedford library.)Google Scholar
2. Mabey, D. G., Welsh, B. L. and Pyne, C. R. The development of leading-edge notches to improve the subsonic performance of wings of moderate sweep. RAE Technical Memorandum Aero 2078, 1986.Google Scholar
3. Wood, D. H. Tests of large airfoils in the propeller research tunnels, including two with corrugated surfaces. NACA Report 336, 1929.Google Scholar
4. UK Patent application No. 8611502, 12 May 1986.Google Scholar
5. Werle, M. J., Paterson, R. W. and Presz, W. M. Trailing-edge separation stall alleviation. AIAA J, 1987, 25, (4), 624–626.Google Scholar
6. Rao, D. M. Vortical flow management for improved configuration aerodynamics - recent experiences. AGARD CP 342, Paper 30, 1983.Google Scholar
7. Bray, R. S. The effects of fences on the high-speed longitudinal stability of a swept-wing airplane. NASA RM A53 F23, NACA TIB 3854, 1953.Google Scholar
8. McFadden, N. M. and Heinle, D. R. Flight investigation of the effects of horizontal tail-height, moment of inertia, and control effectiveness on the pitch-up characteristics of a 35° swept-wing fighter airplane at high subsonic speeds. NASA RM A54 F21, NACA TIB 4854, 1955.Google Scholar
9. Hallion, R. P. On the Frontier-Flight Research at Dryden (1946-1981). Doubleday, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
10. Andrews, D. R. Some notes on a visit to Edwards Airforce Base. RAE Technical Memorandum Aero 549, 1957.Google Scholar
11. Lambourne, N. C. Flutter in one-degree-of freedom. AGARD Manual of Aeroelasticity,Part 5, Chapter 5, 1968.Google Scholar
12. Bridgman, L. (ed.), Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1959-60. Sampson Low, Marston & Co, London, 1959, 376.Google Scholar
13. Stinton, D. The Anatomy of the Aeroplane. Granada Publishing, 1966.Google Scholar
14. Shevell, R. S. Aerodynamic anomalies: can CFD prevent or correct them? AIAA J Aircr, 1986, 23, (8), 641–649.Google Scholar
15. Pearcey, H. H. Shock-induced separation and its prevention by design and boundary layer control: vortex generators. In: Lachmann, G. V. (ed.), Boundary Layer and Flow Control: Its Principles and Application, Part IV, Chapter 4.5, 1277-1312, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1961.Google Scholar