FLIGHT, 18 June 1954
' F l i g h t " photograph
HUREL-DUBOIS H.D. 32
An Appraisal of the Unorthodox yet Promising Type Ordered by Air France
T H E problem of a Dakota replacement looms ever larger
for many operators; yet in modern airline operation
there seems to be no one aircraft which can take over all
the functions previously fulfilled by the faithful Douglas pro-
duct. Ranges, speeds, airfields and cruising heights have
changed so greatly that it seems increasingly unlikely that a
single type can now replace the Dakota. An aircraft that
seems to fulfil at least one important part of the replacement
formula, however, is the Hurel-Dubois 32.
Its relatively unorthodox appearance is not uncharacteristic of
products of the French aircraft industry. The underlying prin-
ciple, the high-aspect-ratio wing, has always been considered to
lie in an unprofitable field of development. Yet Commandant
Hurel and his technical director M. Robin have succeeded in
producing an aircraft which, as we shall attempt to show, has
some quite remarkable qualities. We recently visited the Hurel-
Dubois factory at Villacoublay, near Paris, to see the H.D. 32
under construction. As is now well known, 24 of these aircraft
have already been ordered by Air France, and a further eight are
rumoured to have been ordered by two other French companies.
While work is progressing at Villacoublay on the second and final
pre-production H.D. 32, preparations are well in hand for full-
scale production, and the first machine for Air France should
leave the factories at the end of 1955. Production thereafter will
be at the rate of one per month, increasing to four and then to
a possible maximum of eight.
It is appropriate to begin a description of the H.D. 32 with
some explanation of the design philosophy which led to its
development.
Justification of the Formula.—Aspect ratios in transport air-
craft do not normally exceed 10, and practically all such aircraft
have cantilever wings. Cmdt. Hurel claims that this is because
the increase of aerodynamic efficiency falls off as the aspect ratio
is increased, and that structure-weight increases as aspect ratio
to the power of 1.5. The increase in weight can be avoided by the
use of struts, but these struts, by additional drag, cancel out any
advantages. Other generally accepted objections are that flight
characteristics and manoeuvrability become increasingly difficult
with extended wing span; that a wing of really high aspect ratio
will always suffer from torsion troubles, which may lead to
ineffectiveness of ailerons and to wing flutter; that the small chord
of the high-aspect-ratio wing limits e.g. travel; and, finally, that
an ultra-long leading edge may lead to de-icing troubles.
The Hurel-Dubois Company claim to have overcome all these
objections, and to have achieved low cost and good load perform-
ance by making use of such a strutted high-aspect-ratio wing.
Their arguments run as follows. As is well known, economic
cruising speed and rate of climb are determined by the L / D ratio
and the "climb factor" (Cz 3 /Cx 2 ). A wing with a modern aerofoil
section, N.A.C.A. 63.4.420, was accordingly postulated, with high-
lift flaps and merefore with an L / D ratio and climb factor varying
with flap extension. Optimum L / D ratio for an aspect ratio of
8 was found to be 18, assuming a Cd of 0.01; this would increase
to 32 for an aspect ratio of 20, to 37 for 30, and 45 for 50. The
increase in efficiency is thus substantial, and it increases again as
the profile drag of the aerofoil and the parasite drag of the air-
craft decrease.
A wing of such an aspect ratio would, however, require bracing,
and here a major snag was foreseen. But the struts of the Hurel-
Dubois wing, which have been patented in France and elsewhere,
are specially designed to overcome the two major disadvantages
of such devices, i.e., induced drag due to inter-action of wing
and strut (which virtually form a biplane) and increased profile-
drag due to interference. French research has demonstrated
793
This view of the H.D. 31 coming in to land at Shoreham gives
a good idea of the distinctive Hurel-Dubois configuration.
that, by twisting the strut, it is possible to maintain the equiva-
lent aspect ratio of the "biplane" section very close to that
of the wing alone. For example, a wing with an aspect ratio of
32.5 combined with struts having an area equal to roughly a
quarter of the wing area resulted in an equivalent aspect ratio of
26.5. With proper design of the outer portions of the wing and
the strut, the "biplane" equivalent aspect ratio in cruising flight
could be 29 to 30. Thus, presence of the struts reduced the aspect
ratio of the whole wing by no more than 8 per cent; yet in those
conditions where minimum induced drag was required the
twisted strut still gave appreciable lift.
It is widely considered that an inclined strut causes violent
eddies in the neighbourhood of the point where it joins the wing,
and that heavy parasite drag will result. Hurel-Dubois, however,
showed that this difficulty could be overcome if the strut was,
firstly, as thin as possible—it need be designed to carry only pure
compression and tension loads—and, secondly, if its incidence and
profile followed the lines of flow in the appropriate regions. The
profile was therefore made practically symmetrical, producing
practically no local lift. Tests in the Saint Cyr wind tunnel showed
that the strutted aerofoil had practically no interference drag. The
minimum drag of the strutted wing proved to be practically the
same as that of a cantilever wing of die same span and area, and
the equivalent aspect ratio was somewhere between that of the
cantilever wing and the high-aspect-ratio wing without struts.
All these results were confirmed by full-scale wind tunnel tests
at Chalais-Meudon, and by tests on a quarter-size model of the
H.D. 10 at Toulouse.
On these arguments it follows that high-aspect ratios allow sub-
stantial L / D ratios and that the struts allow the aspect ratio to
be doubled or even trebled without excessive weight increases; it
is possible to obtain an L / D ratio of approximately 40. When
Fowler-type high-lift flaps with low profile-drag are fitted, the
L / D ratio of 40 can be exceeded. It is then possible for the climb
factor with flaps down to be about 13 times greater than that
without flaps.
In practice, this has led to the following results. The useful
load of the aircraft can be doubled or even trebled for a given
power and speed. For instance, I.C.A.O. regulations stipulate
that a normal aircraft with a wing loading of 40.96 Ib/sq ft may
not exceed a power loading of 13 lb/h.p. With the devices
described above, however, and particularly because of the
effect of the increased climb factor, I.C.A.O. conditions can be
met with a power loading of 22 lb/h.p. for the same wing loading.
Conversely, for a power loading of 13 lb/h.p., the wing loading
The H.D. 32 cockpit is very similar to that of the H.D. 31, seen here.