Laminar Flow

Rodney Bajnath, Beverly Beasley, Mike Cavanaugh

AOE 4124 March 29, 2004

Introduction
Why laminar flow?
Less skin friction Lower drag

Skin Friction: Laminar vs. Turbulent

0.01 0.008 0.006 Cf 0.004 0.002 0 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 Reynolds Number 1.0E+07 Laminar Turbulent

Natural Laminar Flow

NACA 6-Series Airfoils
Developed by conformal transformations, 30 50% laminar flow Advantages: Low drag over small operating range, high Clmax Disadvantages: Poor stall characteristics, susceptible to roughness, high pitch moment, very thin near TE Drag bucket: pressure distributions cause transition to move forward suddenly at end of low-drag Cl range Minimum pressure at transition location

NACA Report No. 824

Natural Laminar Flow

NACA 6A-Series
30 - 50% laminar flow Eliminated TE cusp Essentially same lift and drag characteristics as 6series
NACA Report No. 903

Natural Laminar Flow

Comparison of NACA 6- and 6A-Series Pressure Distributions
0.5 0 Cp -0.5 -1 0 0.2 0.4 x/c
XFOIL

NACA 64-012 NACA 64-012A

0.6

0.8

NACA 64-012: xtr upper = 0.5932, xtr lower = 0.5932 NACA 64-012A: xtr upper = 0.6214, xtr lower = 0.6215

Natural Laminar Flow

NLF Airfoils
Aft-loaded airfoils with cusp at TE (Wortmann or Eppler sailplane airfoils) Front-loaded airfoil sections with low pitching moments (Roncz-developed used on Rutan designs or canards) Also NASA NLF- and HSNLF-series, DU-, FX-, and HQ- airfoils Inverse airfoil design based on desired pressure distribution, capitalize on availability of composites Low speed and high speed applications Codes used for design include Eppler/Somers and PROFOIL Up to 65% laminar flow Drag as low as 30 counts

1. NASA Contractor Report No. 201686, 1997. 2. Lutz, Airfoil Design and Optimization, 2000. 3. Garrison, Shape of Wings to Come, Flying 1984. 4. NASA Technical Memorandum 85788, 1984.

Natural Laminar Flow: Case Study

SHM-1 Airfoil for the Honda Jet Lightweight business jet, airfoil inversely designed, tested in low-speed and transonic wind tunnels, and flight tested Designed to exactly match HJ requirements
High drag-divergence Mach number Small nose-down pitching moment Low drag for high cruise efficiency High Clmax Docile stall characteristics Insensitivity to LE contamination

Fujino et al, Natural-LaminarFlow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet.

Natural Laminar Flow: Case Study (Continued)

Requirements
Clmax = 1.6 for Re = 4.8x106, M = 0.134 Loss of Cl less than 7% due to contamination Cm > -0.04 at Cl = 0.38, Re = 7.93x106, M = 0.7 Airfoil thickness = 15% MDD > 0.70 at Cl = 0.38 Low drag at cruise
Fujino et al, Natural-LaminarFlow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet.

Natural Laminar Flow: Case Study (Continued)

Design Method
Eppler Airfoil Design and Analysis Code
Conformal mapping, each section designed independently for different conditions

MCARF and MSES Codes

Analyzed and modified airfoil Improved Clmax and high speed characteristics Transition-location study Shock formation Drag divergence Fujino et al, Natural-LaminarFlow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet.

Natural Laminar Flow: Case Study (Continued)

Resulting SHM-1 airfoil
Favorable pressure gradient to 42%c upper surface, 63%c lower surface Concave pressure recovery (compromise between Clmax, Cm, and MDD) LE such that at high , transition near LE (roughness sensitivity) Short, shallow separation near TE for Cm
Fujino et al, Natural-LaminarFlow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet.

Natural Laminar Flow: Case Study (Continued)

Specifications:
Clmax = 1.66 for Re = 4.8x106, M = 0.134 5.6% loss in Clmax due to LE contamination (WT) Cm = -0.03 at Cl = 0.2, Re = 16.7x106 (Flight) Cm = -0.025 at Cl = 0.4, Re = 8x106 (TWT) MDD = 0.718 at Cl = 0.30 (TWT) MDD = 0.707 at Cl = 0.40 (TWT) Cd = 0.0051 at Cl = 0.26, Re = 13.2x106 (TWT) Cd = 0.0049 at Cl = 0.35, Re = 10.3x106 (WT)

Fujino et al, Natural-LaminarFlow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet.

Laminar Flow Control

stabilize laminar boundary using distributed suction through a perforated surface or thin transverse slots
Boundary layer thins and becomes fuller across slot

outer skin plenum chamber

inner skin

Benefits A laminar b.l. has a lower skin friction coefficient (and thus lower drag) A thin b.l. delays separation and allows a higher CLmx to be achieved a
Ref: McCormick, Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, pg. 202.

Notable Laminar Flow Control Flight Test Programs

Date
1940

Aircraft
Douglas B-18 (NACA) 2-engine prop bomber Vampire (RAE) single engine jet F-94 (Northrup/USAF) jet fighter X-21 (Northrup/USAF) jet bomber 30 sweep

Test Configuration
NACA 35-215 10x17 wing glove section suction slots first 45% chord upper surface wing glove suction - porous surface full chord suction NACA 63-213 upper surface wing glove suction 12, 69, 81 slots new LF wings for program suction through nearly full span slots both wings

LF Result
LF to 45% chord (LF to min Cp) RC = 30x106 full chord LF M~0.7 / RC=30x106 Full chord LF 0.6 < M < 0.7 RC = 36x106 full chord LF RC = 47x106

Comments
Engine/prop noise effected LF surface quality issues

1955

Monel/Nylon cloth 0.007 perforations at Mlocal >1.09 shocks caused loss of LF effects of sweep on LF encountered

19541957 19631965

19851986

JetStar two leading edge gloves LF maintained to front no special maintenance required lost LF in (NASA) Lockheed slot suction & liquid spar through two years of simulated airline clouds & during icing leading edge protection 4-engine business jet service LE protection effective McDD perforated skin & and bug deflector
Ref: Applied Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Short Course Notes, Williamsburg,VA 1990.

Why Does LFC Reduces Drag?

removes turbulent boundary layer

XFOIL output

Why Does LFC Reduce Drag?

turbulent boundary layer has a higher skin friction coefficient

upper surface

lower surface

XFOIL Output

Why Does LFC Increases CLMX ? A

move boundary layer separation point aft
-1.0 (2196) -0.25 (759) -0.0625 (276) -0.015625 (108)

0.0 0.2

m = 1/4

Cp
0.4
x0 = 1.0 ft x0 = 0.25 ft x0 = 0.0625 ft

0.6 0.8
Reynolds Number = 6x106

1.0 -1.0

x0 = 0.015625 ft

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

x - ft
Ref: A.M.O. Smith, High Lift Aerodynamics, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 12, No. 6, June 1975

Raspet Flight Research Laboratory Powered Lift Aircraft

Piper L-21 Super Cub (1954) distributed suction - perforated skins CLMX = 2.16 4.0 A 2.0 Hp required for suction
(Ref: Joseph Cornish, A Summary of the Present State of the Art in Low Speed Aerodynamics, MSU Aerophysics Dept., 1963.)

Cessna L-19 Birddog (1956) distributed suction - perforated skins CLMX = 2.5 5.0 A 7.0 Hp required for suction
(Ref: Joseph Cornish, A Summary of the Present State of the Art in Low Speed Aerodynamics, MSU Aerophysics Dept., 1963.)

Photographs Courtesy of the Raspet Flight Research Laboratory

Suction Power Required for 23012 Cruise Condition

-0.4
adverse pressure gradient

(ft/s) w

-0.3

Suction velocity required to maintain incipient separation of the laminar b.l and prevent flow reversal is given by:

-0.2

vw = 2.18
-0.1

required suction velocity - v

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

NACA 23012 cruise CL = 0.4 10,000 ft. 180 kts (303.6 ft/s)

dU e dx

Joseph Schetz, Boundary Layer Analysis, Equation (2-37)

3.0

3.5

4.0

leading edge

x (ft)

trailing edge

Preq = .00318 Hp / foot of span* *assumes: use highest vw and p in calculation discharge coefficient of 0.5 pump efficiency of 60%

45 chord

12 span
0.035

45 x 12 grid 439,470 holes

0.0025 dia

Laminar Flow Control Approaches

2). Distributed Suction (perforated skin or slots)

-0.4
adverse pressure gradient

(ft/s) w

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

1). Leading Edge Protection

Ref: Applied Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Short Course Notes, .Williamsburg,VA 1990.

required suction velocity - v

0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

NACA 23012 cruise CL = 0.4 10,000 ft. 180 kts (303.6 ft/s)

3.0

3.5

4.0

leading edge

x (ft)

trailing edge

3). Hybrid Laminar Flow Control

Laminar Flow Control Problems/Obstacles

Sweep
Attachment line contamination (fuselage boundary layer) Crossflow instabilities (boundary layer crossflow vortices)

Manufacturing tolerances / structure

Steps, gaps, waviness Structural deformations in flight

System complexity
Ducting and plenums Hole quantity and individual hole finish

Surface contamination
Bypass transition (3-D roughness) Insects, dirt, erosion, rain, ice crystals
Ref: Applied Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Short Course Notes, Williamsburg,VA 1990. Ref: Mark Drela, XFOIL 6.9 User Guide, MIT Aero & Astro, 2001

Boundary Layer Transition Flight Tests on GlasAir

Oil flow tests on GlasAir (N189WB) Raspet Flight Research Laboratory August 1995 200 KIAS 5500 ft pressure altitude

Airfoil: LS(1)-0413mod GAW(2) Mean aerodynamic chord: 44.1 in. Re 7.5x106 Cruise CL 0.2

Drag Benefit of Laminar Flow

CENTURIA
4 Passenger Single Jet Engine GA Aircraft Competition Cirrus SR22 Cessna 182

Targets existing General Aviation pilots Cost ~ $750,000 International Senior Design Project Virginia Tech and Loughborough University

Centuria Design Details

Cruise altitude 10,000ft Cruise Speed 185kts Range 770nm Take-off run 1575ft Aspect Ratio 9.0 Wing Area 12.3m2/132.39ft2 Thrust 2.877kN/647lbs MTOW 1360kg/2998lb Fuel Volume 773 litres/194 USG Stall Speed 68kts (Clean) 55kts (Flap)

Drawing by Anne Ocheltree & Nick Smalley

Wing & Tail

Calculating Laminar Flow

Laminar 60% Turbulent 100%

Fuselage Laminar

40% Turbulent

100%

= =

0.455 = 0.0032 (log 10 Re) (1 + 0.144 2 ) 0.65

2.58

1.328 = 0.0005 Re

Fuselage Laminar to max thickness

V-Tail 60% LM flow upper and lower surface

Wing 60% LM flow upper and lower surface

Structure Wing Tail Fuselage S REF (in ) M cruise Recruise

2

S WET (in 2 ) 224.89 58.39 295.87 132.72 0.29 5.88E+06

Turb C d 0.00875 0.00211 0.00975

Lam C d 0.00268 0.00070 0.00473

% Reduction 69.41 67.05 51.51

Reduction in Drag from Laminar flow

0.025

0.02
Fuselage Tail Wing

0.015

Cd
0.01

0.005

Turb Cd

Lam Cd

Centuria NLF Manufacturing Tolerances

Rh,crit
900

hcrit (in.)
0.0072 inches

1800

0.0143 inches

2700

0.0215 inches

15,000

0.1195 inches

Carmichaels waviness criteria

0.0139 inch/inch

Ref: A.L. Braslow, Applied Aspects of Laminar-Flow Technology, AIAA 1990

Conclusions
Natural Laminar Flow
Improvement of materials and computational methods allows inverse airfoil design for desired characteristics or specific configurations

Laminar Flow Control

LFC is a mature technology that has yet to become commercially viable

Drag Benefit on Centuria

61% reduction in skin friction drag due use of laminar flow on wings, tail and fuselage

References
Abbott, I.,H., Von Doenhoff, A.,E., Stivers, L.,S., Summary of Airfoil Data, NACA Report 824, 1945. Loftin, L., K., Theoretical and Experimental Data for a Number of NACA 6A-Series Airfoil Sections, NACA Report 903, 1948. Drela, M., XFOIL 6.9 User Guide, MIT Aero & Astro, 2001. Green, Bradford, An Approach to the Constrained Design of Natural Laminar Flow Airfoils, NASA Contractor Report No. 201686, 1997. Lutz, Th.,Airfoil Design and Optimization, Institute of Aerodynamics and Gas Dynamics, University of Stuttgart, 2000. Garrison, P., The Shape of Wings to Come, Flying Magazine, November 1984. McGhee,R.,J., Viken, J.,K., Pfenninger, W., Beasley, W.,D., Harvey, W.,D., Experimental Results for a Flapped Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil with High Lift/Drag Ratio, NASA TM 85788, 1984. Fujino, M., Yoshizaki, Y., Kawamura, Y., Natural-Laminar-Flow Airfoil Development for the Honda Jet, AIAA 2003-2530, 2003. McCormick, B.,W., Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics, 2nd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995. Applied Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Short Course, University of Kansas Division of Continuing Education, Williamsburg, VA 1990. Smith, A.,M.,O., High-Lift Aerodynamics, Journal of Aircraft, Volume 12, Number 6, June 1975. Schetz, J.,A., Boundary Layer Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1993. Cornish, J.,J., A Summary of the Present State of the Art in Low Speed Aerodynamics, Mississippi State University Aerophysics Department Internal Memorandum, 1963. Raymer, D.,P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, 1989. Braslow, A.,L., Maddalon, D.,V., Bartlett, D.,W., Wagner, R.,D., Collier, F.,S., Applied Aspects of Laminar-Flow Technology, Appears in Viscous Drag Reduction in Boundary Layers, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Volume 123, 1990.