Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:23:52.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The NASA B737-100 high-lift flight research programme — measurements and computations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

L. P. Yip ,
C. P. van Dam ,
J. H. Whitehead ,
J. D. Hardin ,
S. J. Miley ,
R. C. Potter ,
A. Bertelrud ,
D. C. Edge  and
P.E. Willard
L. P. Yip
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, USA
C. P. van Dam
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, CA, USA
J. H. Whitehead
Affiliation:
NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, USA
J. D. Hardin
Affiliation:
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Hampton, VA, USA
S. J. Miley
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA, USA
R. C. Potter
Affiliation:
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Long Beach, CA, USA
A. Bertelrud
Affiliation:
Analytical Services & Materials Hampton, VA, USA
D. C. Edge
Affiliation:
Nortn Carolina State University Raleigh NC USA
P.E. Willard
Affiliation:
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Seattle, WA, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aerodynamic performance of a multi-element high-lift system has a critical influence on the direct operating cost of a subsonic civil transport aircraft. A thorough understanding of the aerodynamic characteristics of these multi-element aerofoils and wings allows aircraft companies to design and build more competitive aircraft with high-lift systems that are less complex and lighter for given high-lift performance or that have improved lift and drag characteristics for given system complexity and weight. Flight experiments on NASA Langley's B737-100 aircraft have been conducted to further enhance the understanding of the complex flows about multi-element high-lift systems at full-scale flight conditions. In this paper, an overview of the flight program is provided, followed by highlights of experimental results and computational analysis. Measurements included surface pressures on the slats, main element and flap elements using flush pressure ports and pressure belts, surface shear stresses using Preston tubes, off-surface velocity distributions using boundary layer/wake rakes, aeroelastic deformations of the flap elements using an optical positioning system, and boundary layer transition detection using hot-film anemometers and an infrared imaging system. Boundary layer transition measurements on the slat using hot-film sensors are correlated with the flow visualisation results from an infrared imaging technique. Extensive application of several computational techniques and comparisons with flight measurements are shown for a limited number of cases. This program has generated an extensive set of data, much of which are still being analysed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 99 , Issue 989: Special issue on high lift and separation control , November 1995 , pp. 372 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1995 

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. Smith, A.M.O. Aerodynamics of high-lift airfoil systems, Fluid Dynamics of Aircraft Stalling, AGARD CP-102, November, 1972, pp 10/1-27.Google Scholar
2. Smith, A.M.O. High-lift aerodynamics, J Aircr, 12, (6), June 1975, pp 501–530.Google Scholar
3. Meredith, P.T. Viscous phenomena affecting high-lift systems and suggestions for future CFD development, High Lift System Aerodynamics, AGARD CP-515, September 1993, pp 19/1-8.Google Scholar
4. Woodward, D.S. and Lean, D.E. Where is high-lift today? — A review of past UK research programmes, High Lift System Aerodynamics, AGARD CP-515, September 1993, pp 1/1-45.Google Scholar
5. Thibert, J.J., The GARTEUR high lift research programme, High Lift System Aerodynamics, AGARD CP-515, September 1993, pp 16/1-21.Google Scholar
6. Greff, E. In-flight measurement of static pressures and boundary layer state with integrated sensors, J Aircr, May 1991, 28, pp 289–299.Google Scholar
7. Yip, L.P., Vijoen, P.M.H.W., Hardin, J.D. and van Dam, C.P. In-flight pressure measurements on a subsonic transport high-lift wing section, High-Lift Systems Aerodynamics, AGARD CP-515, September 1993, pp 21/1-19.Google Scholar
8. Vijgen, P.M.H.W., Hardin, J.D. and Yip, L.P. Flow prediction over a transport multi-element high-lift system and comparison with flight measurements, paper presented at Fifth Symposium on Numerical and Physical Aspects of Aerodynamic Flows, California State University, Long Beach, CA, January 1992.Google Scholar
9. Woodward, D.S., Hardy, B.C. and Ashill, P.R. Some types of scale effect in low-speed high-lift flows, ICAS Paper 4.9.3, 1988.Google Scholar
10. Pfenninger, W. Laminar flow control laminarisation, USAF and NAVY Sponsored Northrop LFC Research Between 1949 and 1967, Special Course on Concepts for Drag Reduction, AGARD Report No 654, March 1977, pp 3/1-75.Google Scholar
11. Gaster, M. On the flow along swept leading edges, Aeronaut Q, May 1967, 18, pp 165–184.Google Scholar
12. Poll, D.I.A. Transition in the infinite-swept attachment-line boundary-layer, Aeronaut Q, November 1979, 30, Part 4, pp 607–629.Google Scholar
13. Launder, B.E. and Jones, W.P. On the prediction of relaminarisation, ARC CP-1036, 1969.Google Scholar
14. Hardy, B.C. Experimental investigation of attachment-line transition in low-speed high-lift windtunnel testing, Proceedings of the Symposium on Fluid Dynamics of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Shear Flows and Transition, AGARD CP-438, 1988, pp 2/1-17.Google Scholar
15. Arnal, D. and Juillen, J.C. Leading-edge contamination and relaminarisation on a swept wing at incidence, paper presented at Fourth Symposium on Numerical and Physical Aspects of Aerodynamic Flows, Cal State University, Long Beach, CA, January 1989.Google Scholar
16. Hall, P., Malik, M.R., and Poll, D.I.A. On the stability of an infinite swept attachment line boundary layer, Proc R Soc Lond, 1984, A395, pp 229–245.Google Scholar
17. Narasimha, R. and Sreenivasan, K.R. Relaminarisation of fluid flows, Adv in App Mechs, 1979, 19, pp 221–309.Google Scholar
18. Beasley, J.A. Calculation of the laminar boundary layer and prediction of transition on a sheared wing, ARC R & M 3787, 1976.Google Scholar
19. Bertelrud, A. Total head/static measurement of skin friction and surface pressure, AIAA J, March 1977, 15, (3), pp 436–438.Google Scholar
20. van Dam, C.P., Vijgen, P.M.H.W., Yip, L.P. and Potter, R.C. Leading-edge transition and relaminarisation phenomena on a subsonic high-lift system, AIAA Paper 93-3140, July 1993.Google Scholar
21. Wallace, L.E. Airborne trailblazer, two decades with NASA Langley's 737 flying laboratory, NASA SP-4216, 1994.Google Scholar
22. White, J.J. Advanced transport operating systems program, SAE Paper 901969, October 1990.Google Scholar
23. Capone, F.J. Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of a twinturbofan subsonic transport with nacelles mounted under the wings, NASA TN D-5971, October 1970.Google Scholar
24. Paulson, J.W. Windtunnel results of the aerodynamic characteristics of a 1/8-Scale model of a twin-engine short-haul transport, NASA TMX-74011, April 1977.Google Scholar
25. Montoya, L.C. and Lux, D.P. Comparison of wing pressure distribution from flight tests of flush and external orifices for Mach numbers from 0.50 to 0.97, NASA TM X-56032, April 1975.Google Scholar
26. Strain, N.A. Flight Investigation of Pressure Belt Effect on Measured Pressure Distributions, Master's Thesis, University of California at Davis, June 1993.Google Scholar
27. Whitehead, J.H., Harris, F.K. and Lytle, C.D. Research requirements for a real-time flight measurements and data analysis system for subsonic transport high-lift research, paper presented at 39th International Instrumentation Symposium, Albuquerque, NM, May 1993.Google Scholar
28. Smith, D.G. and Crowder, J.P. The Northern Digital Optotrak for wind-on measurement of model deflections, paper presented at 71 st Semi-Annual Meeting of the Supersonic Tunnel Association, Burbank, CA, April 1989. 14.Google Scholar
29. Brandon, J.M., Manuel, G.S., Wright, R.E. and Holmes, B.J. In-flight flow visualisation using infrared imaging, J Aircr, July 1990, 27, (6), pp 612–618.Google Scholar
30. Horstmann, K.H., Redeker, G. and Quast, A. Flight tests with a natural laminar flow glove on a transport aircraft, AIAA Paper 90-3044-CP, 1990.Google Scholar
31. Horstmann, K.H. Institute for Design Aerodynamics, German Aerospace Research Establishment, Braunschweig — Personal Communication, June 1994.Google Scholar
32. Gracey, W. Measurement of aircraft speed and altitude, NASA RP- 1046, May 1980.Google Scholar
33. van Dam, C.P., Los, S.M., Miley, S.J., Yip, L.P., Banks, D.W., Roback, V.E. and Bertelrud, A. Analysis of in-flight boundary- layer state measurements on a subsonic transport wing in high-lift configuration, AIAA Paper 95-3911, September 1995.Google Scholar
34. Mavriplis, D.J. and Venkatakrishnan, V. A 3D agglomeration multigrid solver for the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations on unstructured meshes, AIAA Paper 95-0345, January 1995.Google Scholar
35. Mathias, D.L., Roth, K.R., Ross, J.C., Rogers, J.C. and Cummings, R.M. Navier-Stokes analysis of the flow about a flap edge, AIAA Paper 95-0185, January 1995.Google Scholar
36. Ashby, D.L., Dudley, M.R., Iguchi, S.K., Browne, L. and Katz, J. Potential flow theory and operation guide for the panel code PMARC, NASA TM-102851, January 1991.Google Scholar
37. Edge, D.C. Three-Dimensional Computational Aerodynamic Analysis of a Transport High-Lift Configuration, Master's Thesis, North Carolina State University, July 1994.Google Scholar
38. Edge, D.C. and Perkins, J.N. Three-dimensional aerodynamic analysis of a subsonic high-lift transport configuration using Pmarc, AIAA Paper 95-0039, January 1995.Google Scholar
39. Potter, R.C. Viscous-flow analysis of a subsonic transport aircraft high-lift system and correlation with flight data, Master's Thesis, University of California at Davis, June 1994.Google Scholar
40. Potter, R.C., van Dam, C.P. and Hardin, J.D. Viscous-flow analysis of a subsonic transport high-lift system including comparisons with flight-measured results, AIAA Paper 95-0043, January 1995.Google Scholar
41. Mavriplis, D.J. Turbulent flow calculations using unstructured and adaptive meshes, lnt JNumer Methods in Fluids, 1991, 13, pp 1131–1152.Google Scholar
42. Anderson, W.K. and Bonhaus, D.L. An implicit, upwind algorithm for computing turbulent flows on unstructured grids, J of Comp and Fluids, 1994, 23, pp 1–21.Google Scholar
43. Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA Paper 92-0439, January 1992.Google Scholar
44. Mavriplis, D.J. An advancing front Delaunay triangularisation algorithm designed for robustness, AIAA Paper 93-0671, January 1993.Google Scholar