Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:55:05.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subsonic Aircraft Drag: An Appreciation of Present Standards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. B. Haines
A. B. Haines*
Affiliation:
Aircraft Research Association
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The drag at cruise CL of a number of recent aircraft—mostly large subsonic transports—has been analysed in terms of figures-of-merit derived from Melvill Jones’ original concept of a streamline aeroplane. The values have been compared with those for some representative aircraft from the 1930-1940 period. The paper then proceeds to highlight some of the main sources of excess drag; for the recent aircraft, these are grouped under broad headings such as “excrescences”, “Mach-number effects” and “nacelle installation or interference”.

The results of the analysis are somewhat disturbing. Perhaps the most striking feature, bearing in mind that only a restricted class of aircraft have been considered, is the very wide spread between the figures for the poorest and the best of the recent aircraft. Also, the detailed drag breakdown varies widely from one aircraft to another. The evidence in the paper suggests that, in many cases, present drag standards can and should be improved.

Type
Supplementary Papers
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 72 , Issue 687 , March 1968 , pp. 253 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1968 

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. Jones, B. M. The Streamline Aeroplane. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, May 1929.Google Scholar
2. Crowe, J. H. and Wood, W. E. Drag Analysis of Civil Aeroplanes. Aircraft Engineering, July 1936.Google Scholar
3. Aerodynamic staff, RAE. Some Aerodynamic Figures of Merit. January 1937.Google Scholar
4. Aerodynamic staff, RAE. Notes on Aerodynamic Cri teria for Some Recent Service Aeroplanes. October 1937.Google Scholar
5. Morgan, M. B. Note on Drag Analysis of Various Types of Aeroplanes. RAE Report No BA 1499, August 1938.Google Scholar
6. Newman, D. R. Unpublished Communication.Google Scholar
7. Pearcey, H. H., et al. Unpublished Notes.Google Scholar
8. Cooke, J. C. The Drag of Infinite Swept Wings. ARC 26 302—RAE Tech Note Aero 2966.Google Scholar
9. Nash, J. F., Moulden, T. H. and Osborne, J. On the Variation of Profile Drag Coefficient Below the Critical Mach Number. ARC CP 758, November 1963.Google Scholar
10. Hoerner, S. F. Fluid Dynamic Drag. 2nd edition 1958 or 3rd edition 1965.Google Scholar
11. Bottle, D. W. and Smelt, R. Some Wind Tunnel Tests on the Effect on Profile Drag of the Surface Condition of a Wing. RAE Report No BA 1269, February 1936.Google Scholar
12. Serby, J. E. and Morgan, M. B. Note on the Progress of Flight Experiments on Wing Drag. December 1936.Google Scholar
13. Young, A. D. Note on the Effect of Surface Roughness on Profile Drag. November 1937.Google Scholar
14. Stephens, W. H. and Serby, J. E. Interim Note on Flight Tests on the Effect of Wing Surface Condition on Drag. February 1938.Google Scholar
15. Williams, D. H. and Brown, A. F. Experiments on a Riveted Wing in the Compressed Air Tunnel. ARC R & M 1855, 1938.Google Scholar
16. Young, A. D., Serby, J. E. and Morris, D. E. Flight Tests on the Effect of Surface Finish on Wing Drag. ARC R & M 2258, 1948.Google Scholar
17. Young, A. D. and Young, E. High Speed Wind-Tunnel Tests of the Effect of Camouflage Paint Roughness on Drag. RAE Report No Aero 1977, 1944.Google Scholar
18. Nash, J. F. and Bradshaw, P. The Magnification of Roughness Drag by Pressure Gradients. Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, Vol 71, No 673, January 1967.Google Scholar
19. Gyorgyfalvy, D. Effect of Pressurization on Airplane Fuselage Drag. Journal of Aircraft, Vol 2, No 6, Dec. 1965.Google Scholar
20. Nash, J. F., Osborne, J. and Macdonald, A. G. J. ANote on the Prediction of Aerofoil Profile Drag at Sub sonic Speeds. NPL Aero Report 1196; ARC 28075, Perf 2505, June 1966.Google Scholar
21. Osborne, J. The Variation of Profile Drag with Mach Number up to the Critical Value; A Comparison of Recent Predictions with Early Flight and Wind-Tunnel Measurements, and a Comment on an Earlier Prediction. NPL Aero Report 1197; ARC 28 107, Perf 2510, June 1966.Google Scholar
22. Young, A. D. and Winterbottom, N. E. Note on the Effect of Compressibility on the Profile Drag of Aerofoils at Subsonic Mach numbers in the Absence of Shock Waves. ARC R & M 2400, May 1940.Google Scholar
23. Kaplan, C. Compressible Flow About Symmetrical Jou- kowski Profiles. NACA Report 621, 1938.Google Scholar
24. Squire, H. B. and Young, A. D. The Calculation of the Profile Drag on Aerofoils. ARC R & M 1938, Nov. 1937.Google Scholar
25. Wilby, P. G. The Calculation of Subcritical Pressure Distributions on Symmetric Aerofoils at Zero Incidence. NPL Aero Report 1208; ARC 28 888, Perf 2588, March 1967.Google Scholar
26. Royal Aeronautical Society. A Method of Estimating Drag-Rise Mach Number for Two-Dimensional Aerofoil Sections. TDM 6407.Google Scholar
27. Pearcey, H. H. The Aerodynamic Design of Section Shapes for Swept Wings. Advances in Aeronautical Sciences (Vols 3-4). Pergamon Press Ltd, 1962.Google Scholar
28. Kutney, J. T. and Piszkin, S. P. Reduction of Drag Rise on the Convair 990 Aircraft. AIAA Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, California, 17th-20th June 1963. No 63-276.Google Scholar
29. Olason, M. L. and Norton, D. A. Aerodynamic Design Philosophy of the Boeing 737. Journal of Aircraft, Vol 3, No 6, November-December 1966.Google Scholar
30. Shevell, R. S. and Shanfele, R. D. Aerodynamic Design Features of the DC-9. Journal of Aircraft, Vol 3, No 6, November-December 1966.Google Scholar