https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=19840018592 2017-10-17T03:49:38+00:00Z
1984
Natural Laminar Flow
Experiments on Modern
Airplane Surfaces

Bruce J. Holmes
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

Clifford J. Obara
Kentron International, Inc.
Hampton, Virginia

Long P. Yip
Langley Research Center
Hampton, Virginia

NASA
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration

Scientific and Technical

Information Branch
 Use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report does not
constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either
expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
 CONTENTS

SUMMARY ~ ~ ~ ~ e e e ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 e ~ ~

INTRODUCTION ...... . . . e e e . e e e e . . . . ~ e . . . e e o e ~ . a ~ . 1

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..e............e.e*e..eem.....e... m e 3

REVIEW OF PAST NATURAL LAMINAR FLOW RESEARCH ..................................... 5

AIRPLANE DESCRIPTIONS AND CORRESPONDING EXPERIMENTS .....

Airplanes
Rutan VariEze
...............................................................
................................................................
. . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . 7
7
8
Rutan Long-EZ ...............................................................
....................................................
Rutan ~ a s e rB i p l a n e Racer
8
9
Gates L e a r j e t Model 28/29 Longhorn...........................................
....................................................... 9

Beech 24R S i e r r a .............................................................

Cessna P-210 C e n t u r i o n

.......................................................
R e l l a n c a S k y r o c k e t I1
9
9
9
Beech T-34C g l o v e s ..........................................................
............................................................. 10
Testing Procedures
S u b l i m a t i n g chemical d e t e c t i o n of boundary-layer ..................
.............................. transition
10
10
11
....................................................
A c o u s t i c d e t e c t i o n of boundary-layer t r a n s i t i o n
Other t e s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s 11

RESULTS ..........................................................................
Wind-Tunnel VariEze Experiments ................................................ I2
12
Transition locations .........................................................
......................................... 12

F l i g h t Experiments
Rutan VariEze
..........................................................
E f f e c t of f i x e d t r a n s i t i o n on c a n a r d

..............................................................
12
13
13
Rutan Long-EZ ..............................................................
....................................................
Rutan Laser B i p l a n e Racer
14

...........................................
Gates L e a r j e t Model 28/29 Longhorn
.......................................................
Cessna P-210 C e n t u r i o n
15
16
16
.............................................................
Beech 24R S i e r r a
........................................................
B e l l a n c a Skyrocket I1
17
17
.........................................................
Beech T-34C g l o v e s 19

DISCUSSION
rans sit ion
......................................................................
........................................................... 20
~ocations
....................................
...................................................
E f f e c t s of P r e c i p i t a t i o n and Cloud P a r t i c l e s
20
21

..................................................
E f f e c t s of Fixed T r a n s i t i o n

......................................................................
propeller Slipstream Effects
22
23
Waviness
..................................................................
Sweep E f f e c t s
I n s e c t Debris contamination................................................
24
24
25

CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 26

APPENDIX . SURFACE WAVINESS ON RESEARCH MODELS............................... m 28

iii
REFERENCES ~ e e e ~ e ~ e e e ~ ~ e . e e ~ e ~ o o ~ ~ e e e ~ ~ 48 e
e e

TABLES ~ e e ~ e e e ~ ~ e e ~ e e e o ~ ~ ~ o ~ e e o e ~ ~ ~ r ~ 52
e e o

FIGURES . r ~ . ~ . . . . e ~ ~ ~ . e e e e r . . . r . e o ~ ~ e e . . ~ e e o e ~ ~ 73
e e o e
 SUMMARY

F l i g h t and wind-tunnel n a t u r a l laminar flow experiments have been conducted on

v a r i o u s l i f t i n g and n o n l i f t i n g s u r f a c e s of s e v e r a l a i r p l a n e s a t u n i t Reynolds numbers
between 0.63 X lo6 ft-' and 3.08 x lo6 f t - I , a t Mach numbers from 0.1 t o 0.7, and a t
l i f t i n g s u r f a c e leading-edge sweep angles from O0 t o 63O. The a i r p l a n e s t e s t e d were
s e l e c t e d t o provide r e l a t i v e l y s t i f f s k i n c o n d i t i o n s , f r e e from s i g n i f i c a n t roughness
and waviness, on smooth modern production-type a i r f r a m e s . The observed t r a n s i t i o n
l o c a t i o n s t y p i c a l l y occurred downstream of t h e measured o r c a l c u l a t e d p r e s s u r e peak
Locations f o r t h e t e s t c o n d i t i o n s involved. No d i s c e r n i b l e e f f e c t s on t r a n s i t i o n due
t o s u r f a c e waviness were observed on any of t h e s u r f a c e s t e s t e d . None of t h e mea-
sured h e i g h t s of s u r f a c e waviness exceeded t h e e m p i r i c a l l y p r e d i c t e d allowable s u r -
f a c e waviness. Experimental r e s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t with spanwise contamination c r i t e r i a
were observed. Large changes i n flight-measured performance and s t a b i l i t y and con-
t r o l r e s u l t e d from l o s s of laminar flow by forced t r a n s i t i o n . Simulated r a i n e f f e c t s
on t h e laminar boundary l a y e r caused s t i c k - f i x e d nose-down pitch-trim changes i n two
of t h e a i r p l a n e s t e s t e d . No e f f e c t on t r a n s i t i o n was observed f o r f l i g h t through
low-altitude liquid-phase clouds. These o b s e r v a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h e importance of
f i x e d - t r a n s i t i o n t e s t s a s a standard f l i g h t t e s t i n g procedure f o r modern smooth a i r -
frames. The r e s u l t s taken a s a whole i n d i c a t e t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t regions of n a t u r a l
laminar flow e x i s t and t h a t t h i s boundary-layer behavior is more durable and p e r s i s -
t e n t on c e r t a i n modern p r a c t i c a l production a i r p l a n e s u r f a c e s than previously
expected.

INTRODUCTION

I n decades p a s t , t h e achievement of e x t e n s i v e regions of n a t u r a l laminar flow

(NLF) was souqht a s a means of i n c r e a s i n q a i r p l a n e speed and range, However, e a r l y
methods of wing manufacture and maintenance produced rough, wavy s u r f a c e s ; t h e r e f o r e ,
the s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n of laminar-flow a i r f o i l s f o r i n c r e a s e d performance on pro-
duction a i r c r a f t was never achieved.

I n r e c e n t y e a r s , two major t r e n d s i n a i r p l a n e f a b r i c a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n s have

developed which a r e f a v o r a b l e t o NLF, F i r s t , modern airframe c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s
and f a b r i c a t i o n methods o f f e r t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e production of aerodynamic s u r -
f aces without c r i t i c a l roughness and waviness. These modern techniques include com-
p o s i t e s , milled aluminum s k i n s , and bonded aluminum s k i n s . The second modern t r e n d
favorable t o NLF i s t h e lower range of both chord and u n i t Reynolds numbers a t which
c u r r e n t hiqh-performance business a i r p l a n e s o p e r a t e . Most of these a i r p l a n e s c r u i s e
a t u n i t Reynolds numbers l e s s than 1.5 x l o 6 f t - ' and a t chord Reynolds numbers l e s s
than 20 x lo6, Therefore, t h e achievement of NLF-compatible s u r f a c e q u a l i t y i s r e l a -
t i v e l y easy. These lower Reynolds numbers r e s u l t from t h e s h o r t e r a i r f o i l chord
lengths (wing loadings and a s p e c t r a t i o s a r e l a r q e r ) and from t h e much hiqher c r u i s e
a l t i t u d e s f o r modern a i r p l a n e s .

I t is s i q n i f i c a n t t h a t NLF has been a p r a c t i c a l r e a l i t y f o r one category of

aircraft - s a i l p l a n e s . The achievement of laminar flow on s a i l p l a n e s has been f a c i l -
i t a t e d by the lower chord Reynolds numbers (<4 x lo6 t y p i c a l l y ) a t which they oper-
a t e , r e l a t i v e t o most power a i r p l a n e s , and by t h e use of composite c o n s t r u c t i o n
methods t o produce smooth complex shapes.
 This r e p o r t p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s of s e v e r a l NLF wind-tunnel and f l i g h t e x p e r i -
ments r e c e n t l y conducted by NASA t o determine t h e maximum Reynolds number, Mach num-
b e r , and sweep-angle ranges over which t h e smoothness of modern, p r a c t i c a l a i r f r a m e
c o n s t r u c t i o n techniques f a i l t o meet requirements f o r NLF i n f a v o r a b l e p r e s s u r e q r a -
dients. These experiments were designed t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s of a c h i e v a b i l i t y and
m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y of NLF on p r o d u c t i o n - q u a l i t y a i r f r a m e s u r f a c e s i n t y p i c a l o p e r a t i n g
environments. The s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e s e r e c e n t f l i g h t e x p e r i -
ments from t h o s e of t h e 1930's and 1940's i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n p r e f l i g h t p r e p a r a t i o n
of t h e s u r f a c e s t e s t e d . The r e c e n t experiments were conducted on p r o d u c t i o n - q u a l i t y
s u r f a c e s , t h a t is, on s u r f a c e s which r e c e i v e d no m o d i f i c a t i o n by f i l l i n g and sanding
t o meet t h e a i r f o i l contour or waviness requirements f o r NLF (minor e x c e p t i o n s a r e
described i n the t e x t ) .

F u l l - s c a l e f l i g h t and wind-tunnel experiments were conducted with t h e f o l l o w i n g

specific objectives:

1. Examine t h e e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g Reynolds numbers and Mach numbers on laminar

flow f o r production a i r f r a m e s u r f a c e s .

2. Observe t r a n s i t i o n l o c a t i o n s on a l a r g e v a r i e t y of aerodynamic s u r f a c e s
( i n c l u d i n g wings, f u s e l a g e nose, wheel f a i r i n q s , h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l
s t a b i l i z e r s , and p r o p e l l e r s p i n n e r and b l a d e a i r f o i l s u r f a c e s ) , and, where
p o s s i b l e , c o r r e l a t e measured t r a n s i t i o n with e m p i r i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s .

3. Measure t h e e f f e c t of t o t a l l o s s of laminar flow ( f i x e d t r a n s i t i o n due t o

t r a n s i t i o n g r i t o r simulated r a i n ) on a i r f o i l behavior, a i r p l a n e p e r f o r -
mance, and s t a b i l i t y and c o n t r o l .

4. Observe t h e e f f e c t of a p r o p e l l e r s l i p s t r e a m on laminar flow.

5. Document t h e e f f e c t of f l i g h t through clouds on t r a n s i t i o n .

6. Observe t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t s of wing leading-edge sweep on spanwise contami-

n a t i o n of t h e attachment l i n e .

7. I n v e s t i g a t e t h e n a t u r e of i n s e c t contamination on an NLF a i r f o i l i n f l i g h t .

Eiqht d i f f e r e n t a i r p l a n e t y p e s were used i n t h e f l i g h t experiments: two high-

a s p e c t - r a t i o canard, p u s h e r - p r o p e l l e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ( t h e Rutan VariEze and Long-EZ);
a l a r g e n e g a t i v e - s t a g g e r b i p l a n e , t r a c t o r - p r o p e l l e r c o n f i q u r a t i o n ( t h e Rutan Biplane
Racer) ; a b u s i n e s s j e t (Gates L e a r j e t Model 28/29 Longhorn) ; two low-wing a i r p l a n e s
( ~ e e c h24R S i e r r a and Bellanca Skyrocket 11); and a high-wing sinqle-engine g e n e r a l -
a v i a t i o n a i r p l a n e (Cessna P-210 C e n t u r i o n ) . The e i g h t h a i r p l a n e , a Beech T-34C, was
equipped with laminar-flow gloves on which experiments were conducted t o provide
a d d i t i o n a l d a t a t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n q s of t h e o t h e r f l i g h t experiments. The wind-
t u n n e l experiments used only t h e VariEze a i r p l a n e .

Based on t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e f l i g h t and wind-tunnel experiments, t h i s paper

provides a new a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e a c h i e v a b i l i t y and m a i n t a i n a b i l i t y of NLF on mod-
e r n a i r p l a n e s u r f a c e s a t chord Reynolds numbers r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of b u s i n e s s and com-
muter t r a n s p o r t a i r c r a f t , The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s e r e s u l t s t o f u r t h e r a i r p l a n e
d e s i g n s , f l i g h t t e s t i n g procedures, and f u r t h e r s t u d i e s a r e a l s o d i s c u s s e d ,
 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

a airfoil mean-line designation

avg average

BL butt line

b airplane wing span, ft

CD airplane drag coefficient

Cd section drag coefficient

CL airplane trimmed lift coefficient

CL lift-curve slope, deg-^

a
section lift coefficient
C
Cm airplane pitching-moment coefficient (referenced to 3/4)

pressure coefficient, (pt - p)/q.

C
c local chord, ft

c mean aerodynamic chord, in.

d propeller diameter, ft

FS fuselage station

h indicated double-amplitude wave height, in.

h density altitude, ft

J advance ratio, V/nd

L.E. leading edge

L.S. lower surface

M Mach number

n propeller rotational speed, rps

Ps vapor pressure, mm Hg

p static pressure, psf

Pt total pressure, psf

q dynamic pressure, psf

R free-stream unit Reynolds number, ft-1

3
 R chord Reynolds number

R8 attachment-line boundary-layer momentum thickness Reynolds number (see

eq . (1) )

r radius, ft

S lifting surface reference area, sq ft

s surface length, in.

T temperature, C

t/c wing thickness ratio

U.S. upper surface

u/ue local-to-edge velocity in boundary layer

V free-stream true airspeed, knots or mph

Vc calibrated airspeed (local flow field and indicator errors removed), knots
or mph

Vi indicated airspeed, knots or mph

WL water line

x/c location in percent local chord

(x/fl t transition location in percent body length

y semispan location, ft

z vertical dimension, ft

a angle of attack, deg (relative to longitudinal reference axis)

S boundary-layer thickness, in.

S e elevator deflection, deg (positive trailing edge down)

T1 nondimensional semispan position, y

b/2
sweep angle, deg

X wavelength, in.

Subscripts:

a allowable

c canard

L lower

4
le leading edge

max maximum

min minimum

t transition location

U upper

w wing
CD free stream

Notation:

i.d. inside diameter

NLF natural laminar flow

o.d. outside diameter

psf pounds (force) per square foot

REVIEW OF PAST NATURAL LAMINAR FLOW RESEARCH

The achievement and maintenance of NLF are the two principal challenges to its
use for performance improvement on airplanes today. Natural laminar flow is achieved
on airfoil surfaces with small sweep angles (-15 0 ) by designing long runs of favor-
able pressure gradients (accelerating flow) which limit the growth of two-dimensional
disturbances (Tollmien-Schlichting (T-S) waves) in the boundary layer. The growth of
T-S waves can be aggravated, on the other hand, by the effects of surface waviness on
local pressure gradients and on boundary-layer velocity profiles. These effects
reduce boundary-layer stability and can lead to premature transition. Thus, favor-
able pressure gradients "protect" the laminar boundary layer from the effects of
limited amounts of surface waviness by counteracting the destabilizing influences of
waviness. Similar influences govern the critical sizes of other two-dimensional
protuberances such as steps and gaps in laminar boundary layers. On wings with sig-
nificant sweep, NLF is achieved by compromise between the above pressure distribution
consideration and the conflicting design requirement for less favorable pressure
gradients which limit the growth of three-dimensional disturbances (crossflow vorti-
ces) in the boundary layer. The growth rate of crossflow vortices is rapid in the
region of rapidly falling pressure near the leading edge. It is not presently well
understood how the interaction between crossflow vortices and T-S waves affects tran-
sition on swept wings at free-stream conditions of interest for business, commuter,
or airline transport airplanes. The technical challenge to the successful design of
such airplane wings will be to meet both of the conflicting pressure gradient design
requirements for avoidance of these two- and three-dimensional instabilities.

The maintenance of wing surface conditions compatible with NLF requires that the
surfaces be kept free, in an operating environment, from critical amounts of surface
contamination (e.g., insect debris or ice), free-stream disturbances (e.g., noise and
turbulence), and surface damage. Compared with phenomena affecting the achievability
of NLF, less is understood about the maintainability of NLF under the wide ranges of

5
Reynolds numbers, Mach numbers, meteorological conditions, flight profiles, and air-
craft configurations which characterize the potential applications for NLF. It is
generally true, however, that ease in maintenance of NLF surfaces improves as
Reynolds number decreases. In summary, the critical issues concerning the practical-
ity of NLF for drag reduction are twofold: (1) Can practical production surfaces
meet the roughness and waviness requirements for achievement of NLF under high-speed
conditions, and (2) can laminar-flow benefits be maintained in typical aircraft oper-
ating environments in a cost-effective manner.

Past research left a mixture of positive and negative conclusions concerning

these questions. A significant consensus from early research (circa 1950) was that
the airframe surface quality required for NLF could not be achieved in the metal
airframe mass production methods of that time. (See ref. 1, chapter 5.) Close exam-
ination of those fabrication methods reveals the shortcomings to have been excessive
waviness between ribs and stringers, excessive step heights or gap widths at skin
joints, and excessive heights of protuberances from certain riveting techniques
(e.g., press-countersunk or dimpled rivets). Previous NLF flight experiments
(refs. 2 to 26) in which transition location and/or section drag were determined are
summarized in table 1. These experiments included both unprepared (production) sur-
faces, specifically prepared (filled and sanded) surfaces, and airfoil gloves.
Because of the fabrication shortcomings noted above, the experiments on the produc-
tion quality surfaces (refs. 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 23, and 26) of that period
resulted in little or no laminar flow. The single exception was the apparent exten-
sive laminar flow achieved on the filled and smoothed production plywood wings of the
Heinkel He.70 reported in reference 13. On the specially prepared surfaces and on
gloves (see table 1), transition locations and airfoil performance typically closely
matched theoretical predictions and low-turbulence, wind-tunnel-model test results.
The successes of the prepared and gloved surface tests provided the initial guidance
for development of criteria for allowable waviness as well as for allowable two- and
three-dimensional protuberance heights. Development of these criteria was strongly
based on wind-tunnel research as well. A summary of these criteria is presented in
reference 27 (also see appendix). In general, these criteria provide conservative
guidance for the manufacture of NLF surfaces. This conservatism stems from their
development origins in wind tunnels where "stream disturbances may exacerbate rough-
ness problems" (ref. 28). In the past, the conservatism may have been partly respon-
sible for the perception that NLF would be very difficult to achieve even on modern
production surfaces. This perception was probably heightened by the relatively high
unit Reynolds number range, R > 2 x 10 6 ft-1 , for the World War II high-performance
fighters on which early NLF applications were attempted; such free-stream conditions
make the laminar boundary layer very sensitive to surface imperfections and insect
contamination.

Even when the proper surface quality can be achieved, a concern which remains
the subject of much research is the effect of operating environments on NLF maintain-
ability. Past research has increased our understanding of some of the physical tran-
sition phenomena resulting from exposure of laminar boundary layers to vibration,
atmospheric particles (ice crystals), turbulence, and noise. Reference 28 is a sum-
mary of much of this past work. The literature concludes that airframe vibration
does not significantly influence boundary-layer transition for many important prac-
tical applications (refs. 27 and 28). In flight, there have been no discernible
effects observed of atmospheric turbulence on boundary-layer transition (refs. 2 to
4, 8, and 28). Studies on the effects of atmospheric particles (refs. 27 and 28)
have identified the potential for significant loss of laminar flow on swept-wing
laminar-flow-control airplanes during flight through high-altitude (stratospheric)
ice-crystal clouds. At lower altitudes, where liquid-phase cloud particles exist,

6
little research has been done to determine the influence of such cloud particles on
laminar flow of swept or unswept wings. Studies of the influence of noise on
boundary-layer transition have shown the potential for loss of laminar flow due to
turbine-engine and afterburner noise impingement on laminar surfaces (refs. 27
and 28). Limited evidence exists that engine/propeller noise on piston-driven
airplanes may slightly affect transition position on NLF surfaces (ref. 10). The
literature is not conclusive on the operational seriousness of insect contamination
and propeller slipstream disturbances to laminar flow.

AIRPLANE DESCRIPTIONS AND CORRESPONDING EXPERIMENTS

Airplanes

Eight airplanes were studied in these tests. Seven of the airplanes utilized in
the flight experiments were selected because of smooth skin surface conditions exist-
ing on all or portions of the airframes. The eighth airplane utilized NLF gloves (as
opposed to a production-quality wing surface). The Rutan VariEze, Long-EZ, and Laser
Biplane Racer, and the Bellanca Skyrocket airplanes were constructed of composite
fiberglass or carbon-fiber skins over full-depth foam core or aluminum honeycomb
sandwich structures. The Gates Learjet Model 28/29, Cessna P-210 Centurian, and
Beech 24R Sierra airplanes were constructed of aluminum structures with bonded,
milled, or flush riveted skins. Waviness measurements were made on some of the sur-
faces of five of these airplanes. (See appendix.) The eighth airplane was a Beech-
T-34C airplane fitted with laminar-flow airfoil gloves on the left wing; these gloved
sections were used to develop boundary-layer transition measuring techniques and for
transition measurements in the propeller slipstream to support related experimental
results.

A wind-tunnel investigation was conducted in the Langley 30- by 60-Foot Tunnel

to study the aerodynamic characteristics of an advanced canard configuration air-
plane, the VariEze (see ref. 29). The experiments specifically provided data on the
following: (1) Transition locations on the wing, winglet, and canard; and (2) the
effect of fixed transition on canard aerodynamics caused by either artificial rough-
ness or by water-spray simulated rain.

Table 2 is a listing of descriptive photographs, drawings, unique airframe fea-

tures and construction, experiments conducted, and test conditions for each airplane.
The flight experiments for all airplanes included, as a minimum, visual observation
of transition locations for various airframe components. Other experiments included
studies of the effects of fixed boundary-layer transition on the performance and
maximum lift of the Bellanca Skyrocket, Rutan VariEze, and Rutan Long-EZ airplanes;
fixed-transition effects on stability and control were studied in the VariEze and
Long-EZ. Some of the airplanes utilized more extensive flight-test instrumentation
than others. For example, chordwise pressure measurements and airfoil wake surveys
on the Skyrocket provided section lift and drag data, respectively. Boundary-layer
rakes provided measurements of laminar-flow behavior as affected by propeller slip-
stream on the Skyrocket, and hot-film sensors provided similar information for the
Beech T-34C.

Rutan VariEze.- Flight and wind-tunnel experiments were conducted with a pusher-
propeller, two-place airplane type with a high-aspect-ratio canard. (See fig. 1.)
The airplane physical characteristics and design coordinates are presented in
tables 3 and 4. The flight-test airplane is shown in figure 2. The only significant
difference between the full-scale wind-tunnel model and the flight article was the

7
installation of an outboard leading-edge droop on the flight-test airplane. Both
airframes were constructed using composite structures of full-depth foam core and
fiberglass skins. The airfoil surfaces on the wind-tunnel model were filled and
sanded to conform accurately to the airfoil design contours.

Both the wind-tunnel and flight experiments with this configuration included
visual determination of transition on the wing, winglet, and canard surfaces, and
measurement of the effect of fixed transition (using the method of ref. 30) of wing,
winglets, and canard on airplane performance and stability and control. The flight
experiments included observation of the effect of flight through clouds on boundary-
layer transition (using acoustic transition detection). The calibrated airspeed
range of the flight tests was from 65 to 148 knots. Flight transition data using a
sublimation technique were taken at a unit Reynolds number of 1.4 x 106 ft-1.

Static-force data and boundary-layer flow visualization data were collected with
the wind-tunnel model mounted on an external balance system in the Langley 30- by
60-Foot Tunnel as shown in figure 3. The canard mount was isolated from the model by
an internal strain-gage balance, and canard force data were collected simultaneously
with model force data. Tests were conducted over a range of angle of attack from
-6 0 to 40 0 and a range of sideslip from -15 0 to 15 0 . The nominal dynamic pres-
sure of the tests was 10.5 psf which corresponds to a unit Reynolds number of
0.625 x 106 ft-1.

Chordwise pressure distribution data were recorded from four spanwise stations
on the canard at T1 = 0.26, 0.53, 0.79, and 0.95. The effect of rain was simulated
in the wind tunnel by water spray from a horizontal airfoil-shaped boom located ahead
of the canard as diagrammed in figure 4. Nozzles pointed downstream and located on
the boom sprayed water droplets of about 200-m volume mean diameter at a total flow
rate of 1 gal/hr at 60 psi. The boom span of about 6 ft covered the right canard
semispan. The height of the boom was varied such that water spray enveloped the
canard throughout the angle-of-attack range.

Rutan Long-EZ.- Flight experiments were also conducted on a two-place, pusher-

propeller airplane type similar to the VariEze. The airplane configuration utilized
a high-aspect-ratio canard with different wings and winglets than the VariEze. Two
different Long-EZ airplanes were tested to verify the repeatability of the transition
results. The only differences in these airplanes were the size of wheel fairing used
to aerodynamically fair the main wheels and the size and shape of the rudder sur-
faces. Figure 5 contains a sketch of the geometry of these airplanes as designed,
and table 5 is a list of the detailed geometric characteristics. Figure 6 is a pho-
tograph of one of the two Long-EZ airplanes tested. The design coordinates for the
NLF airfoil on the wing and winglets are given in table 6. The canard airfoil is
identical to that of the VariEze (coordinates given in table 4). The composite air-
frame was built using full-depth foam core with fiberglass skins.

The experiments conducted with this airplane included visual observations of

transition on the wing, winglet, canard, fuselage nose, and wheel fairings. In addi-
tion, the effect of fixed transition on airplane performance and stability and con-
trol was determined. The indicated airspeed range for these tests was 65 to
158 knots at density altitudes of 4700 to 7500 ft. The maximum unit Reynolds number
during testing was 1.51 x 10 6 ft-1 . When only Vi was available for data reduction
purposes, it was assumed that the position error was zero.

Rutan Laser Biplane Racer.- A single-place biplane with large negative-stagger

and a tractor-propeller (figs. 7 and 8) was tested in flight. Detailed physical

8
characteristics of the airplane are shown in table 7. The wing airfoil design coor-
dinates are given in table 8. The composite airframe was built using full-depth foam
core with fiberglass skins on the forward wing and graphite skins on the aft wing.
Experiments conducted with this airplane included determination of transition loca-
tions on portions of the lower (forward) and upper (aft) wings both inside and out-
side of the propeller slipstream. The indicated airspeed for these tests was
165 knots at a density altitude of 10 000 ft. The corresponding unit Reynolds number
during these tests was 1.38 x 10 6 ft-1.

Gates Learjet Model 28/29 Longhorn.- Higher speed flight experiments were con-
ducted with a twin-engine, turbojet, 10-seat business airplane. (See fig. 9.) The
wing was constructed of integrally stiffened milled aluminum skins with leading-edge
contour modifications made of sanded filler material. Aircraft physical details are
presented in table 9. Experiments conducted with this airplane included visual
determination of transition locations on the wing and winglet at high subsonic Mach
numbers. The Mach number range for these tests was 0.55 to 0.70 at density altitudes
of 15 500 to 16 500 ft. The maximum unit Reynolds number during testing was
3.08 x 10 6 ft-1.

Cessna P-210 Centurion.- The pressurized six-passenger business airplane shown

in figure 10 was utilized for transition measurements on conventional metal surfaces.
Physical characteristics of this single-engine, retractable-gear airplane are pre-
sented in table 10. The wing incorporates an NACA 64-series airfoil; the horizontal
tail uses a symmetric NACA airfoil varying in thickness from 5 to 9 percent. The
airframe was constructed of riveted aluminum skins, ribs, and stringers. A limited
amount of body-putty filling and sanding was done on half of the region of the left
wing, which was painted dark to facilitate sublimating chemical observations. The
filling and sanding illustrated in figure 11 were done to reduce surface roughness
and waviness in the region of a spanwise row of flush dimpled rivets near the leading
edge. Experiments conducted with this airplane included observations of transition
locations on the dark portion of the left wing, on the horizontal stabilizer, and on
the propeller spinner. The calibrated airspeed range for these tests was 139 to
154 knots. The maximum unit Reynolds number during testing was 1.48 x 10 6 ft-1.

Beech 24R Sierra.- Flight experiments were conducted with the four-seat, low-
wing, single-engine, retractable-gear airplane shown in figure 12. Geometric details
are presented in table 11. The wing design incorporates an NACA 63-series airfoil.
The propeller uses a Clark Y airfoil. The bonded-aluminum-skin outboard portion of
the wing was selected for sublimating chemical transition visualization. In addi-
tion, transition observations were made on the vertical tail and on the propeller.
The calibrated airspeed for these tests was 133 knots, the propeller was operating at
2700 rpm, and the maximum unit Reynolds number during testing was 1.38 x 10 6 ft 1.

Bellanca Skyrocket II.- Detailed data on an NACA 63 2-215 NLF airfoil was
obtained during flight experiments conducted with the high-performance, single-
engine, retractable-gear airplane shown in figure 13. Geometric details are
presented in table 12. The airframe was built of fiberglass, aluminum-honeycomb
composite sandwich structure. Experiments with the Skyrocket include visual determi-
nation of wing transition locations, including the effect of propeller slipstream. A
scanning pressure measurement system was utilized to measure airfoil wake profiles
for section drag calculations, chordwise static pressures for analysis of section
lift and pressure distributions, and boundary-layer velocity profiles inside and
outside the propeller slipstream. Figure 14 illustrates the instrumentation instal-
lation. A detailed description of these experiments is contained in reference 31.
The maximum calibrated airspeed for these tests was 176 knots for a maximum unit

9
Reynolds number of 1.90 x 10 6 ft 1 . During the observations of propeller slipstream
effects on the laminar boundary layer, the propeller was operating at 1800 rpm.

Beech T-34C gloves.- The flight experiments on this two-place, low-wing, single-
turbine-engine training airplane were conducted on gloves fabricated with smooth
surfaces to support laminar flow. Transition detection experiments were conducted
utilizing glue-on, surface-mounted, hot-film transition detectors. The hot films
were mounted both inside and outside the propeller slipstream; the high-frequency
response of these sensors permitted observation of the time-dependent behavior of the
laminar boundary layer with disturbances from each pass of the propeller blade. The
propeller was operated over a range from 150 (feathered) to 2000 rpm. In addition,
hot films were used to determine the effect on laminar flow of flight through liquid-
phase clouds. All these experiments were conducted over a range of airspeeds with a
maximum of 166 knots for a unit Reynolds number of 1.5 x 10 -6 ft-1.

Testing Procedures

Sublimating chemical detection of boundary-layer transition.- The sublimation

method for visually indicating boundary-layer transition involves coating the test
surface with a very thin film of volatile chemical solid. During exposure to a free-
stream airflow, the chemical film sublimates more rapidly in areas of turbulence than
in areas of laminar flow. This difference is due to the higher local shear stress
and heat transfer within the turbulent boundary layer. The rate of sublimation is
proportional to the chemical vapor pressure - higher vapor pressures produce faster
sublimation rates (ref. 32). Chemicals well-suited for testing in subsonic flight
include naphthalene, diphenyl, acenaphthene, and fluorene (ref. 33). The relative
vapor pressure characteristics of these chemicals at atmospheric temperatures are
shown in figure 15. The figure can be used to determine the relative sublimation
rates for the various chemicals under a variety of free-stream temperatures. For a
given temperature, the various chemicals shown in the figure have different sublima-
tion rates; thus, if operating temperatures can be predicted, the figure allows
selection of faster or slower reacting chemicals. Typical sublimation times for
transition indication in flight at temperatures from 0C to 30C and free-stream
velocities less than 250 knots are from 60 to 5 minutes with acenaphthene.

A satisfactory coating application method utilizes "dry spraying" with conven-

tional compressed-air spray-paint equipment. A flat fan nozzle operated at 25 psi
produces uniform chemical coatings. A suitable solvent is 1,1,1-trichloroethane
mixed in an 8 to 1 solution by volume. The typical rate of chemical solution spray-
ing is 1 quart per 20 to 30 ft 2 of surface. This rate produces a coating thickness
of 5 to 10 m. To avoid formation of turbulent wedges from any unusually large
chemical particles which occasionally adhere to the coating, the particles can be
removed by gently brushing the surface with a soft bristle brush or cheesecloth prior
to testing. In addition, rubbing the chemical coating with a vinyl- or rubber-gloved
hand minimizes the occurrence of these particles. Prior to learning the brushing
technique, several of the experiments were conducted without brushing the chemical
coatings in the manner described. As a result, the chemical transition patterns
shown in the photographs in this report frequently contain turbulent wedges caused by
chemical roughness particles.

To protect the sublimating chemicals from diffusing prior to reaching the test
condition, the surface can be covered with paper with a rip cord running to the cock-
pit for flight testing. However, using relatively slow sublimating chemicals, it is
not necessary to "bag" the surface in this manner. Even at atmospheric temperatures

10
as high as 30C, the slower reaction for acenaphthene, for example, permits ample
time for takeoff, climb, approach, and landing without affecting the chemical pattern
developed at the test condition. Hence, the transition locations can be observed and
recorded on the ground. Applied in the manner described, the thin layer of chemical
has shown no first-order effects on transition on the variety of NACA 6-series and
modern NLF airfoils tested to date. The absence of first-order effects implies that
the chemical-coating roughness causes no forward movement of transition. This fact
was confirmed by conducting simultaneous transition determination using hot films
with and without sublimating chemicals on the T-34C glove. An additional beneficial
feature of acenaphthene for either wind-tunnel or flight testing is the durability of
the chemical pattern after the test has been run. With thick coatings, the chemical
pattern indication of transition lasted up to 48 hours after testing at temperatures
near 20C. Further details on the use of the method are in reference 31.

Acoustic detection of boundary-layer transition.- In order to provide a

redundant measure of boundary-layer transition locations, the acoustic technique
described in this section was used on the VariEze flight tests. This technique also
permitted documentation of the effect of flight through clouds on laminar flow.

The method used for the present tests employed surface total-pressure tubes
taped to the wing surface on the VariEze. Figure 16 shows the components used for
listening to the boundary layer. The surface pressure tubes were 0.060-in. o.d.
stainless steel with one end flattened to an oval shape to attain an outside thick-
ness of 0.015 in. (See fig. 17.) These pressure tubes were then connected by flexi-
ble tubing of 0.080 in. o.d. and 0.060 in. i.d. to the airplane cabin. The flexible
tubing was terminated in the cabin with an acoustic ear plug for listening. To the
human ear, the laminar boundary layer exhibits a quieter sound than the turbulent
boundary layer. Ear defenders provided necessary attenuation of background engine
noise, propeller noise, and airstream noise.

The locations of the surface pressure tubes during the test are shown in fig-
ure 17. These positions were chosen at the visually determined transition locations
and within t5-percent chord forward and aft of transition.

The acoustic transition data were manually recorded in flight. Indicated air-
speed was varied from 75 to 150 knots. Testing was conducted at a density altitude
of about 4000 ft. At each speed, the three tubes at each spanwise location were
listened to one at a time. As each tube was selected, the acoustic signal being
heard was checked for validity by means of pulling normal load factors of about 2.0
in banked turns to force transition forward of the selected tube. In this fashion,
each tube could be "calibrated" in an absolute fashion for its particular acoustic
sound response when passing between laminar and turbulent boundary-layer flow.

Other testing procedures.- For the VariEze, indicated airspeed was calibrated
for local flow-field effects (position error) by the pace-airplane technique
(ref. 34). Airspeed calibration flights were conducted for both fixed- and free-
transition tests.

A chase airplane was utilized during testing of the VariEze to measure elevator
deflections and calibrated airspeed for both fixed and free transition. This was
accomplished by installing the calibrated elevator deflection pointer and markings
shown in figure 18. The elevator deflections were recorded visually from the chase
airplane.

11
 Airplane level-flight geometric angle of attack was recorded onboard manually
using a calibrated clinometer during testing in both the VariEze and Long-EZ. During
all the flight tests, measured pressure altitude and outside air temperature were
used to calculate density altitude.

RESULTS

Table 2 is a summary of measured and predicted transition locations for various

test conditions in both the wind-tunnel and flight experiments.

Wind-Tunnel VariEze Experiments

Transition locations.- Sublimating chemical transition detection tests were

conducted at a test condition of a = 1.5, the angle of attack for cruise lift.
Boundary-layer transition is indicated in the photographs of figure 19 by the line of
demarcation formed by the chemical coating (white "frosty" area) and the darker area
where the chemical has sublimated. This line of demarcation is formed as the chemi-
cal coating sublimates rapidly in the turbulent boundary layer, exposing the wing
surface. The results indicate that transition was obtained on the canard at
(x/c) t = 55 percent and on the wing and winglet at (x/c) t = 65 percent. A limited
region of laminar flow was also indicated by the chemical pattern on the highly swept
strake.

Measured surface waviness data presented in the appendix show that the largest
wave on the wing has an indicated wave height of 0.009 in., and a wavelength of
2.0 in. The amplitude of this wave is only one-fourth of the empirically determined
allowable maximum (h = 0.036 in. for X = 2 in.) for a single wave at the test
conditions.

Effect of fixed transition on canard.- As discussed in reference 35, flight in

rain or in certain cloud types can result in loss of laminar flow. For conditions
with a large amount of laminar flow on the airfoil surfaces, it is of interest to
determine if there are significant changes in the stick-fixed or stick-free longitu-
dinal aerodynamic characteristics when there is a loss of laminar flow. The effects
of fixed transition were studied by applying a 1/8-in. narrow strip of No. 60 carbo-
rundum grit on the full span of the upper and lower surfaces at 5-percent chord of
the canard and wing or by spraying water on the canard and wing to simulate the con-
taminated conditions. Results of this study are presented in figures 20 to 23. The
effects of loss of laminar flow on lift and pitching-moment characteristics of the
configuration are shown. The data of figure 20 indicate that fixing transition on
the canard significantly decreased the airplane pitching moments as a function of
angle of attack. The reduction in the pitching-moment curve is related to the loss
of lift of the canard. An examination of the chordwise pressure distribution on the
canard with artifical transition (fig. 21) indicates that this loss in canard lift is
a result of extensive trailing-edge separation. The canard airfoil was designed for
attached boundary-layer flow; however, trailing-edge separation is induced on this
particular NLF airfoil when the boundary layer becomes turbulent from the leading
edge and does not possess sufficient energy to remain attached during pressure recov-
ery. For transition fixed with artificial roughness, the canard lift-curve slope is
reduced by about 30 percent as shown in figure 22. Data obtained from the canard
balance during the water-spray tests are shown in figure 23. Comparison of these
results indicates that the effect of water spray was similar to the effect of fix-
ing transition with artificial roughness; that is, the slope of the lift curve is

12
reduced. It should be noted that only half of the canard span was enveloped in the
water spray; therefore, the results from a fully enveloped canard would be in closer
agreement with the fixed-transition canard data shown in figure 23. These data indi-
cate that a nose-down pitch-trim change (with stick fixed) would result from flight
through rain or from artificial transition (grit) in this airplane.

Tests were also conducted to determine the effect of fixing transition on the
wing with the canard transition already fixed at 5-percent chord. However, loss of
laminar flow on the wing has less effect on the configuration pitching moment because
of the shorter moment arm from the wing to the aircraft center of gravity and because
of the movement of transition of the wing airfoil with angle of attack. That is, the
pressure distribution on this airfoil is not favorable for laminar flow above a few
degrees angle of attack.

Flight Experiments

Rutan VariEze.- The airspeed calibration data presented in figure 24 show an

insignificant effect of fixed versus free transition on position error. At constant
a, position error is dominated by bound circulation strength. Therefore, some small
effect may be expected because of the effects of fixed transition on lift-curve slope
(discussed in this section). The static pressure port for the airplane is located on
the side of the fuselage about 1 ft behind and below the trailing edge of the canard.

Transition locations are shown in figure 25 and are listed in table 2 for the
wing and winglet at V = 135 knots, a = 3, C L = 0.35, and R = 1.40 x 10 6 ft-1.
Transition on the wing (fig. 25(a)) occurred at (x/c) t = 60 percent behind the out-
board leading-edge drooped strake and at 55 percent elsewhere on the wing. Transi-
tion on the winglet occurred at (x/c) t = 55 percent (fig. 25(b)) on the canard
upper surface at (x/c) t = 55 percent, and on the strake at (x/c) t = 10 percent.
Since the canard airfoils and operating conditions for both the VariEze and Long -EZ
are identical, the illustrations of canard transition discussed in this section for
the Long-EZ apply to the VariEze as well.

Surface waviness was measured using the dial indicator shown in figure A1.
Measured surface waviness data presented in the appendix (table Al and fig. A2) show
the maximum indicated double-wave amplitude on the wing as 0.012 in. in the laminar
region. The calculated value (equation in appendix) of maximum allowable amplitude
ha for a single wave at the location of the largest wave is 0.020 in. for
A = 2 in. at the test conditions. Thus, the waviness existing on the airplane
airfoil surfaces in the laminar region has not exceeded the empirically determined
maximum allowable value.

The effects of total loss of laminar flow (fixed transition) on airplane perfor-
mance and longitudinal trim characteristics are presented in figure 26. The data
show a large increase in the trim elevator deflections required at any airspeed, a
7-knot increase in minimum trim speed (corresponding to a 20-percent decrease in
maximum trimmed lift coefficient), and a 10-knot decrease in maximum speed (corre-
sponding to a 23-percent increase in C D near cruise).. The changes in elevator trim
deflections and minimum trim speed were caused by large changes in lift-curve slope
and in maximum lift caused by leading-edge transition on the canard, wing, and
winglet. with transition fixed at the canard leading edge, flow separation was
induced near the trailing edge and affected lift, drag, moment, and elevator trim
deflections for the canard. The magnitude of these effects was determined during
wind-tunnel experiments with the isolated canard and was presented previously in

13
figures 20 to 23. The reduction in total airplane lif t-curve slope due to fixed
transition on all lifting surfaces is shown in figure 27. The reduction in canard
CL is about 30 percent and the reduction in airplane C L is about 13 percent.
a a
To analyze the stick-free pitch changes due to loss of laminar flow, wind-tunnel-
measured elevator hinge moments were compared with fixed and natural transition.
These data showed no effect of transition fixed at the leading edge on hinge moments;
thus, for the model tested, stick-free flight through rain would not produce elevator
deflections due to hinge moment changes and stick-free behavior would be similar to
stick-fixed behavior.

The effects of flight through liquid-phase clouds on laminar flow were observed
using the acoustic transition detection technique. These tests were conducted at one
calibrated airspeed, 130 knots, and one density altitude, 2000 ft. Ambient tempera-
ture at the test altitude was 68F. The surface total-pressure port was located at
x/c = 0.20 and n = 0.35. (See fig. 17.) The existence of transition aft of this
pressure port was previously determined by sublimating chemicals and by using the
maneuvering technique described in the section "Acoustic Detection of Boundary-Layer
Transition." The duration of the cloud encounters was less than 1 minute each; there
was no visible deposit of mist from the cloud on the wing or windshield. No loss of
laminar flow was detected acoustically during flight through these clouds. This
observation was reinforced by the absence of any pronounced longitudinal pitch-trim
change while in the clouds. Had the cloud particle size and concentration been suf-
ficiently large to cause a significant loss of laminar flow, a nose-down trim change,
as discussed previously, would have occurred.

Rutan Long-EZ.- Transition locations are shown in figure 28 and are listed in
table 2 for the wing, wing strake, winglet, canard, fuselage nose, and wheel fairing
at V i = 153 knots, a = 1.5, C L = 0.16, and R= 1.42 x10 6 ft-1 . As previously
noted, two Long-EZ airplanes were tested. Since the test conditions and resulting
transition locations of both airplanes were essentially identical, no distinc-
tion is made between the results. Transition on the main wing (fig. 28(a)) was
(x/c) t = 32 to 34 percent. A small region of turbulent flow about 1 ft in width
beginning at the leading edge was observed at the location just outboard of the
juncture between the outboard wing strake and the main wing where the canard tip
vortex impinged on the wing. Most of the remaining turbulent wedges seen in the
figure were caused by chemical particles which adhered to the airfoil surface in the
unbrushed chemical coating. Transition on the outboard wing strake (fig. 28(b))
was (x/c) t = 10 to 15 percent. On the inboard portion of the wing strake, the
complete sublimation of the chemical coating indicated leading-edge transition.
Winglet transition was (x/c) t = 32 to 35 percent (fig. 28(c)). The figure shows
the dark leading-edge paint stripe which physically presented a small aft-facing step
in the boundary layer. Near the winglet root, this step was well forward on the
chord. However, near the winglet tip, the step was farther aft (in percent of local
chord) and caused the transition wedges seen in figure 28(c). At the wing-winglet
juncture, the local interference effects on transition locations are highlighted by
the black lines in figure 28(d). On the suction (inboard) side of the winglet,
transition moved slightly forward nearer the wing upper surface. On the wing upper
surface, transition appears to have been caused by the vortex which forms at the
juncture of two surfaces.

Canard transition, as shown in figure 28(e), was (x/c) t = 55 percent. This

transition occurred with an elevator deflection S of 1.80.
e

14
 On the fuselage nose (fig. 28(f)), transition occurred at a longitudinal dis-
tance of about 16 in., or at a surface length of about 18 in. This extent of laminar
flow represents 11 percent of the fuselage length. The figure shows that the laminar
boundary layer survived a forward-facing step (h = 0.035 in.) at the leading edge of
the removable hatch at a surface length of 14 in. from the nose. Transition occurred
at about the same location behind the step as for the surface with no step. The
figure also shows that the aft-facing step (h = 0.035 in.) at the hatch-cover coun-
tersunk screw caused immediate transition. The existence of the 0.25-in. o.d. pitot
tube protruding about 0.50 in. from the tip of the nose had no observable effects on
the laminar boundary layer.

Transition on the wheel fairing (fig. 28(g)) occurred at (x/) t = 33 percent

on the upper surface and at (x/R) t = 52 percent on the side surface. Total length
of the wheel fairing was 2.75 ft.

The surface waviness data presented in the appendix (table Al and fig. A3) show
that the maximum indicated double-wave amplitude on the wing was 0.006 in. with
= 2 in. The calculated value of maximum allowable amplitude h a for a multiple
wave (see equation in appendix) is 0.020 in. for R = 1.42 x 10 6 ft-1 , = 2 in.,
and c = 3.0 ft. Thus, the waviness existing on the airplane airfoil surfaces has
not exceeded the empirically determined maximum allowable value.

The effects of total loss of laminar flow (fixed transition on wings, winglets,
nose, and canard) on airplane performance and longitudinal trim characteristics are
presented in figure 29. This configuration experienced an 11-knot increase in mini-
mum trim speed, corresponding to a 27-percent decrease in trimmed maximum lift coef-
ficient. Maximum speed for the airplane was reduced with fixed transition by
11 knots, corresponding to a 24-percent increase in C D in cruise. As with the
VariEze, large changes in elevator trim deflections and minimum trim speed were
caused by the significant effects of fixed transition on canard airfoil aerodynam-
ics. The reduction in total airplane lift-curve slope caused by fixed transition on
all lifting surfaces as presented in figure 30 is about 7 percent. The previously
discussed change in canard lift-curve slope was manifested in a slight reduction in
short-period damping at cruise speed.

Rutan Laser Biplane Racer.- Transition locations are shown in figure 31 and
listed in table 2 for the lower (hereinafter referred to as forward) wing and the
upper (aft) wing at V i = 165 knots, CL = 0.13, and R = 1.38 x 10 6 ft 1.
Transition on both the forward and aft wings was (x/c) t = 61 percent outside the
propeller wake. The turbulent wedges seen in the figure for both wings were caused
by chemical particles which adhered to the wing surface without brushing during
application of the coating.

On the inboard portion of the aft wing immersed in the propeller slipstream
(fig. 31(b)), the chemical pattern in the propeller wake was similar to that outside
the propeller wake showing transition at (x/c) t = 61 percent. A dissimilar feature
of the chemical patterns inside the propeller wake was a thin chemical film remaining
in the propeller wake aft of the observed transition location on the aft wing. The
existence of this thin film aft of transition in the propeller wake (and not outside
the propeller wake) could be caused by a transient loss of laminar flow due to the
impingement of the propeller vortex sheet in the boundary layer. Such a transient
loss of laminar flow could thicken the turbulent boundary layer. This thickening
decreases shear stresses sufficiently to significantly slow the sublimation process,
thereby leaving the thin chemical film observed in the turbulent pressure recovery

15
region of the airfoil. Further observations of propeller slipstreams are made subse-
quently for the Skyrocket II and T-34C airplanes.

Gates Learjet Model 28/29 Longhorn.- Transition locations are shown in figure 32
and are listed in table 2 for the wing and winglet at M = 0.7, h d = 16 500 ft,
CL = 0.12, and R = 3.08 x 10 6 ft-1 . This test altitude was chosen to provide a
static temperature conducive to rapid sublimation of the chemicals. It is not repre-
sentative of cruise conditions. The resulting Reynolds number was about 400 percent
higher than typical cruise values; in this sense, the results of these experiments
are conservative.

Transition on the wing (fig. 32(a)) was (x/c) t = 40 to 45 percent. In the

figure, several turbulent wedges are seen which terminate in the natural transition
location noted. Most of the turbulent wedges were attributed to large chemical par-
ticles which adhered to the wing surface during application.

The most rearward natural transition on the winglet (fig. 32(b)) was
(x/c) t = 55 percent. Many turbulent wedges were observed emanating from chemical
particles adhering to the surface as well as from surface irregularities at the junc-
ture between the winglet leading edge and the surface skin on the suction (inner)
side. Spanwise and chordwise rows of flush-countersunk structural screwheads initi-
ated the transition.

The largest wave measured on the wing in the laminar region was h - 0.002 in.
with T = 2.0 in. (See appendix.) For the test condition with c = 6.58 ft, the
maximum allowable single wave height, as determined by using the equation in the
appendix, is 0.008 in. for A = 2.0 in. Thus, the empirically determined maximum
allowable wave height was not exceeded by waviness existing on the wing in the lami-
nar region. On the lower span of the winglet, the measured height of an aft-facing
step near the leading edge exceeded the allowable height, and the premature transi-
tion observed on that portion of the winglet can be attributed to this step. (See
fig. 32(b).)

No spanwise contamination due to the leading-edge wing sweep A of 17 1 was

observed. The maximum value of attachment-line momentum thickness Reynolds number
R0 at the test condition was 74.

Cessna P-210 Centurion.- Transition locations are shown in figure 33 and

are listed in table 2 for the wing upper and lower surfaces and the horizontal
stabilizer for V c = 139 to 154 knots, R = 1.34 x 10 6 to 1.48 x 106 ft 1 , and
C,. = 0.36 to 0.32. Observations on the variation of the upper surface transition
locations with angle of attack are given in the following table:

Vc , knots CL R, ft-1 (x/c)t, percent

139 0.35 1.34 x 106 5

149 .28 143 x 10 6 29
154 .26 1..48 x 10 6 44

Figure 33(a) shows (x/c) t = 29 percent at Vc = 149 knots. On the lower part
of this figure, transition of (x/c) t = 44 percent at Vc = 154 knots is faintly

16
visible on the white portion of the wing adjacent to the dark painted area. The
reduced skin-surface temperatures on the white area (relative to the hotter dark
skin) reduced the chemical sublimation rate sufficiently for the successful measure-
ment of free transition in the white region. It is noteworthy that there exists
little significant difference in transition locations on the prepared (filled and
sanded) and production wing surfaces. (See fig. A4.) The stiffness of the 0.020-in-
thick skin was sufficient at the unprepared surface location tested to preclude det-
rimental waviness under flight loads. Most of the turbulent wedges seen in the fig-
ure were initiated by chemical particles adhering in the unbrushed chemical coating.

Figure 33(b) shows lower surface transition of (x/c) t = 40 percent at

Vc = 149 knots. Transition was initiated in this case by the 0.035-in. aft-facing
step at a skin joint at that location. Figure 33(c) shows the horizontal-tail free
transition location of (x/c.) t. = 27 percent. The local chord length at this measure-
ment location was c = 3.67 ft. Figure 33(d) shows the propeller-spinner transition
location of s = 12 in. The length of the propeller spinner length was 22 in. and
the rotation rate was 1900 rpm.

Measured surface waviness data presented in theappendix show the maximum indi-
cated double-wave amplitude was 0.010 in. for R = 1.48 x 10 6 ft-1 , A = 2 in., and
c = 4.83 ft. For a single wave under the same conditions, the criterion is
ha = 0.020 in. Thus, the surface waviness criteria were not exceeded on either the
prepared or production wing surface regions tested.

Beech 24R Sierra.- Transition locations are shown in figure 34 and are listed
in table 2 for the wing upper surface, propeller, and vertical stabilizer for
Vc = 133 knots, R = 1.38 x 10 6 ft-1 , and CL = 0.30. Natural transition on the wing
upper surface shown in figure 34(a) was (x/c) t = 45 percent. Over much of the area
tested, free transition was obliterated by convergence of turbulent wedges caused by
chemical particles stuck in the unbrushed chemical coating. Figure 34(b) shows sev-
eral turbulent wedges caused by insect remains aid by paint surface imperfections.
The spanwise sloping dark paint stripes had no effect on the laminar boundary layer.
Though not measured, the roughness heights of these paint stripes are less than crit-
ical. On the lower surface of the wing, free transition was (x/c) t = 42 percent.
Transition on the vertical tail (fig. 34(c)) was triggered by the aft-facing
0.0020-in. skin lap joint step about 6 to 8 in. aft of the leading edge, or about
10-percent chord.

Transition locations on the suction (forward) and pressure (aft) faces of the
propeller are shown in figures 34(d) and 34(e), respectively. Transition was
(x/c) t = 38 percent on the forward face and (x/c) t = 80 percent on the aft face.
The local chord at these measurement locations was about 6.5 in.; the radial location
was between 25 and 75 percent of the blade length. The propeller was operating at
2700 rpm or J = 0.84. At these conditions, the local blade unit Reynolds number at
50 percent of the blade radius was 2.89 x 10 6 ft-1 , and the local Mach number
was 0.46. Additional observations of laminar flow on propellers in flight are dis-
cussed in reference 31.

Bellanca Skyrocket II.- Figure 35 illustrates the transition locations on the

upper and lower wing surfaces at a unit Reynolds number of 1.88 x 10 6 ft-1 . Transi-
tion occurred at (x/c) t = 45 to 46 percent on the lower surface. Airplane trimmed
lift coefficient was 0.22 and Mach number was 0.31. At these flight conditions,
the chord Reynolds number R at the inboard wake probe station was 9.7 x 10 6 and

17
9.0 x 10 6 at the outboard station. The turbulent wedges seen in figure 35(a) were
caused by large chemical particles which adhered to the surface during application of
the coating. In figure 35(b), turbulent wedges which were caused by insects are
marked with an asterisk. The unmarked wedges were caused by artificial roughness
(1/4-in-square patch of No. 80 grit). Note the absence of any chemical particle-
induced wedges in this pattern; this resulted from mechanically loosening the parti-
cles by brushing the chemical coating prior to flight. Figure 35(c) is a summary of
the transition locations across the wing semispan. It shows the effects of twist and
propeller slipstream. Airfoil contour accuracy and surface-waviness measurements
were made at several wing stations on the Skyrocket. Deviations between the actual
and theoretical contours as large as 0.117 in. (of excess thickness near the mid-
chord) were measured. Detailed waviness data for the Skyrocket are presented in
the appendix (fig. A5 and table Al). The largest indicated wave height appeared
near the leading edge of the lower surface at the inboard wake probe station where
h = 0.015 in. This particular wave occurred at the bonded leading-edge attachment
joint. More typical wave heights on the Skyrocket wings were about h = 0.002.
Using the free-stream conditions of the flight test, and the empirical criterion of
reference 27, the allowable wave height for a single wave (% = 2 in.) on the
Skyrocket varies between 0.017 and 0.015 from the wing tip to the root. However,
since the testing was conducted at low altitudes and high speeds, the allowable
waviness at more typical cruise conditions is larger. Thus, the waviness existing on
the Skyrocket wing was less than that allowable for NLF.

From reference 31, an example of the location of measured transition relative to

the predicted chordwise pressure distribution is shown in figure 36. Predicted tran-
sition (ref. 36) using an integral boundary-layer method with the Granville transi-
tion criterion is also shown. Both measured and predicted transition locations occur
well downstream of the l-)cation of minimum pressure (pressure peak) on both upper and
lower surfaces.

Figure 37, from reference 31, presents flight-measured airfoil drag polars,
which illustrate the effects of fixed transition and comparisons with low-turbulence
wind-tunnel measurements (ref. 37) and predicted airfoil performance (ref. 36) on the
same airfoil. Excellent agreement exists between analytically predicted and flight-
measured airfoil section drag polars at lower lift coefficients. At higher values of
C , lower to upper surface air leakage was apparently responsible for increased drag
in flight. The predictions were based on template-measured Skyrocket airfoil coordi-
nates. The effect of fixed transition appears as an 80-percent increase in wing-
section profile drag for cruise lift coefficients (CY. < 0.3). Based on speed-power
measurements with natural and fixed transition, the Skyrocket gained 25 percent in
cruise range as the result of laminar flow (ref. 31). No significant effect of fixed
transition on Skyrocket lift-curve slope or on high-angle-of-attack handling qualities
was observed; the maximum lift coefficient increased only by about 4 percent with
fixed transition. (See details in ref. 31.)

During the Skyrocket tests, a 2.2-hr flight was conducted at less than 500 ft
above ground level at Vc = 178 knots to collect a sample of insect debris patterns
and to determine which insect strikes caused transition (supercritical) and which did
not (subcritical). This flight was conducted in late March after several weeks of
warm weather in the Tidewater region of Virginia between 1430 and 1630 eastern stan-
dard time. Figure 38 depicts the heights and positions of the insects collected
along the span of the right wing, and figure 35(b) shows the lower surface insect
debris contamination wedges for this flight.

18
 As illustrated in figure 38, only about 25 percent of the insects collected were
of supercritical height and caused transition. In the figure, supercritical insects
protrude out from the airfoil surface and subcritical ones protrude inward. Very
near the stagnation point, rather large insect remains were recorded which did not
cause transition. The long duration of the flight and the relatively rapid response
of the chemicals to boundary-layer turbulence - especially on the forward part of the
airfoil - make it unlikely that supercritical insect strikes occurred which did not
record a transition wedge in the chemical pattern. For the 3 0 wing washout, the
stagnation line on this leading edge varied approximately between x/c = 0 and 0.002
at the test conditions.

During the Skyrocket experiments, detailed boundary-layer measurements were

made in the propeller slipstream. Figures 35(b) and 35(c) show that transition,
as indicated by the chemical pattern, moved forward on the upper surface from
(x/c) t = 42 percent outside the slipstream to (x/c) t = 36 percent inside. On the
lower surface, transition moved forward by a similar increment. An interesting
detail was the lack of any apparent effect of the propeller tip vortices on transi-
tion where they impinged on the wing. One possible explanation for the forward
motion of chemical-indicated transition in the propeller wake is the effect of an
increased disturbance environment in the propeller slipstream. These large distur-
bances might amplify to transition earlier along the chord than the smaller distur-
bances outside the slipstream.

Time-averaged boundary-layer profiles were measured by rakes inside and

outside the propeller slipstream with both free and fixed transition on the
Skyrocket. (See fig. 39.) These measurements were made at s/c = 28.7 percent,
R = 1.715 x 10 6 ft-1 , M = 0.31, and n = 1800 rpm. Inside the slipstream, the
estimated mean unit Reynolds number was 1.778 x 10 6 ft-1 (using propeller momentum
theory).

with free transition, figure 39 shows the thin laminar boundary layer outside
the propeller slipstream where S - 0.06 in. Inside the slipstream, the profile has
thickened to S - 0.24 in., and the profile has changed, appearing more turbulent in
shape. The inside rake was positioned in the slipstream at a chordwise position
which was laminar as shown by sublimating chemical patterns. Thus, this thickened
profile was not a turbulent one in the normal sense. To verify the shape and thick-
ness of an actual turbulent profile at this position, transition was fixed in front
of the rakes inside and outside the propeller slipstream. The resulting turbulent
profiles are seen in figure 39 as the solid symbols. It is apparent that the effect
of the propeller slipstream on time-averaged boundary-layer profile measurements is
to create a shape which is turbulent in appearance and which is increased in thick-
ness to near the actual turbulent boundary-layer thickness (5 = 0.28 in. for the
solid symbols in the high-speed case).

Beech T-34C gloves.- Since the Skyrocket boundary-layer measurements in the

propeller slipstream discussed in the preceding section were time averaged, and since
the phenomena in the propeller slipstream environment are time dependent and of high
frequency, experiments were conducted using hot films on the T-34C to gain a better
understanding of the laminar boundary-layer behavior in this environment. The
results of this experiment are illustrated in figure 40. The hot-film signals shown
are oscilloscope traces of the voltage fluctuations which occur due to local velocity
fluctuations (and therefore heat-transfer fluctuations) in the boundary layer.

A cyclic behavior, at the propeller blade-passing frequency, is seen in the

laminar boundary layer. The sensor on the miniglove at the leading edge records an

19
apparent small velocity rise at the propeller blade-passing frequency. When this
disturbance reaches the second, third, and fourth sensors, it has progressively grown
in amplitude and in duration. The sensors on the NLF glove outside the propeller
slipstream show the relative magnitudes of laminar and turbulent signals. Although
the data presented are for a relatively low propeller rpm, the same general behavior
of the boundary layer was observed at conditions of 2000 rpm.

The hot-film signals were observed using an onboard oscilloscope. During flight
inside clouds for which no deposit of mist on the windscreen or laminar glove
occurred, the boundary layer remained laminar to near the 40-percent-chord station
(the same transition location as for flight in clear air). When mist accumulated on
the canopy windscreen and on the glove leading edge in clouds, the hot films indi-
cated turbulent boundary-layer conditions at all chordwise stations from the leading
edge to the 40-percent-chord hot-film locations. Upon exiting the cloud, the bound-
ary layer very quickly reverted to the laminar state.

DISCUSSION

When viewed as a whole, the results of these flight and wind-tunnel experiments
on modern production-quality airframes provide a new appreciation for the achievabil-
ity and maintainability of NLF for chord Reynolds numbers up to about 30 X 106 and
speeds up to about M = 0.7. The discussion which follows summarizes these experi-
mental results and their implications.

Transition Locations

In studying the transition locations, it was of interest to determine the influ-

ence of background disturbances including such things as engine/propeller noise,
airframe vibration, and surface roughness and waviness. Any first-order effects (or
bypasses) of such disturbances become apparent by comparing the measured transition
location with the location of minimum pressure on the airfoil. For the Reynolds
numbers of the present tests, transition forward of minimum pressure provides evi-
dence of the existence of disturbances other than normal amplification of T-S waves.
Two-dimensional empirical predictions of boundary-layer transition locations were
made using the method of reference 36, 38, or 39 for comparison with measured tran-
sition locations from the wind-tunnel and flight experiments. These empirical meth-
ods use integral boundary-layer parameters and shape factors to predict transition.
Because the flight experiments did not provide a direct measure of local angle of
attack at the locations where transition observations were made, the angle of attack
used for the transition predictions was estimated using the flight value of airplane
trimmed lift coefficient. For the moderate-aspect-ratio wings tested, this procedure
produces meaningful comparisons of predicted and measured transition locations.

In the present experiments, where analysis of pressure distributions was possi-

ble, all the transition locations occurred downstream of the point of minimum pres-
sure (e.g., fig. 36). This observation is consistent with other similar comparative
analyses reported in the literature (e.g., refs. 3, 4, 7 to 12, 14 to 20, 22,
and 23). The comparisons for the present experiments of measured and predicted tran-
sition are summarized in table 2. Generally, for the surfaces with little sweep
where three-dimensional effects should be minimal, measured transition occurred down-
stream of the transition location predicted using two-dimensional analysis (refs. 36,
38, and 39). Typically, the measured transition locations reported in table 2 for
these surfaces occurred downstream of the point of minimum pressure; in fact, for the

20
Skyrocket, transition occurred at the predicted location of laminar separation in the
adverse pressure gradient. The implication of this comparison is that in flight at
higher Reynolds numbers than previously thought, the transition process is not domi-
nated by background disturbances such as acoustic, surface, or turbulent free-stream
disturbances in the boundary layer. Rather, transition appears to be dominated by
amplification of two-dimensional T-S instabilities in the adverse pressure gradient
or by instabilities in the free-shear layer (laminar separation). Transition of this
type occurred on the Gates Learjet Model 28/29 wing, where flight-measured transition
occurred at 40-percent chord at a chord Reynolds number (near the wing root) of about
30 x 10 6 . The predicted point of minimum pressure was at 35-percent chord. This
extent of laminar flow occurred in spite of the proximity of the turbojet engine
inlet to the wing upper surfaces.. This indicates a lack of influence of the engine
inlet noise on the laminar boundary layer, which is perhaps aided by some noise
attenuation by an upper surface shock at about 70-percent chord under the test condi-
tions flown. These data suggest that since laminar boundary layers in the flight
environment possess sufficient stability as the result of favorable pressure gradi-
ents, transition can be expected downstream of the point of minimum pressure, even at
relatively large chord Reynolds numbers in two-dimensional flows.

Effects of Precipitation and Cloud Particles

Under certain conditions, the operation of a laminar-flow wing can be affected

by either precipitation onto the laminar-flow surface or by the flux of free-stream
cloud particles through the laminar boundary layer. Precipitation can cause loss of
laminar flow by creating three-dimensional roughness elements on the airfoil surface
which, in sufficient quantity and size, act as a boundary-layer trip near the leading
edge. Cloud particles can cause loss of laminar flow by the shedding of turbulent
wakes from the particles as they traverse the laminar boundary layer. At sufficient
flux (particles per unit area per unit time) and sufficient particle Reynolds number,
partial or total loss of laminar flow can occur. The present experiments provide
limited data on the effects of precipitation and cloud particles on NLF.

The VariEze wind-tunnel tests demonstrated that rain impinging on the canard
surfaces caused a loss of laminar flow. Comparison of the aerodynamic characteris-
tics of the canard in a heavy water spray and with transition fixed by artificial
roughness (fig. 23) shows that the effect of water drops on the airfoil is to move
transition to near the leading edge.

Results of early flight experiments on the Hawcon (ref. 13) showed that when a
mist deposit occurred on the laminar-flow surface during flight through clouds, the
boundary layer became turbulent. During the Hawcon flights (see table 1), wake-rake
drag measurements were made with a mist deposit from flight through clouds on the
wing. The Hawcon measurements showed a 42-percent increase in section drag due to
the mist deposit on the wing (at 6.5 < R < 8.5 x 10 6 ). It is possible that the
mist deposit creates a supercritical roughness. These results suggest the mechanism
for loss of laminar flow during flight through clouds at low altitudes (above freez-
ing temperatures), where a mist deposit on the wing occurs.

The VariEze flight experiments demonstrated the effects of flight through

liquid-phase clouds on laminar flow when no mist deposit occurs on the wing. Previ-
ous research on the effects of cloud particles on NLF (refs. 40 to 42) has dealt
principally with ice crystals occurring at high altitudes (in the stratosphere). In
the X-21 flight experiments (ref. 40) laminar flow was lost as a result of flight
through ice-crystal clouds. In the present flight experiments, when no mist deposit

21
occurred on the laminar surface, the laminar boundary layer was unaffected by the
cloud particles in the free stream. Using Hall's criterion (refs. 40 and 41) for a
critical spherical particle Reynolds number of 400 (based on a particle diameter),
the calculated critical particle size for the VariEze flight condition is 88 m.
Since liquid-phase cloud particles in the free stream are considerably smaller than
this, no loss of laminar flow would be expected at the VariEze flight condition.
However, if the average cloud particle size had been 20 m, an airspeed of 587 knots
would have been required (at the VariEze test altitude and temperature) to cause a
loss of laminar flow. These results illustrate an insensitivity of the laminar
boundary layer to flight through clouds at low altitudes where the particles do not
deposit on the surface.

Effects of Fixed Transition

For several of the airplanes tested, transition was fixed near the leading edge
to determine the effects of a complete loss of laminar flow on aerodynamic perfor-
mance. These airplanes included the VariEze (wind tunnel and flight), the Long-EZ,
and the Skyrocket II. As discussed in the preceding section, a loss of laminar flow
could occur due to atmospheric effects. Additionally, insect debris, leading-edge
erosion, or ice accretion could produce losses in laminar flow. Whatever the cause,
the changes in performance and handling qualities with and without laminar flow are
important to understand.

Increases of 25 percent in the cruise drag due to fixed transition were measured
on the VariEze, Long-EZ, and Skyrocket II airplanes. (See figs. 26 and 29.) These
large drag changes result from the relatively large proportion of the airplane wetted
area which had been laminar and then became either turbulent or separated. Airplanes
with less lifting surface relative to total wetted area, or with larger values of
profile drag, experience smaller benefits due to NLF.

These three airplanes also provided data on the effect of fixed transition on
airplane lift-curve slope. For both the VariEze and Long-EZ airplanes, where fixed
transition induced significant flow separation on the canard, airplane total lift-
curve slope was reduced from 7 to 13 percent (see figs. 27 and 30). This canard flow
separation produced a nose-down longitudinal pitch-trim change (stick fixed). This
result, first observed in the wind-tunnel experiments on the VariEze, was also repro-
duced in flight on the VariEze and Long-EZ using artificial roughness to trip the
boundary layer near the leading edge. Although this effect of fixed transition was
observed on the two canard configurations tested, the effect is predominantly
airfoil-related rather than configuration-related. That is, the canard airfoil
(which was the same for both airplanes) was designed in such a fashion that the
boundary layer separated if no laminar flow existed from the leading edge. This
design feature is not typical of NLF airfoils. Canard airfoils can be designed with
no separation under turbulent boundary-layer conditions such that pitch-down during
flight through rain should not occur. On canard configurations with highly loaded
trimming surfaces (i.e., the canard), NLF airfoils should be selected which do not
experience flow separation and lift loss upon loss of laminar flow. For the
Skyrocket II, fixed transition on wing and tail surfaces induced no separation and
had no measurable effect on lift-curve slope (ref. 31).

Both the VariEze and Long-EZ experienced large reductions in maximum trimmed
lift coefficient due to fixed transition; the reductions range from 20 to 27 percent
(see figs. 27 and 30). As with lift-curve slope, these large changes are attribut-
able to the significant flow separation induced by fixed transition on the particular

22
canard airfoil incorporated on those two airplanes. On the Skyrocket, where fixed
transition does not induce significant flow separation, no reduction in maximum lift
coefficient occurred. In fact, as discussed in reference 31, maximum lift coeffi-
cient actually increased as the result of fixed transition.

The significant changes which occur in performance or handling qualities as the

result of loss of laminar flow indicate the importance of fixed-transition flight
tests as a standard procedure for any airplane with surfaces smooth enough to support
NLF.

Propeller Slipstream Effects

Past observations of the effect of the propeller slipstream on boundary-layer

transition (refs. 5, 6, 16, 17, and 43 to 45) produced varying conclusions. The
research reported by Young (refs. 5 and 6) and Hood (ref. 44) indicates that the
effect of the slipstream was to effectively move transition to the wing leading edge
behind the propeller. In the case of Young's flight experiments, boundary-layer
thickness, measured by a total-pressure survey probe, was used to judge transition
location. Where the measured boundary-layer thickness exceeded the calculated lami-
nar thickness, transition was assumed to have occurred. Young thus reported transi-
tion near the leading edge on two different airplanes. Hood, using similar methods,
reported similar results in wind-tunnel tests for a propeller mounted at a
20-percent-chord position in front of the wing leading edge. Concerns about the
validity of these conclusions are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Experiments reported by Zalovcik (refs. 16 and 17) and Wenzinger (ref. 45) gave
evidence that the effect of the propeller slipstream might not be as detrimental as
indicated by Young and Hood. Wenzinger's tunnel experiments showed moderate effects
of propeller slipstream on the wake-probe-measured section drag for an NACA 66-series
NLF airfoil. Zalovcik reported extensive laminar flow in the propeller slipstream
during his flight experiments on the P-47 and P-51 airplanes. These latter flight
experiments were the first to rely on detailed boundary-layer rake measurements to
determine transition locations as indicated by large profile changes at transition.

Three of the present flight experiments (the Skyrocket, the Biplane Racer, and
the T-34C) included observations and measurements of the laminar boundary layer in
the slipstream on the configurations illustrated in figures 7, 14, and 40. On the
Rutan Biplane Racer, the chemical pattern on the inboard portion of the aft wing
immersed in the propeller slipstream showed little if any apparent effect of the
slipstream (see fig. 31(b)). During the Skyrocket experiment, measurements (see
figs. 35(b) and 35(c)) showed that transition as indicated by the chemical pattern
moved slightly forward inside the slipstream. The flight experiments conducted using
surface hot films in a laminar boundary layer in the propeller slipstream on the
T-34C airplane (fig. 40) illustrate the cyclic nature of time-dependent laminar
boundary-layer behavior in propeller slipstreams. Such cyclic laminar behavior
raises the question of the possibility of laminar-flow drag-reduction benefits on
surfaces immersed in propeller slipstreams (i.e., wings, nacelles, and empennages).
Analysis of the Wenzinger data (ref. 45) presented in reference 31 indicates that the
drag increase of laminar airfoils in propeller slipstreams is significantly less than
that due to total loss of laminar flow.

These recent observations suggest that previous conclusions about the loss of
laminar flow in propeller slipstreams may be incorrect, since some of the early
experiments mistakenly depended on time-average-measured boundary-layer thickness or

23
shape as an indication of transition. The implication of the present observations is
that the section drag increase associated with the transition changes in propeller
slipstreams may not be as large as that for fixed leading-edge transition. Thus, NLF
airfoils may provide drag reduction benefits, even on multiengine configurations with
wing-mounted tractor engines.

Waviness

No premature transition was observed in any of the experiments which could be

attributed to surface waviness even though the surfaces tested were not perfectly
smooth and wave free. These results occurred on surfaces which received no special
contour preparation; the surfaces tested represented modern production-quality
smoothness achieved in either metal or composites.

As a historical comparison, the waviness from the 1950 King Cobra test (ref. 21)
and the waviness from the Skyrocket tests are shown in figure 41. This waviness for
the King Cobra produced the minimum level of profile drag measured in those flight
experiments at Rc = 17 X 10 6 . A qualitative comparison of the waviness measurements
confirms the fact that the modern composite surface on the Skyrocket with no special
contour preparation provides a lower level of waviness than the King Cobra metal
surface, which required extensive filling and sanding to achieve the waviness shown.
This comparison illustrates the achievability, with modern fabrication methods, of
surface waviness compatible with laminar flow at medium to relatively high Reynolds
numbers. Conversely, the results illustrate the point that some significant amount
of surface waviness is acceptable on laminar-flow surfaces in favorable pressure
gradients of moderate strength.

Sweep Effects

The two significant wing-geometry-related phenomena which can adversely affect

laminar boundary layers on swept surfaces are crossflow instability and turbulent
contamination of the leading-edge attachment line flow (or leading-edge contamina-
tion). Since no obvious crossflow instability was observed on the swept wings and
winglets in these flight experiments, this discussion centers on leading-edge contam-
ination. Crossflow instability can be recognized by the existence of closely spaced
streamwise streaks preceding transition in the sublimating chemical coating.

A comparison betweeen the flight data and the spanwise contamination criterion
is presented in figure 42 for the VariEze and the Long-EZ. The spanwise contamina-
tion criterion is summarized in reference 46 as

sin A rle
R8 = 0.404 cos A R 1 + (t/c) (1)

where no spanwise contamination occurs for R 8 < 100. For various roughness condi-
tions, there may be no spanwise contamination for Re < 240. For Re > 240, turbu-
lent contamination from any source freely propagates spanwise along the attachment
line. On the swept VariEze (A = 27) and the Long-EZ (A = 23 1 ) wings, the data in
figure 42 show that Re did not exceed 100. The same was true for the winglets on
both airplanes; Re at the root was 51 for the VariEze and 36 for the Long-EZ. On

24
the swept strakes of both the VariEze (A = 61 0 ) and the Long-EZ (A = 51 0 ), R0
exceeded 100. However, small regions of laminar flow were still observed near the
leading edges of both strakes. Relaminarization by rapid flow acceleration might
have been responsible for the short laminar runs observed on the strakes. Calcula-
tions, by the method of reference 46, of conditions necessary for relaminarization to
occur show that the necessary flow acceleration may have been present on the upper
surface of the VariEze and Long-EZ strakes within about 1-percent chord of the lead-
ing edge. On the Long-EZ, on the very short inboard strake (A = 64 0 ) where
Re # 240, no laminar flow was recorded by the chemical pattern. At the leading-edge
break between A = 64 1 and A = 51 1 , the leading-edge contamination from the 640
swept region did not propagate onto the 51 0 swept region in spite of the fact that
R8 varied from 127 to 148 for this region. (See fig. 42(b).)

On the Learjet wing (A = 17), R did not exceed 100 in spite of the extremely
high unit Reynolds number during the test. On the Learjet winglet, where Re varied
from 151 at the root to 75 at the tip during the tests, it could not be ascertained
whether spanwise contamination was present on the portions of the winglet which were
turbulent. This uncertainty was caused by excessive roughness in the form of screw
heads and a step which caused transition in some regions of the leading edge.

Even if spanwise contamination were present at the test condition where

R = 3.08 x 10 6 ft-1 , at typical cruise (R = 0.87 x 10 6 ft-1 ), the values of RQ
would drop to 80 at the winglet root and 40 at the tip, thus ensuring no spanwise
contamination. In fact, at the aforementioned Learjet cruise unit Reynolds number on
a surface swept 40 0 , the leading-edge radius could be as large as 1.5 in. and still
keep R8 < 100 for no spanwise contamination.

This observation implies that, in general, on certain relatively large lifting

surfaces, spanwise contamination at high-altitude cruise may not be a serious con-
cern. As an example, on the Gulfstream Aerospace GIII airplane (chosen for its large
size in the business jet class), at an altitude of 45 000 ft and at M = 0.85,
R varies from 80 at the wing root to 68 at the tip, precluding spanwise contamina-
tion. As a final example of operations below the spanwise contamination criterion,
Re for the DC-10 winglet (ref. 47) varies from 64 at the root to 40 at the tip for
M = 0.82, at a cruise altitude of 35 000 ft, and at a cruise unit Reynolds number of
about 1.9 x 10 6 ft 1 . Based on these observations, it appears that for certain
important potential applications, spanwise contamination need not be a concern for
relatively large lifting surfaces.

Insect Debris Contamination

The effect of contamination on NLF wings by insect debris is an important con-

sideration in NLF airfoil design as well as in the operation of airplanes with
laminar-flow wings. These considerations, as well as insect population characteris-
tics, are discussed in some detail in the literature (refs. 48 to 54). In practice,
the seriousness of insect debris contamination will likely be dependent on airplane
characteristics and mission. .If needed, active methods of insect protection such as
porous, fluid-exuding leading edges may serve the purposes of both insect and ice
protection. The ice-protection performance features of such systems are discussed in
reference 55, and the ability of wetted leading edges to protect against insect
debris contamination is discussed in references 56 and 57.

For a representative insect debris contamination pattern accumulated in flight

on the Bellanca Skyrocket, only 25 percent of the insects caused transition at sea

25
level. Analysis shows that at a more typical cruise altitude of 25 000 ft and with a
thicker boundary layer, caused by a lower unit Reynolds number, only about 9 percent
of the insects would have caused transition (fig. 35(b)). Thus, even though large
numbers of insects might be collected on a wing leading edge, relatively few of them
can be expected to cause transition at high cruise altitudes.

The sample insect contamination data presented here serve to illustrate a cer-
tain inherent level of insensitivity of this particular combination of airfoil geome-
try and operating conditions to insect contamination. Examples of varying sensitiv-
ity of different airfoil geometries to insect contamination effects are presented in
reference 54. It is important to recognize that although sufficient insect contami-
nation can seriously degrade airplane performance, the occurrence of serious contami-
nation levels is infrequent for many combinations of place, time of day, time of
year, airfoil geometry, and mission profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Flight and wind-tunnel natural laminar flow (NLF) experiments have been con-
ducted on various lifting and nonlifting surfaces of several airplanes at chord
Reynolds numbers representative of business and commuter transport airplanes. The
airplanes tested were constructed using either composite or aluminum structures. The
surfaces tested were selected to provide relatively stiff skin conditions, free from
significant roughness and waviness, and were representative of typical smooth, modern
production airframes. The following conclusions relate to the most significant find-
ings of the investigation.

1. Taken as a whole, the results of these investigations suggest that signifi-

cant regions of NLF exist and that this boundary-layer behavior is more persistent
and durable on certain practical production airplane surfaces than previously
expected. Where comparisons could be made, the transition locations observed
occurred downstream of the calculated minimum pressure locations for the design con-
tours of the surface shapes tested. Thus, evidence is provided that flight environ-
ment disturbances to the laminar boundary layer are sufficiently small that typical
favorable pressure gradients provide enough stability for this to occur even at rela-
tively large chord Reynolds numbers in two-dimensional flows.

2. Significant effects on performance and stability and control resulting from

total loss of laminar flow were measured in flight using artificial roughness to
trigger transition. Measurements were made of increases in cruise drag as large as
24 percent, decreases in maximum trimmed lift coefficient as large as 27 percent, and
decreases in airplane lift-curve slope as large as 13 percent. These observations
indicate the importance of fixed-transition tests as a standard flight-test procedure
for any airplane with smooth aerodynamic surfaces. Heavy water spray to simulate
rain causes the same airfoil aerodynamic changes as fixing the transition near the
leading edge.

3. No discernible effects on transition due to surface waviness were observed on

any of the surfaces tested. Measured surface wave amplitudes were generally smaller
than the allowable maximum wave heights determined by an empirical criterion.

4. In all cases tested, the agreement between the empirical spanwise contamina-
tion criteria and the observed laminar-flow results was consistent with previous
research.

26
 5. The effect of flight through clouds on transition was observed for flight
through low-altitude, liquid-phase clouds. With no mist deposit occurring on the
windscreen (or wing), laminar flow is unaffected for subsonic flight at low
altitudes.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Hampton, VA 23665
May 3, 1984

27
 APPENDIX

SURFACE WAVINESS ON RESEARCH MODELS

The accurate measurement of airfoil surface waviness is important for both lami-
nar boundary-layer research and production of laminar-flow wings. The physical pres-
ence of waves on a laminar airfoil surface can create macroscopic changes in the
local pressure gradient which can in turn trigger transition to turbulence. The
critical amplitudes and wavelengths which can trigger transition have been empiri-
cally related to Reynolds number for a single wave in reference 27 by the equation

A 1/2
h _ 59 000c cost
A 1.5
AR
c

where h is the double-amplitude wave height in inches, A is the wavelength in

inches, c is the wing chord in inches, and A is the wing leading-edge sweep. For
multiple waves, h/X is one-third the value of a single wave.

The dial indicator (fig. Al) used for measuring surface waviness during this
investigation is mounted on a solid base with three fixed legs. A single leg is
spaced 2 in. from the paired legs, which are 0.6 in. apart for stability. The dial
indicator leg is placed at the center. This method was selected simply to permit
comparison of modern waviness data with data from early natural laminar flow (NLF)
research, for which this waviness gauge design was originally used.

The procedure for making waviness measurements using a dial indicator is as

follows. For convenience in reference marking, transparent tape was placed chordwise
over the line on which waviness was to be measured. Beginning at the chord leading
edge, 1/4-in. intervals were marked on the tape, and gauge deflections were recorded
at each interval. The gauge reading was then plotted versus the distance around the
surface from the leading edge. A nine-point running average (for 1/4-in. intervals)
was plotted over the raw data, because the actual airfoil surface curvature was not
accurately known. The difference between the two plots is representative of the
actual waviness. Nine points were chosen for the calculations to provide artificial
smoothing over the 2-in. length of the dial indicator base.

There are several shortcomings which arise with this type of measurement device
and procedure used to calculate waviness. Foremost is the fact that the waviness
measured is without flight loads on the surface. With certain structures (e.g.,
those with lightly stressed thin metal wing skins), waviness in addition to that mea-
sured on the ground probably exists under flight loads. Additionally, difficulty
arises from the fact that the center leg is deflected successively as each of the
base legs passes through a wave. This deflection yields a distorted wave with more
cycles and with both larger and smaller amplitudes than the surface being measured.
The dial resolution is one-half of 1 x 10 - in., and the 1/4-in. intervals on the
wing were accurate to within 1/32 in. Swept or tapered wings can also affect inter-
pretation or meaning of the gauge readings. If the gauge is skewed slightly from the
chord line being measured, the legs will rest at a different level and will produce
an added deflection. During the measurements on the airplanes discussed herein, this
source of error was minimized by care in streamwise alignment of the dial indicator

28
 APPENDIX

base. Because of these shortcomings in the dial indicator method of waviness mea-
surement, the data are defined as "indicated" waviness.

The indicated waviness data measured on the airplanes tested are presented in
figures A2 through A7. Table Al is a summary of the waviness data in terms of the
number of waves at each location and the chordwise position, double amplitude, and
wavelengths of the largest wave in the laminar region and over the total chord at
each spanwise measurement location. Only waves that were 2 in. or shorter were
counted; most waves fell in this category. waves which occurred in the turbulent
region of the chord were included in the table as an indication of overall surface
quality. The maximum allowable multiple wave heights are also given in table Al. A
comparison between the maximum measured and maximum allowable wave heights shows that
the waves existing in the laminar region of all but one of the test airplanes were
smaller than allowable for premature transition.

29
 APPENDIX

TABLE A1.- SUMMARY OF INDICATED WAVINESS MEASURED ON TEST AIRPLANES

Largest wave measured Largest wave measured

in laminar region h a /%
Airplane Surface
Position, Position ' = 2 in.)
^, in. h/^ ^, in. h/^
s/c s/c
VariEze in Right wing 0.25 0.736 2.0 0.0035 0.194 3. 0 .
00030 0.0100
flight .40 .309 2.0 .0060 .309 2.0 .0060 .0100
.55 .578 2.0 .0030 .316 3.0 .0020 .0105
.85 .704 2.0 .0075 .477 4.0 .0015 .0115
.95 .535 2.0 .0030 .347 2.0 .0020 .0120

Right winglet 0.55 0.678 2.0 0.0070 0.465 3.5 0.0017 0.0125
Long-Ez Right wing 0.55 0.189 2.0 0.0030 .189 2.0 0.0030 0.0100
.85 .208 2.0 .0020 .208 2.0 .0020 .0110
Right winglet 0.55 0.270 3.0 0.0020 0.270 3.0 0.0020 0.0115
Right canard 0.45 0.356 1.75 0.0046 0.356 1.75 0.0046 0.0135
VariEze in Right wing 0.25 0.333 2.0 0.0045 0.333 2.0 0.0045 0.0180
tunnel .55 .433 2.5 .0024 .433 2.5 .0024 .0193
.75 .511 2.0 .0030 .511 2.0 .0030 .0205
Right winglet 0.25 0.223 2.0 0.0045 0.223 2.0 0.0045 0.0215
.80 .533 3.25 .0018 .533 3.25 .0018 .0248
Cessna P-210 U.S. - production 0.228 3.5 0.0020 0.228 3.5 0.0020 0.0100
U.S. - filled and sanded .095 2.0 .0050 .095 2.0 .0050 .0100
L.S. - filled and sanded .125 3.5 .0011 .125 3.5 .0011 .0100
Bellanca Inboard wake probe Upper 0.312 2.0 0.0015 0.312 2.0 0.0015 .
00078
Skyrocket II Lower .065 2.0 .0075 .065 2.0 .0075 .0078
Outboard wake probe Upper 0.065 2.0 0.0045 0.065 2.0 0.0045 0.0079
Lower .065 2.0 .0070 .065 2.0 .0070 .0079
Gates Learjet Right wing 0.48 0.430 2.0 0.0020 0.10 2.0 0.0010 0.0040
Model 28/29 .72 .450 3.0 .0030 .0041
Longhorn
Right winglet 0.10 0.17 2.0 0.0135 0.17 2.0 0.0135 0.0050
.63 .69 2.0 .0010 .0070

30
 APPENDIX

L-81-9530
Figure Al.- Airfoil surface waviness gauge with 2-in. base

31
 APPENDIX

30 x 10-3

n = 0.25
c = 36.0 in.
20

10

0
30
i
71 = 0.40

I I I c = 31.6 in.
20 Data

Relative gauge ------ Nine-point avg

reading, in.

10

0
30

q = 0.55

c = 27.7 in
20

10

01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I

0 2 4 6 8 W 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Upper surface of right wing.

Figure A2.- Indicated waviness data on flight-test airfoil surface of

VariEze airplane.

32
 APPENDIX

30 X 10-3

n = 0.75

c = 22.5 in.
20

10

0
30

-n = 0.85

c = 19.9 in.
20

Relative gauge
Data
reading, in.

!0 ----- Nine-point avg .

0
30
Ti = 0.95

c = 17.3 in.

20

10

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0 2 4 6 8 W 12 14 16 W 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Concluded.

Figure A2.- Continued.

33
 APPENDIX

60 x 10 - .

11 = 0.25
50

c = 16.8 in.
40

30

20

10

0
60

q = 0.55
50

c = 12.9 in.
40
Relative gauge
Data
reading, in. 30
----- Nine-point avg
20

10

0
60

p = 0.80
50
c = 9.6 in.
40

30

20

10

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(b) Upper surface of right winglet.

Figure A2. Continued.

34
 APPENDIX

_q
50 x 10
r^=0.45

40
c = 13.0 in

30

20

10

0
50
T) = 0.65
Data
40
c = 13.0 in.
------ Nine-point
avg
30
Relative gauge

reading, in. 20

10

0
50
rj = 0.85

40 c = 13.0 in.

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(c) Upper surface of right canard.

Figure A2.- Concluded.

35
 APPENDIX

V M-3
100

90 n = 0.40
80
c = 41.1 in.
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
100

90 n = 0.55
80
c = 35.8 in.
70
Data
6o
Relative gauge ------ Nine-point avg
reading, in. 50
40

30

20

i0

0
100

90 n = 0.75

80
c = 28.8 in.-
70
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 .10 12 14 i6 i8 20

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Upper surface of right wing.

Figure A3.- Indicated waviness data on airfoil surface of Long-EZ airplane.

36
 APPENDIX

10o x 10-3
so rj = 0.85
80
c = 25.3 in.
70
60 Data

50 ----- Nine-point avg

40
30
20

Relative gauge 10
0
reading, in. 100

90 n = 0.95
80
c = 21.8 in
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 i8 20
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Concluded.

Figure A3.- Continued.

37
 APPENDIX

eo" in-3

70 Ti = 0.25

60 c = 23.5 in.

50 Data
----- Nine-point avg
40

30

20

10

0
80
Relative gauge 70 n = 0.55
reading, in.
80 c = 18.5 in.:1

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 8 8 10
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(b) Upper surface of right winglet.

Figure A3.- Continued.

38
 APPENDIX

sox in-3
70 n = 0.45

60 c = 13.0 in.

50

40

30

20
Data
10

Relative gauge
reading, in.
0 ----- Nine-point avg

70 n = 0.55

60 c = 13.0 in.

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(c) Upper surface of right canard.

Figure A3.- Concluded.

39


APPENDIX

70 x 10-3

60 c = 58.0 in.1

50

40
U.S. - production

30 quality

20

10

0
70

60 c = 58.0 in. :

50
Data

Relative gauge 40 ----- Nine-point avg U.S. - filled and
reading, in. 30 sanded

20

10

0
70

60 c = 58.0 in.

50

40 L.S. - filled and
sanded
30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

Figure A4.- Indicated waviness data on airfoil surface of Cessna P-210 airplane.

40
 APPENDIX

x in-3
50
Upper surface
40
Measured
Calculated mean
30

20

10
Relative
gauge
reading, 0
in.
50
Lower surface
40

30

20

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 . 28 30 32 34 36 38
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Inboard wake-probe station.

50

Upper surface
40
Measured
Calculated mean
30

20

10

Relative 0
gauge
reading, 50
in.
Lower surface
40

30

20

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 .26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(b) Outboard wake-probe station.

Figure A5.- Indicated waviness data on airfoil surface of Bellanca Skyrocket II

airplane.

41
 APPENDIX

-3
90 S
1V

8o n = 0.25
70
c = 36.0 in.
6o

50

40

30

20

10

0
90

80 rj = 0.40
70
=4c = 31.6 in.
60 Data

Relative gauge 50 ----- Nine-point avg Ej

reading, in. 40
30

20

10

0
90

80 -n=0.55

70
c = 27.7 in.
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 W 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Upper surface of right wing.

Figure A6- Indicated waviness data on wind-tunnel airfoil surface of

VariEze airplane

42
 APPENDIX

90 x 10-3

so Ti = 0.75
70 c = 22.5 in.
60

50

40

30

20

10 Data

Relative gauge 0
I I I
IS ----- Nine-point avg

reading, in. 90
80 n = 0.85
70
c = 19.9 in
6o

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Concluded.

Figure A6.- Continued.

43


APPENDIX

60 x 10-3

T1=0.25
50 -

c = 16.8 in.-
40

30

20

10

0
60

'n=0.55
50

c = 12.9 in.
40
Data
Relative gauge 30
reading, in. ---- Nine-point avg
20

10

0
60

r^ = 0.80
50

c = 9.6 in.
40

30

20

10

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(b) Upper surface of right winglet.

Figure A6.- Continued.

44
 APPENDIX

70 x 10-3
-n= 0.45 =
60
c = 13.0 in.=
50

40

30

20

10

0
70

60 n = 0.65
Data
----- Nine-point avg c = 13.0 in.
50
Relative gauge
40
reading, in.

30

20

10

0
70
n = 0.85
60
c = 13.0 in.=
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(c) Upper surface of right canard.

Figure A6. Concluded.

45
 APPENDIX

70 x 10-3

so -n = 0.72

50 = 63.3 in.

40

30

20

10

01111 g
Relative gauge On
reading, in. s0

80
70
s0
50
40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46

Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(a) Upper surface of right wing.

Figure A7.- Indicated waviness data on airfoil surface of Gates Learjet

Model 28/29 airplane.

46
 APPENDIX

60 x 10-3

n = 0.63
50
c = 16.8 in.
40

30

20

10

0
70

60 Data n = 0.10
Relative gauge
reading, in. 50 ----- Nine-point avg c = 26.5 in.

40

30

20

10

0

0 2 4 6 8 !0 12 14 16 18 20
Distance along surface from L.E., in.

(b) Upper surface of right winglet.

Figure A7.- Concluded.

47
 REFERENCES

1. Loftin, Laurence K., Jr.: Subsonic Aircraft: Evolution and the Matching of Size
to Performance. NASA RP-1060, 1980.

2. Stuper, J.: Investigation of Boundary Layers on an Airplane Wing in Free Flight.

NACA TM 751, 1934.

3. Jones, Melvill: Flight Experiments on the Boundary Layer. J. Aeronaut. Sci.,

vol. 5, no. 3, Jan. 1938, pp. 81-94.

4. Stephens, A. V.; and Haslam, J. A. G.: Flight Experiments on Boundary Layer

Transition in Relation to Profile Drag. R. & M. No. 1800, British A.R.C.,
1938.

5. Young, A. D.; and Morris, D. E.: Note on Flight Tests on the Effect of Slip-
stream on Boundary Layer Flow. R. & M. No. 1957, British A.R.C., 1939.

6. Young, A. D.; and Morris, D. E.: Further Note on Flight Tests on the Effect of
Slipstream on Boundary Layer Flow. Rep. No. B.A. 1404b, British R.A.E.,
Sept. 1939.

7. Young, A. D.; Serby, J. E.; and Morris, D. E.: Flight Tests on the Effect of
Surface Finish on Wing Drag. R. & M. No. 2258, British A.R.C., 1939.

8. Goett, Harry J.; and Bicknell, Joseph: Comparison of Profile-Drag and Boundary-
Layer Measurements Obtained in Flight and in the Full-Scale Wind Tunnel.
NACA TN 693, 1939.

9. Bicknell, Joseph: Determination of the Profile Drag of an Airplane Wing in

Flight at High Reynolds Numbers. NACA Rep. 667, 1939.

10. Wetmore, J. W.; Zalovcik, J. A.; and Platt, Robert C.: A Flight Investigation of
the Boundary-Layer Characteristics and Profile Drag of the NACA 35-215 Laminar-
Flow Airfoil at High Reynolds Numbers. NASA WR L-532, 1941. (Formerly NACA
MR.)

11. Zalovcik, John A.: A Profile-Drag Investigation in Flight on an Experimental

Fighter-Type Airplane - The North American XP-15 (Air Corps Serial No. 41-38).
NACA ACR, Nov. 1942.

12. Serby, J. E., Morgan, M. B.; and Cooper, E. R.: Flight Tests on the Profile Drag
of 14% and 25% Thick Wings. R. & M. No. 1826, British A.R.C., 1937.

13. Serby, J. E.; and Morgan, M. B.: Note on the Progress of Flight Experiments on
Wing Drag. Rep. No. B.A. 1360, British R.A.E., Dec. 1936.

14. Tani, Itiro: On the Design of Airfoils in Which the Transition of the Boundary
Layer is Delayed. NACA TM 1351, 1952.

15. Zalovcik, John A.: Profile-Drag Coefficients of Conventional and Low-Drag Air-
foils as Obtained in Flight. NACA WR L-139, 1944. (Formerly NACA ACR L4E31.)

48
16. Zalovcik, John A.; and Skoog, Richard B.: Flight Investigation of Boundary-Layer
Transition and Profile Drag of an Experimental Low-Drag Wing Installed on a
Fighter-Type Airplane. NACA WR L-94, 1945. (Formerly NACA ACR L5C08a.)

17. Zalovcik, John A.: Flight Investigation of Boundary-Layer and Profile-Drag Char-
acteristics of Smooth Wing Sections of a P-47D Airplane. NACA WR L-86, 1945.
(Formerly ACR L5H11a.)

18. Zalovcik, John A.; and Daum, Fred L.: Flight Investigation at High Speeds of
Profile Drag of Wing of a P-47D Airplane Having Production Surfaces Covered
With Camouflage Paint. NACA WR L-98, 1946. (Formerly NACA ACR L6B21.)

19. Plascott, R. H.: Profile Drag Measurements on Hurricane II 2.3687 Fitted With
"Low Drag" Section Wings. Rep. No. Aero. 2153, British R.A.E., Sept. 1946.

20. Plascott, R. H.; Higton, D. J.; Smith, F.; and Bramwell, A. R.: Flight Tests on
Hurricane II, 2.3687 Fitted With Special Wings of "Low-Drag" Design. R. & M.
No. 2546, British A.R.C., Sept. 1946.

21. Smith, F.; and Higton, D. J.: Flight Tests on "King Cobra" FZ.440 To Investigate
the Practical Requirements for the Achievement of Low Profile Drag Coefficients
on a "Low Drag" Aerofoil. R. & M. No. 2375, British A.R.C., Aug. 1945.

22. Britland, C. M.: Determination of the Position of Boundary Layer Transition on a

Specially-Prepared Section of Wing in Flight at Moderate Reynolds Number and
Mach Number. Tech. Memo. No. Aero 193, British R.A.E., Sept. 1951.

23. Davies, Handel: Some Aspects of Flight Research. J. R. Aeronaut. Soc., vol. 55,
June 1951, pp. 325-361.

24. Gray, W. E.; and Davies, H.: Note on the Maintenance of Laminar-Flow Wings.
R. & M. No. 2485, British A.R.C., 1952.

25. Montoya, Lawrence C.; Steers, Louis L.; Christopher, David; and Trujillo, Bianca:
F-111 TACT Natural Laminar Flow Glove Flight Results. Advanced Aerodynamics -
Selected NASA Research, NASA CP-2208, 1981, pp. 11-20.

26. Banner, Richard D.; McTigue, John G.; and Petty, Gilbert, Jr.: Boundary-Layer-
Transition Measurements in Full-Scale Flight. NACA RM H58E28, 1958.

27. Final Report on LFC Aircraft Design Data Laminar Flow Control Demonstration Pro-
gram. NOR 67-136 (Contract AF 33(657)-13930), Northrop Corp., June 1967.
(Available from DTIC as AD 819 317.)

28. Bushnell, Dennis M.; and Tuttle, Marie H.: Survey and Bibliography on Attainment
of Laminar Flow Control in Air Using Pressure Gradient and Suction. Volume I.
NASA RP-1035, 1979.

29. Yip, Long P.; and Coy, Paul F.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Full-Scale
Canard-Configured General Aviation Aircraft. Proceedings of the 13th Congress
of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences and AIAA Aircraft
Systems and Technology Conference, Volume 2, B. Laschka and R. Staufenbiel,
eds., Aug. 1982, pp. 1470-1488. (Available as ICAS-82-6.8.2.)

49
30. Braslow, Albert L.; and Knox, Eugene C.: Simplified Method for Determination of
Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Particles for Boundary-Layer Transi-
tion at Mach Numbers From 0 to 5. NACA TN 4363, 1958.

31. Holmes, Bruce J.; Obara, Clifford J.; Gregorek, Gerald M.; Hoffman, Michael J.;
and Freuhler, Rick J.: Flight Investigation of Natural Laminar Flow on the
Bellanca Skyrocket II. SAE Paper 830717, Apr. 1983.

32. Owen, P. R.; and Ormerod, A. 0.: Evaporation From the Surface of a Body in an
Airstream (With Particular Reference to the Chemical Method of Indicating
Boundary-Layer Transition). R. & M. No. 2875, British A.R.C., 1954.

33. Main-Smith, J. D.: Chemical Solids as Diffusible Coating Films for Visual Indi-
cations of Boundary-Layer Transition in Air and Water. R. & M. No. 2755,
British A.R.C., 1950.

34. Holmes, Bruce J.: Low-Speed Airspeed Calibration Data for a Single-Engine
Research-Support Airplane. NASA TM-81832, 1980.

35. Carmichael, Bruce H.: Summary of Past Experience in Natural Laminar Flow and
Experimental Program for Resilient Leading Edge. NASA CR-152276, 1979.

36. Stevens, W. A.; Goradia, S. H.; and Braden, J. A.: Mathematical Model for Two-
Dimensional Multi-Component Airfoils in Viscous Flow. NASA CR-1843, 1971.

37. Abbott, Ira H.; Von Doenhof_f, Albert E.; and Stivers, Louis S., Jr.: Summary of
Airfoil Data. NACA Rep. 824, 1945. (Supersedes NACA WR L-560.)

38. Eppler, Richard; and Somers, Dan M.: A Computer Program for the Design and Anal-
ysis of Low-Speed Airfoils. NASA TM-80210, 1980.

39. Melnik, R. E.; Mead, H. R.; and Jameson, A.: A Multi-Grid Method for the Compu-
tation of Viscid/Inviscid Interactions on Airfoils. AIAA-83-0234, Jan. 1983.

40. Hall, G. R.: On the Mechanics of Transition Produced by Particles Passing

Through an Initially Laminar Boundary Layer and the Estimated Effect on the LFC
Performance of the X-21 Aircraft. Northrop Corp., Oct. 1964.

41. Hall, G. R.: Interaction of the Wake From Bluff Bodies With an Initially Laminar
Boundary Layer. AIAA J., vol. 5, no. 8, Aug. 1967, pp. 1386-1392.

42. Nastrom, Gregory D.; Holdeman, James D.; and Davis, Richard E.: Cloud-Encounter
and Particle-Concentration Variabilities From GASP Data. NASA TP-1886, 1981.

43. Holmes, B. J.; and Obara, C. J.: Observations and Implications of Natural
Laminar Flow on Practical Airplane Surfaces. ICAS Paper No. 82-5.1.1,
Aug. 1982.

44. Hood, Manley J.; and Gaydos, M. Edward: Effects of Propellers and of Vibration
on the Extent of Laminar Flow on the N.A.C.A. 27-212 Airfoil. NACA WR L-784,
Oct. 1939. (Formerly NACA ACR.)

45. Wenzinger, Carl J.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Several Factors Affecting the
Performance of a High-Speed Pursuit Airplane With Air-Cooled Radial Engine.
NACA ACR, Nov. 1941.
50
46. Beasley, J. A.: Calculation of the Laminar Boundary Layer and Prediction of
Transition on a Sheared Wing. R. & M. No. 3787, British A.R.C., 1976.

47. Gilkey, R. D.: Design and Wind Tunnel Tests of Winglets on a DC-10 Wing.
NASA CR-3119, 1979.

48. Glick, P. A.: The Distribution of Insects, Spiders, and Mites in the Air. Tech.
Bull. No. 673, U.S. Dep. Agriculture, May 1939.

49. Freeman, J. A.: Studies in the Distribution of Insects by Aerial Currents - The
Insect Population of the Air From Ground Level to 300 Feet. J. Anim. Ecol.,
vol. 14, 1945, pp. 128-154.

50. Atkins, P. B.: Wing Leading Edge Contamination by Insects. Flight Note 17,
Aeronaut. Res. Labs. (Melbourne), Oct. 1951.

51. Johnson, D.: Brief Measurements of Insect Contamination on Aircraft Wings.

Tech. Note No. Aero. 2164, British R.A.E., May 1952.

52. Lachmann, G. V.: Aspects of Insect Contamination in Relation to Laminar Flow

Aircraft. C.P. No. 484, British A.R.C., 1960.

53. Coleman, W. S.: Roughness Due to Insects. Boundary Layer and Flow Control,
Volume 2, G. V. Lachmann, ed., Pergamon Press, 1961, pp. 682-747.

54. Boermans, L. M. M.; and Selen, J. J. W.: On the Design of Some Airfoils for
Sailplane Application. VTH-LR-326, Dep. Aerospace Eng., Delft Univ. of
Technol., Apr. 1981.

55. Kohlman, David L.; Schweikhard, William G.; and Albright, Alan E.: Icing Tunnel
Tests of a Glycol-Exuding Porous Leading Edge Ice Protection System on a Gen-
eral Aviation Airfoil. NASA CR-165444, 1981.

56. Lockheed-Georgia Co.: Evaluation of Laminar Flow Control System Concepts for
Subsonic Commercial Transport Aircraft. NASA CR-159253, 1980.

57. Peterson, John B., Jr.; and Fisher, David F.: Flight Investigation of Insect
Contamination and Its Alleviation. CTOL Transport Technology - 1978, NASA
CP-2036, Part I, 1978, pp. 357-373.

51
Un
N

TABLE 1.- NATURAL LAMINAR FLOW FLIGHT EXPERIMENTS

Principal Type surface Speed or chord Measurements Results Comments

References Airplane Airfoil
investigators Reynolds number

Stuper 2 Klenm L26Va Sanded plywood 4.88 x 10 6 Cp; u/ue (x/c)t > 308 First in-flight transition measurements
glove

Jones, Stephens, 3, 4 Snark L6103 t/c = 17.58 Sanded plywood 2.8 to 10.8 x 106 Cd ; Cp ; u/ue 168 < (x/c) t < 308 Waviness measured
Haslam glove

Hart K1442 t/c = 108 Metal glove Effects of steps on transition measured

Young, Morris 5, 6 Anson NACA 2218 Metal glove 139 knots u/ue (x/c)t = 178 Measurements inside and outside
propeller slipstream

Courier NACA 2219 Metal glove 122 knots u/ue (x/c)t = 258,
outside propeller
slipstream

Young, Serby, 7 Battle NACA 2417 Metal glove; 12 to 18 x 106 Cd ; Cp ; u/ue (x/c)t = 188, Drag of rivets and lap joints measured
Morris production-metal on glove
wing surface; No effect of camouflage paint on
camouflage transition

No appreciable NLF on production surface

Goett, Bicknell 8 Fairchild 22 N-22 Stiffened metal 3.9 to 4.6 x 106 Cd ; Cp ; u/% (x/c) t = 378, Proximate transition locations for
test panel downstream of flight and Langley 30- by 60-Foot
. predicted laminar Tunnel
separation

Bicknell 9 Northrup A-17A NACA 2414.5 Production metal 15 x 106 C d ; Cp ; u/ue (x/c)t = 17.58, No appreciable NLF on production surface
wing (flush glove
rivets, aft-
facing lap joint
at x/c = 88);
metal glove
 TABLE 1.- Continued

Principal References Airplane Airfoil Type surface Speed or chord Measurements Results Comments
investigators Reynolds number

Wetmore, 10 Douglas B-18 NACA 35-215 Wood glove 30 x 106 Cd; Cp; u/us (x/c) t = 42.4% Waviness measured
Zalovcik,
Platt Engine operation effects measured

Zalovcik 11 XP-51 NACA 64 1 2-(1.4), Production metal 16 x 10 6 Cd; Cp ; u/ue Waviness measured
(13.5) surface; vari-
ous surface No appreciable NLF on production
conditions surface

Serby, Morgan, 12 Hawcon t/c = 14% Wood glove 5.7 to 8 x 10 6 Cd ; Cp ; u/ue 30% < (x/c) t < 408
Cooper
t/c = 258 Metal glove

Serby, Morgan 13 Hawcon t/c = 14% Metal glove 5 to 9 x 106 Cd

Heinkel t/c = 12.5% Production wood 17 x 106 Cd Cd,min = 0.0065 Drag increases with mist deposit on
He.70 surface laminar wing measured

Low drag of production wood wing

suggested extensive NLF

Tani 14 Japanese Wood glove 5 to 10 x 106 Cd'. u/ue 40% < (x/c) t < 51%
biplane

Zalovcik 15 Several 8 airfoils Smoothed and 4 to 32 x 10 6 Cd ; C u/u e Extensive NLF runs Waviness measured
p
aircraft gloved surfaces measured

U1
W
4

TABLE 1.- Continued

Principal Airfoil Type surface Speed or chord Measurements Results Comments

References Airplane
investigators Reynolds number

Zalovcik, Skoog 16 XP-47F NACA 66(215)-1 Production metal 9 to 18 x 106 Cd ; C p ; u/ue (x/c) t = 508 No appreciable NLF on production
(16.5), a = 1.0 surface surface

NACA 67(115)-213, Smoothed surface Propeller slipstream effects

a = 0.7 measured

Zalovcik 17 P-47D Republic S-3 Smoothed surface 7.7 to 19.7 x 10 6 Cd ; Cp ; u/ue (x/c) t = 208, Waviness measured
t/c = 118, Cd,min 0.0062
t/c = 14.68

Zalovcik, Daum 18 P-47D Republic S-3 Production metal 0.25 < M < 0.78 Cd; C Cd,min = 0.0097, No appreciable NLF on production
p
surface with compare with surface
camouflage 8.4 to 23.1 x 106 reference 17
paint Waviness and roughness measured

Plascott, Higton, 19, 20 Hurricane II NPL Smoothed surface 20 x 106 Cd; Cp (x/c)t = 608 Waviness measured
Smith, Bramwell t/c = 14.8 to 17.98

Smith, Higton 21 King Cobra NACA 662x-116 Production metal 17 x 10 6 Cd; sub- (x/c)t = 658 Waviness measured
surface limating
chemicals No appreciable NLF on production
NACA 662x-216 Smoothed surface surface
 TABLE i.- Concluded

Principal References Airplane Speed or chord

p Airfoil Type surface Measurements Results Comments
investigators Reynolds number

Britland 22 Vampire NACA 67,1-314, Metal glove M= 0.7; C ; sublimating (x/c) > 50% Waviness measured
a = 1.0 30.4 x 106 p
chemicals t
Davies 23 Several Production surface; Cd; sublimating Waviness measured
aircraft smoothed surface and oxidizing
chemicals; No appreciable NLF on production
C p , u/ue surface
Gray, Davies 24 King Cobra NACA 662x-116 Smoothed surface 17 x 10 6 Cd; sublimating Skin-joint filler Insect contamination discussed
chemicals cracks most
NACA 662x-216 serious surface Laminar flow maintainability studied
maintenance
problem
Montoya, Steers, 25 F-111 TACT Supercritical Glove Up to 30 x 106 u/ue (x/c)t = 56$ at Sweep effects studied
Christopher, NLF A = 10%
Trujillo

Banner, McTigue, 26 F-104 Biconvex Production metal; 1.2 < M < 2 Hot films; -1.2 < R < 8 x 106 Less laminar flow on production than
Petty t/c = 3.4" fiberglass gloved sublimating on gloved surface
surface chemicals

un
U1
 TABLE 2.- SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED TRANSITION LOCATIONS

Transition Transitio n Geometry Geometry

Airspeed., Leading edge location, x/c prediction Data figures fi gures tables
Airplane Component Vc, CL He R, ft-1 Comments
(construction) knots Ale, deg RB Measured Predicted c, deg Method, Number Page Number Paqe Number Page
ref.

VariEze in tunnel Wing 56 0.27 1.61 x 106 0.625 x 106 21 23-47 0.65 0.59 -2.0 38 Effects of fixed 19(a)r (c) 92,94 1 73 3,4 57,
(composite) Winglet .76 x 10 6 29 <45 0.65 .52 0 38 transition and t9(d) 95 58
Canard .68 x 106 0 0.55 .57 -1.25 38 simulated rain 19(b) 93
Straka 61 123 >0.05 red; w -
ness red l

VariEze in flight Wing, root 135 0.35 4.17 x 10 6 1.40 x 706 27 66 0.30 0.58 -1.60 38 Effects of fixed 25(a) 101 1 73 3,4 57,
(fiberglass Wing, tip 1.87 x 10 6 27 37 0.55 .61 -5.70 38 transition 25 (a) 101 58
composite) Wi nglet 1.69 x 10 6 29 51 0.55 .52 0 38 red; wavi- 25(b) 102
Canard 1.52 x 10 6 0 0.55 .57 -1.70 38 ured;
Straka 61 175 >0.05 effectof
ue fli qht
through clouds
observed

Long-EL (fiberglass Wing 153 0.16 4,45 x 10 1.42 x 10 23 47-51 0.32-0.34 0.26 -0.77 38 Effects of fixed 28(a) 105 5 77 4,5, 8,62
compos its) outboard Straka - 51 123-144 0.10-0.15 transition 28(b) 106 6 63
Inboard Straka 64 >240 0 ured; w - 28(b) 10 6
Winglet 2.43 x 106 28 33-36 0.32-0.35 .30 0 38 ness measured 28(c), (d) 107 ,
108
Canard 1.54 x 106 0 0.55 .57 -1.70 38 28(e) 109
Fuselage no (a) 28(f) 110
Wheel fairing (b) 28(g) 111
Biplane Racer Forward wing 165 0.13 3.68 x 106 1.38 x 10 6 3.2 O.fil 0.56 -0.80 38 Propeller wake 31(a) 114 7 80 7,8 6,61
(composite) Aft wing 2.65 x 10 6 6.3 0.61 .60 0 38 effects observed; 31(b) 115
n = 3100 rpm

Gates Learjet Wing 357 0.12 21.3 x 10 6 3.08 x 10 6 17 47-74 0.40-0.45 0.24 -0.15 39 Waviness measured 32(a) 116 9 69
Model 28/29 Winglet M = 0.7 6.61 x 10 6 40 75-151 0.55 32(b) 117
(milled Al
skins; integrally
stiffened) 1

Cessna P-210 (flush- Wing, U.S. 139 0.32 6.81 x 70 6 1.34 x 70 6 0 <0 05 0.44 1.30 38 Waviness measured; 33(a) 118 10 70
riveted aluminum) Wing, U.S. 149 0.28 7.27 x 10 6 1.43 x 10 6 0.. 29 . 44 1.00 38 transition at 33(a) 118
Wing ,U.S. 154 0.26 7.52 x 10 6 1.48x 10 6 0.44 .44 .80 38 akin lap joint on 33(a) 118
Win g , L.S. 149 0.28 7.27 x 10 6 1 .3
4 z 1 06 0. 40 .43 1.00 38 win L.S.; 33(b) 119
Horizontal tail, 139-154 0.28-0.32 1.34-1.4 3 x 106 0.27 .26 .60 38 n = 1900 rpm 33(c) 120
pressure side
Propeller spinner 139-154 0.28-0.32 (c) 33(d) 121

Beech 24R (bonded Wing, U.S. 133 0.30 6.07 x 10 6 1.30 z 106 0 0.45 0.38 0 38 Trans"tion at skin 34(a), (b) 122, 11 71
aluminum) Win', L.S. 6.07 x 10 6 1.38 x 10 6 0 0.42 .38 0 38 lap joint on 123
Vertical tail 1.38 x 10 6 0 (d) vertical fin; 34(c) 144
Propeller, 2.89 x 10 6 <10.0 0.38 = 2700 rpm; 34(d) .125
suction side J = 0.84
Propeller, Area- 2.89 x 106 0.80 M.) 126
Sure side

Be llanca Skyrocket II Wing, U.S., 175.5 0.22 9.7 x 106 1.88 x 106 2.8 0.46 0.41 0.66 36 Measured at out- 35(c) 129 14 87 12 72
(fiberglass/ H = 0.53 .14 board and
aluminum honeycomb) Wing, U.S., 9.0 x 106 1.88 x 106 2.8 0.48 .44 .66 36 inboard wake- 35(a) 127
N- 0.66 .14 probe stations;
Wing, L.S., 9.7 x 106 1.88 x 106 2.8 0.46 .44 36 = 1800 rpm; 35(c) 129
N = 0.53 = 1.45; wavi-
Wing, L.S., 9.0 106 1.88 x 10 6 2.8 0.45 .39 36 n cured on 35(b) 128
H = 0.66 =q; effect of
Propeller, 2.77 x 106 0.50-0.75 Fixed transition
auction side a red; effect
Propeller, pres- 2.77 x 106 0.83 of propeller
sure side slipstream on
Horizontal tail, 1.88 x 106 0.44 boundary layer
U.S. measured
Horizontal tail. 1.88 x 106 0.25
L.S.

Beech T-34C Main glove 165 1.50 x 106 0 ffect of flight 40 136
Mini glove 38.4 through
clouds; effect
of propeller
slipstream,
= 150-2200 rpm;
used hot films

a .= 18 in.
b s = 17 in.
= 12 in.
% =6to a in.
 TABLE 3.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIEZE

Gross weight, lb .............................................................. 1050

Wing:
Area, ft2 ................................................................... 53.6
Span, in . ................................................................... 267.6
Aspect ratio ................................................................ 9.28
Taper ratio (main wing) ..................................................... 0.44
. ...............................
Airfoil section (main wing) . LS(1)-0417 (Modified)
Root chord (main wing), in . ................................................. 35.75
Tip chord (main wing), in . .................................................. 16
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . ................................. 4............... 31
Root chord (strake), in . .................................................... 88
Tip chord (strake), in. ..................................................... 35.75
Twist (washout), deg ........................................................
............................................................... 3.0
-4.0
Dihedral, deg
Incidence at root, deg ...................................................... 1.2
Sweep at leading edge (main wing), deg ...................................... 27
Sweep at leading edge (strake), deg ......................................... 61

Canard:
Area, ft 2................................................................... 12.3
Span, in . ................................................................... 141.6
Aspect ratio ................................................................ 11.32
Taper ratio ................................................................. 1.0
Airfoil section (see table 4) .......................................... GU25-5(11)
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 13
Twist, deg ................................................................... 0

.......................................................
................................................................
Dihedral, deg 0
Incidence at root, deg 0
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 0

Winglet (upper):
Length, in . .................................................................. 36
Root chord, in . .............................................................. 20
Tip chord, in . ............................................................... 7
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . ... ............................................. 14.5
Area (projected vertically), ft 2............................................. 3.35
Aspect ratio (based on vertically projected geometry)
Taper ratio
........................
.................................................................. 2.6
0.35
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 29
Twist, deg ................................................................... 0
Incidence at root, deg ....................................................... 0
Cant angle, deg .............................................................. 5
Airfoil section ....................................................... See table 2

Powerplant:
Manufacturer .................................... Teledyne Continental Motors Corp.
Model ...................................................................... 0-200A
Takeoff and maximum continuous power, hp ................................... 100
Revolutions per minute, maximum ....................... ................... 2750

Propeller (fixed pitch):

Manufacturer ............................... Ted Hendrickson, Snohomish, Washington
Number of blades ............................................................. 2
70
Pitch, in . ...................................................................
Diameter, in . ................................................................ 56

57
 TABLE 4.- AIRFOIL DESIGN COORDINATES FOR WING AND WINGLET OF VARIEZE
AND CANARD OF VARIEZE AND LONG-EZ

(a) VariEze wing at BL32

( x /C )U (z/C)U (x/C)L (z/C)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.00500 .02090 .00500 -.01120
.01000 .03070 .01000 -.01760
.02000 .03910 .02000 -.C237G
.03000 .04750 .03000 -.02790
.04000 .05310 .04000 -.03210
.05000 .05870 .05000 -.03600
.06000 .06280 .06000 -.03910
.07000 .06620 .07000 _.04230
.08000 .06980 .08000 -.C447G
.09000 .07320 .09000 -.04610
.10000 .07630 .10000 --.04830
.15000 .08770 .15000 -.05680
.20000 .09690 .20000 -.06150
.25000 .10340 .25000 -.06540
.30000 .10700 .30000 -.06790,
.35000 .11000 .35000 -.06955
.40000 .11060 .40000 -.06899
.45000 .11030 .45000 -.06676
.50000 .10950 .50000 -.06310
.55000 .10590 .55000 -.05720
.60600 .10000 .60000 -.05116
.65000 .09100 .65000 -.04190
.70000 .08000 .70000 -.03320
.75000 .06980 .75000 -.02680
.80000 .05730 .80000 -.01930
.85000 .04190 .85000 -.01120
.90000 .03040 .90060 -.60590
.95000 .01680 .95000 -.00170
1.00000 .00000 1.00000 .00000

58
 TABLE 4.- Continued

(b) VariEze winglet root

(X/c) U (o/o)n <X/c>L (o/o)L

0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000
,00260 .01150 ,00250 -,00700
,00500 .01550 ,00500 -.01150
,010O0 ,6215G ,DYO00 -.01700
,01500 ,02500 .01500 -,02050
,02000 ,02900 .02000 -,02300
.03000 ,03500 ,03000 -,02700
.04000 ,04000 ,04800 -.02950
,06000 ,04950 .06000 -,03200
,00000 ,0570G ,080OG -,O3400
.10000 ,05500 ,10000 -,03500
,12500 ,07300 .12500 -,03650
,15000 ,08050 ,15000 -.03750
.17500 ,08700 ,17500. -.03800
,20000 ,09250 ,20000 -,03800
.22500 ,098OG ,225O0 -,03800
.25000 .10300 ,25000 -,03750
.27500 ,10750 ,27500 -,03700
,30000 ,11150 .30000 -,03650
.32500 ,11500 .32500 -,03500
.35000 ,11700 ,35000 -,03550
,37500 ,11906 ,3750G -,03500
.40000 ,12UOO ,40000 -.03460
,42500 ,12050 ,42500 -,03300
.45000 ,12000 ,45000 -.03150
.47500 ,11800 .47500 -,03050
,50000 ,11700 ,60000 -,02950
,52500 ,1140G ,6250C -,02800
.55000 .11000 ,514000 -,02550
,57500 ,10650 ,57500 -,82450
,60000 ,10200 ,50000 -,02200
.52500 .09700 .62500 -,OZUUU
.65000 ,09150 .55000 -,01750
,675OO ,0855c .6758G -,01500
.70000 .08000 .70000 -.01300
.72500 ,07350 .72500 -.01100
,75000 ,06700 .75000 -.00950
.77500 ,06000 .77500 -,00750
.80000 .05250 .80000 -.00550
,82500 ,0455U ,82SUO -,UU400
,85000 ,03850 .85000 -.00300
,87500 ,03100 ,87500 -,00200
,90000 ,02400 ,90000 -,00250
,92500 ,01650 ,92500 -,00360
,95000 ,00850 .95600 -,00550
,975UO ,C000G ,3750C -,00800
1,00000 -.00900 1,00000 -,O|OUO

59
 TABLE 4.- Continued

(c) VariEze winglet tip

(x/c) U (z/c)U (X/c)L (z/c)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.00430 .01570 .00430 -.01570
.00710 .02140 .00710 -.02140
.01430 .02960 .014-30 -.C3006
.02860 .03710 .02860 .03710
.04290 .04430 .04290 -.04140
.05710 .05000 .05710 -.04290
.08570 .06140 .08570 -.04570
.11430 .07140 .11430 -.04960
.17140 .08570 .17140 -.0500G
.22860 .09860 .22860 -.05290
.28570 .10710 .28570 -.05140
.34290 .11290 .34290 -.04860
.40000 .11930 .40000 -.04570
.45710 .11930 .45710 -.04290
.51430 .11930 .51430 -.C357G
.57140 .11000 .57140 -.02860
.62860 .10140 .62860 -.02290
.68570 .09140 .68570 -.01860
.74290 .07710 .74290 -.01570
.80000 .05860 .80000 -.01430
.95710 .04000 .85710 -.C129C
.91430 .01860 .91430 -.01140
.97140 -.00430 .97140 -.01290
1.00000 -.01430 1.00000 -.01430

60
 TABLE 4.- Concluded

(d) VariEze and Long-EZ canard

(x/c)U (z/c)U (x/c)L (z/c)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
.00130 .00583 .00076 -.00273
.00492 .01387 .00203 -.00438
.01057 .02288 .00406 -.00651
.01777 03154 .00814 -.00955
.02676 .04068 .01707 -.01412
.03907 .05166 .02678 -.01749
.05088 .06099 .03827 -.02030
.07473 .07725 .05079 -.02256
.10035 .09211 .G748= -.02558
.12444 .10402 .10063 -.02752
.15030 .11494 .12747 -.02872
17745 .12488 .15074 -.02946
:20049 .13280 .17784 -.03013
.22661 .14103 .20034 -.03046
.25016 .1471: .2266 - .013 089
.27677 .15294 .25019 -.03143
.30006 .15771 .27550 -.03178
.32718 .16248 .30056 -.03145
34970 .16539 .32512 -.03076
:37502 .16757 35043 -.03017
.39932 .16914 :3760G -.02990
.42566 .17041 39978 -.02925
.44662 .17077 .42536 .02815
47449 .16972 .45041 -.02700
:499S4 .16686 .50003 -.02472
52330 .16275 .55066 -.02253
:54655 .1575 .59977 -.02057
.57413 .15045 .65015 -.01850
59865 .14332 .69951 -.01639
:62444 .13530 .74937 -.01417
.64946 .12720 .79976 -.01.183
.69951 .10997 .84937 -.00924
.74980 .09171 .89949 -.00617
.79934 .07345 .94477 -.00312
84963 .05496 1.00000 -.00025
:89-993 .03638
.94869 .01843
1.00000 .00025

61
 TABLE 5.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LONG-EZ

Gross weight, lb .............................................................. 1325

Wing:
Area, ft2 .......................................... ..........................81.99
Span , in . ................................................................... 313.2
Aspect ratio ................................................................ 8.3
Taper ratio (main wing) ..................................................... 0.48
Airfoil section (main wing) ........................................... See table 4
Root chord (main wing), in . ................................................. 41.4
Tip chord (main wing). in . .................................................. 20
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . ................................................. 37.6
Root chord (outboard strake), in . ........................................... 76
Tip chord (outboard strake), in . ............................................ 41.4
Twist (washout), deg ...................................................BL157:-2.7
BL106.25:-0.46
BL55.5:-0.6
Dihedral, deg ................................................................
Incidence at root, deg ....................................................... 0
0
Sweep at leading edge (main wing), deg .......................................
Sweep at leading edge (outboard strake), deg . . ............................... 23
51
Sweep at leading edge (inboard strake), deg .................................. 64

Canard:
Area, ft2 ................................................................... 12.8
Span , in . ................................................................... 141.6
Aspect ratio
Taper ratio
................................................................
................................................................. 10.88
1.0
Airfoil section (see table 2) ......................................... GU25-5(11)8
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 13
Twist, deg ...................................................................
Dihedral, deg ................................................................ 0
0
Incidence at root, deg .......................................................
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 0.6
0

Winglet (upper):
Length, in . .................................................................. 49
Root chord, in. ..............................................................
Tip chord, in . ...............................................................
27.1
11
Mean aerodynamic chord, in. ..
Area (projected vertically), ft 2
e.............................................
............................................. 20.5
6.57
Aspect ratio (based on vertically projected geometry)
Taper ratio
........................
.................................................................. 2.54
0.40
Sweep at leading edge, deg
Twist, deg
...................................................
................................................................... 28
0
Incidence at root, deg
Cant angle, deg
.......................................................
.............................................................. 0.5
0
Airfoil section ....................................................... See table 4

Powerplant:
Manufacturer
Model
.................................................. Avco Lycoming Corp.
....................................................................... 0.235
Takeoff and maximum continuous power, hp
Revolutions per minute, maximum
.................................... 118
............................................. 2800
Propeller (fixed pitch):
Manufacturer ............................... Ted Hendrickson, Snohomish, Washington
Number of blades .............................................................. 2
Pitch, in . .................................................................... 70
Diameter, in . ................................................................. 58

62
N
z CY, LJ)Xi c j W r- 47MCON wul U') r ,-D^7 MN m C:)CM m to MOQI^-w W = == ^^CD == C:) CDV4= cz G
0
r-Lo--xcD m m m mLn r-r- ,,7 W=)w mw ui o-) - M+- co cj 4z = p G c)c:, cDcD CD CD=JG CD
(D W Ul Cn C%;W W MLn r- W== = 0') r- LJ) C\J M Ul LO -7 N CD 00 W -7 CIJ 4= 00 W 17 N =
r14
-7 4T 4' M M ry) N C\j N C\j = ^= (= CD C:)
CCD rI j N Cl J M CY) M -7 -'T -7 A-T -7 Ln LY) U) Lr) Lri Lf) Ln -7
0
CDC CD C:) = C> L.^ = CD CD CD CD L:l C) CD CD C) C^ C> C-) C: C)
C) C:) C:) CZ C) C D = C:) G G = G C D CD C) C-') ( n
. . . . . . I . . . . I . I. I . I . I . I . I. . I I . I .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CI
I
N W r-- ul , ,
r - z M ,;TM Lrj= r-mr- 7= U')M =7-7'M Z'M r- = = === == = === ==
N = Lrl f- M M 7 CO = = (1? W M U) -- r LO -r ,:Z- LJD r- CO CC, LD 47 CD = C=, L: C) CD = CD C) C7 = CD C)
Ln CD = m r- ^' N m U') m m a -, r- LO Lr) LO r- co CD (Ili I:zr co co C:) N 4z Lj) G CD C) 0:1 :Zr CQ C:) CD ca 00 C"i G C)
4= CD CD -.% CO -7 Lf) rl- CT) M Ul 00 G ("-) W M N Ln CO C\J Ul CO -7 GO a ti (= (\J IT LO M N U) CO Cr) r,,j L) CO CD
CD. G 4=.=,. C). CD CD C:, CD C) C' %. J (NQ C'J N CO CO CO 717 7 U") Ua U') LD L-D LD. r- r-. r- r-. r-. CD CO. Co. Co. Cr). Cr. i Cr. ) e-n.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CD
is
U)
pq

z ro
0 w m N 0 CD w ("i w m w -7 Ul a) w CO Cl-) ro r- N CT) IX = L(I 47 CO r,- .--N C:) 0 0-) C\j ul r,- --u'7CJ CrI cn N Qo m - 4= o) -- CT) UD CO
0 Ln M M W W U') m M r- -7 w Lrl M N m N = r- 7 C D w N r- " W = Ln M M W N r- Wr,\j r- kn) M Lr) G r- 0') G C- -
U C? N(Nr
):T U'3 LO r- r- CO Cn C^ C:> -- rQ N N N N N
y M M W W r- LCI W Ln U-i -7 -7 C") M C ,J CNI C D = C D = CD
C:) C) CD = (= = = C= 7 7 a
z
* * * * * * * .777.77 .77 . 7
U)
0
rX4
Lx
CDCD MW r- M r W W M r- I,- M M -7 M W M (= C-D r- N 7 Ln C\J -7 W M N- (= M M M M = C NJ W -:T W r- N r- M N W = (=
W M M W W N CD Lr) M r- r- M N W NM W NW r- N- CD W W M r-- M Ln CO N N W r- M -T W M Ln -7 U-) CD
C) N LD (Q m rl_ r- m N w m U l) -7 -7 ul W W M W -7 -*T -7 -7 0 W= N M 0') 0') N M W -,T W _00 0 1'- M r. 7 W CD
C) CD = N M I - W r- M a) N -7 W W = M 0 W C:A M W M N 0 M7 , CO --.r r- C) M W M -7 W M = N ^T 0 W r- W M M =
C) = CD CD = C D C D C) = CD = 7 7 7 N CwJ N, N M M M M 4T -7 17 0 Ul u*) W CO LO r,- r- rl- r- M M M
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W M . M . M . M. M . M. M. M . M . CD.
C :>
aq
E4-4
 TABLE 6.- Continued

(b) Winglet root

(x/c) U ( z /c )U (x/c)L (z/c)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
.00000 .00009 .00000 -.00009
.00196 .00846 .00140 -.00783
.00644 .01516 .00280 -.01116
.01175 .02010 .00866 -.01798
.02265 .02727 .02012 -.02324
.03607 .03461 .03018 -.02597
.05621 .04392 .04696 -.02906
.07858 .05205 .07128 -.03141
.10653 .06002 .09840 -.03289
.12891 .06538 .14005 -.03528
.15435 .07007 .16884 -.03737
.18314 .07295 .20266 -.03961
.21977 .07499 .23342 -.04081
.25415 .07656 .27451 -.04211
.29944 .077:31 .31812 -.64301
.33970 .07625 .34943 -.04276
.38331 .07377 .38354 -.04154
.41798 .07154 .42016 -.04021
.45991 .06848 .46154 --.03892
.49122 .06576 .50767 -.03753
.5.3120 .062.''S .55129 -.03580.
.50251 .05914 :60217 -.03289
.60639 .05562 .64858 --.03006
.64525 .05116 .69862 -.02713
.68272 .04599 .73608 -.02466
.72102 .04060 .79060 -.02080
.77743 .03310 .84288 -.61721
.82528 .02686 .89124 -.01397
.87588 .01996 .95052 -.00946
.91838 .01406 .99972 -.00292
.96366 .00774
1.00000 .00296

64
 Ln
w
G W G I-- (-o r- M 0-! M Lri r- G U'j I (IQ N (-C , (D C , -) r- cr) 00 C:) M k ." M CJ N IN cn i7 C-0 -7
r.. CJ Ln LrJ M LP W CO M r- M r- M LrJ (D Ul r- r- --7 N M M Ll') W M M M rti r- Lri N CO
C) M t- Gr) N -7 r- Cr) - r- N U7, r- CO M CD = C, CO rl- Lrj CJ M r- 17 - M (D M r- LIM
CD Q - - N C'Q M M M M M ,::T <3- 7 M M M M M (\j N N C%J- - - - Q= CD
CD C) Q c: > cz, c- C:^ C^ C D L-- CD L- L.^ C:) CD G L-:j C)
M='17 - M N = L0k.D=M - UI'4T Nr-7 - r- MM-= = -7 CO ( WM r-
ul- 171 ,2zrw r-,7 Ln,7-Co- - 4:.+ 7 =ON N M Mzl - f ,- M C:) M (D m C: c\j -7
W M M M Ul - M W M a) 7 M r^ m C) = m a) m ul M m N r- r-- - M 1-D M
C) N M r- 17 W 'J W M M r- CD 17 W N Ln M N W C) M W N W ',7 r- M
C) Cn- G C) CD CD C> =- ('J r"J Cr) Cr) -7 17 -:T L l LP u') LO (.D r- r- r- 0:) W Cri (ri M M
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C%J. . . . . . . l. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4-)
4-)
0 0)
14 U CD CO M a) Lr) -7 LP -7 U') Ln (") -7 N CO -- r- M CD -- r--M u) Cc- Cl-) CO N0,j Clj CO -- r- u) CO 0j 0-i C 'j Lf) Cr) -Z Co (- ri L
PQ CO "I f-C. - - Lj) Z C", - Cl ) Ln M U) UD - -7 - M C:^ - - W - M ^= U)7 C\J :T r,- U'l CO - CD M W M -:) M W
4 - tD (Il i m M m M r- N LD k-l i - k= W Lrl - w m N -:T w w m w '"IT - w -zr = W - U-j (7) M r- - -7 CO - -7 (_0 -
p ==,- - N N M I,") -:T Ln W I W M mmmm M mm Wmw
i-L r-WW ,- , -4- M NN-C D
r- r WU10 7 -
C:) C> 4= D C) = CD CD C) C D a) =. G = =1 = = C) --N CD (= Q = = G C) CD CD I= = CD G = CD C= CD CD CD = CD =I
C-
^ . . . . . . . . . .
C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CD CD W M U) M -:T N r- C) (A ^7 (.CJ LO --7 CO r- N - 17 -7 LD 00 C") N. rl- U-j r C) ILD U) M GO M M - CTj W C',J Q
a) N M W 4T M - CQ (D -7 = - - N -7 M - M %-o W C:) C) r- r- N W ul ,"4"M - - N CD M M W M CD
G CD N Lrj r- W N CO 1-0 - M M - N - M ILD 7 Cr) (-D a) U) (C'7 - CO C I-) N C) U') C") CD Ul u) - (= - 0) r-1) 0')
a) (= r= C) =1 G - N IN M 0 w m - C0 un W C-C, a) N W CD (I-) r- - 7Z W N U, M M r- = ^7 W N Ln M M r-
CD CD C D = C) CD CD r_n CD CD = = C) C D
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. -. -. -. -. N .N. N. M. M . M . T . 7 . -:3,. Lrl. L-rl. Lrl. W . W . r-.r-. r... M. W. .MM. MC)
. .
C, -
 TABLE 7.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BIPLANE RACER

Gross weight, lb .............................................................. 1200

Wing (forward):
Area, ft 2 ................................................................
Span, in. .................................................................. 213.6
47.6
Aspect ratio ............................................................... 6.68
Taper ratio (main wing) .....................
..................0............ 0.68
Airfoil section (main wing) ..........................................
See table 6
Root chord (main wing), in . .................................................. 37
Tip chord (main wing), in . ................................................... 26
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 32
Twist (washout), deg ...............
............................... e ...... ..es 0
Anhedral, deg ................................................................
6.5
Incidence at root, deg ....................................................... 0
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 6
Wing (aft):
Area, ft 2 ................................................... ....
44.1
Span, in . .................................................................. 270
Aspect ratio ...............................................................
11.48
Taper ratio .......... .....................................................
0.52
Airfoil section ......................................................
See table 6
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 23
Root chord, in. .............................................................. 29
Tip chord, in . ............................................................... 16
Twist, deg ...................................................................
0
Dihedral, deg ................................................................
4
Incidence at root, deg .......................................................
0
Sweep at leading edge, deg ...................................................
3.2
Powerplant:
Manufacturer ................................................. Avco Lycoming Corp.
Model ..................................................................... I0-320
Takeoff and maximum continuous power, hp .................................... 160
Revolutions per minute, maximum ............................................. 2800
Propeller (fixed pitch):
Number of blades ............................................................
Diameter, in. . . . . .... s .. a .... .. . .. . .. . ... . . . ...... o . .. . . . . . .. .... . . . ... .. ...
2
60

66
 TABLE 8.- AIRFOIL DESIGN COORDINATES FOR FORWARD AND AFT
WINGS OF BIPLANE RACER

(a) Forward wing

( x /C )U (Z/C)U (x/C)L (z/C)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.00194 .00977 .00194 .00934
.00389 .01353 .00398 -.01267
.00775 .01857 .00775 -.01690
,03000 .03318 .03000 -.02698
.06000 .04349 .06000 -.03167
.09000 .05054 .09000 -.03364
.12000 .05609 .12000 -.03465
.15000 .06070 .15000 -.03523
.18000 .06465 .18000 -.03566
.21000 .06810 .21000 -.03605
.24000 .07109 .24000 -.03640
.27000 .07357 .7000 -.03674
.30000 .07562 .30000 -.03705
.33000 .07717 .33000 -.03729
.36000 .07822 .36000 -.03740
.39000 .07880 .39000 -.03744
.42000 .07884 .42000 -.03725
.45000 .07833 .45000 -.03690
.48000 .07733 .48000 -.03632
.51000 .07574 .51000 -.03550
.54000 .07364 .54000 -.03446
.57000 .07101 .57000 -.03314
.60000 .06787 .60000 -.03159
.63000 .06426 .63000 -.02977
.66000 .06023 .66000 -.02775
.69000 .05578 .69000 -.02550
.72000 .05097 .72000 -.02310
.75000 .04585 .75000 -.0054
.78000 .04054 .78000 -.01791
.81000 .03504 .81000 -.01523
.84000 .02942 .84000 -.01260
.87000 .02384 .87000 -.01004
.90000 .01837 .90000 -.00767
.93000 .01310 .93000 -.00558
.96000 .00814 .96000 -.00380
.99000 .00360 .99000 -.00252
1.00000 .00221 1.00000 -.00221

67
 TABLE 8.- Concluded

(b) Aft wing

(x/c)U ( z /c )U (x/c)L (z/c)L

0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

.00288 .01168 .00288 -.01145
.00575 .01600 .00575 .01554
.01151 .02158 .01151 -.62072
.02998 .06159 .02998 -.02929
.05996 .04022 .05996 -.03585
.08994 .04581 .08994 -.03942
.11992 .05001 .11992 -.04183
.14990 .05346 .14990 -.04362
.17988 .05645 .17968 -.04506
.20986 .05910 .20986 -.04627
.23984 .06146 .23'984 -.04730
.2G982 .06347 .26982 -.04816
.29980 .06514 .29980 -.04885
.32978 .06646 .32978 -.04932
.35977 .06744 .35977 -.04960
.38975 .06802 .38975 -.04960
.41973 .06819 .41973 -.04932
.44971 .06790 .44971 -.04874
.47969 .06721 .47969 -.04782
.50967 .06600 .50967 -.04661
.53965 .064;3 .53965 -.04511
.56963 .06226 .56963 -.04322
.59961 .05967 .59961 -.04109
.62959 .05568 .62959 -.03861
.65957 .05329 .65957 -.03585
.68955 .04949 .68955 -.03286
.71953 .045J4 .7195'3 -.02969
.74951 .04097 .74951 -.02641
.77949 .03631 .77949 -.02296
.80947 .03148 .80947 -.01951
.83945 .02659 .83945 -.01611
.86943 .02164 .86943 -.01283
.89941 .01675 .89941 -.00972
.92939 .01203 .92939 -.00696
.95937 .00760 .95937 -.00460
.98935 .00357 .98935 -.00276
1.00000 .00224 1.00000 -.00224

68
 TABLE 9.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GATES LEARJET MODEL 28/29

Gross weight, lb ............................................................. 15 000

Wing:
Area, ft 2 ................................................................... 274.3
Span, in . ................................................................... 506.4
Aspect ratio ................................................................ 6.48
Taper ratio (main wing) ..................................................... 0.39
Root chord (main wing), in . ................................................. 112
Tip chord (main wing), in. .................................................. 43.8
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . ................................................. 83
Twist (washout), deg ........................................ 0............... 0
Dihedral, deg ................................ ..........................0.... 2.5
Incidence at root, deg ...................................................... 1
Sweep at leading edge, deg .................................................. 17

Winglet (upper):
Length, in . ................................................................. 44.9
Root chord, in . ............................................................. 28.53
Tip chord, in . ............................................................. 9.99 a
Mean aerodynamic chord, in.
Area (projected vertically), ft 2
.................................................
20.76
............................................ 6
Aspect ratio (based on vertically projected geometry) 2.33
Taper ratio .................................................................
0.35
Sweep at leading edge, deg ..................................................
40
Twist (leading edge outward within lower 40-percent span), deg 1
Incidence at root (leading edge toed out), deg -2
Cant angle (winglet tip canted out) .........................................
15
Airfoil section ...o .............................
LS(1)-0413 thinned to t/c = 0.08

Powerplant:
Manufacturer .....................................................
....................................................................
General Electric
CJ610-8A
Model
Rated thrust, lb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... .. .... . . . .. .... . ...... . 2950

69
 TABLE 10.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CESSNA P-210 CENTURION

Gross weight, lb ................................ ........0...................... 4000

Wing:
Area, ft 2 ........+............+ .............................................. 175
Span , ft ......... o ...... . ..... o.o....o .... .e ................................. 441
Aspect ratio ................................................................. 7.72
Taper ratio (main wing) ...................................................... 0.70
Airfoil section:
Root .....................................................
NACA 64 2A215 (a = 0.5)
Tip ......................................................
NACA 64 1 A412 (a = 0.5)
Root chord, in. .............................................................. 70.8
Tip chord, in . ............................................................... 50
Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 61
Twist (washout), deg ......................................................... 3.0
Dihedral, deg ................................................................ 2.6
Incidence at root, deg ....................................................... 1.5
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 0

Powerplant:
Manufacturer .................................... Teledyne Continental Motors Corp.
Model ..................................o............................... TSIO-540-P
Takeoff and maximum continuous power, hp ..................................... 310
Revolutions per minute, maximum .............................................. 2700
Propeller (constant speed):
Manufacturer .......................
McCauley Accessories Div., Cessna Aircraft Co.
Number of blades .............................................................
3
Diameter, in . ................................................................ 80

Horizontal tail:
Area, ft2 ........................................o..................+........ 48
o
Span, in . ........... . ... .. .......... . ...... oo....... ... o ... ................ 156
Aspect ratio ...... ......... s...e.......... .........so ...................
so e. 3.5
Taper ratio (main wing) .. ....................................o.............. 0.58
Airfoil section:
Root .......................................................... o....... NACA 0009
Tip .................o................................................ NACA 0005
Root chord, in. . e e s . s . . . . . o o . . s . + .. . . e . . . . . s . o . s . . s . s .. o . + . o o . . e . o . .. . . . s . .. 56
Tip chord, ino . .... o...a.s.....ess...egoss..........o..a.a...e.......... 33
Mean aerodynamic chord, in. ..........................................e..,.. 45.5
Twist, deg ........o......o.s.e.e.a..eo.....oo6o...e.........s.....e...e..... 0
Incidence at root, deg .....................................................e -3.6
Sweep at leading edge, deg .......... ........................................ 8

70
 TABLE 11.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BEECH 24R SIERRA

Gross weight, lb ............................................................... 2750

Wing:
Area , ft2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ....... .. .. . . . ... . ...... 14 6
Span, in, ....................................................................
Aspect ratio ................................................................. 393
7.34.
Taper ratio ..................................................................
Airfoil section ...................................................... NACA 632A415
1.0

Mean aerodynamic chord, in . .................................................. 52.8

Twist (washout), deg
Dihedral, deg
.........................................................
............................ sss. ............................... -2.0
6.5
Incidence at root, deg .......................................................
Sweep at leading edge, deg ................................................... 3.0
0

Powerplant:
Manufacturer .................................................. Avco Lycoming Corp.
Model ................................................................. IO-360-A1B6
Takeoff and maximum continuous power, hp ..................................... 200
Revolutions per minute, maximum .............................................. 2700

Propeller (constant speed):

Manufacturer ............................................... Hartzell Propeller Co.
Number of blades ............................................................. 2
Diameter, in . ................................................................ 76
Airfoil section ........................................................... Clark Y
Chord at 0.25d, in . .......................................................... 6.5

71


TABLE 12.- PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BELLANCA SKYROCKET II

Gross weight, lb .............................................................. 4100

wing:
Airfoil .............................................................. NACA 632-215
Area, ft2 ................................................................... 182.6
Span, ft .................................................................... 35.0
Aspect ratio ................................................................ 6.7
Taper ratio ................................................................. 0.57
Root chord, in . ........................................... 4................. 80.2
Tip chord, in . .............................................................. 45.9
Mean aerodynamic chord, in. ................................................. 64.6
Incidence, deg
Dihedral, deg
..............................................................
............................................................... 2
2
Twist, deg ............................................................. 0.... 3
Sweep at leading edge, deg .................................................. 2.8

Powerplant:
Manufacturer .................................... Teledyne Continental Motors Corp.
Model .................................................................. GTS10-520F
Maximum continuous power, hp ................................................ 435
Revolutions per minute, maximum ............................................. 3400

Propeller (constant speed):

Manufacturer ............................................... Hartzell Propeller Co.
Model ......................................................... HC-HM 1 RF/F8475-43
Number of blades ............................................................ 82
............................................. 2270
Diameter, in . ........ 0 ....... ... ..... .. . ... ................... ..... 0 .....

Revolutions per minute, maximum

72
 FS (161.5 )

-1 ) )-BL(0)

90

30^

WL (19.
WL(10)
WL (4.25) A (0)
0

Figure 1.- Geometric characteristics of VariEze airplane. Dimensions are

in inches.

73
 L-81-9255
Figure 2- VariEze airplane used for natural laminar flow flight experiments
0
M
1
OD
I
a
0
w0
0
.Q
I
0
M
>
N
a
ro
a^
ro
m
v
ro
0
1~
a^
N
W
S4
i
Q
m
N
G*a
75
ON

SPRAY NOZZLES

kRM

Fi"Te 4.- Sketch of rain simulation apparatus.

 BL

WL I

(a) Planforms.

Figure 5.- Geometry of Long-EZ airplane used for natural laminar flow flight experiments.
00

El^^ SECTION D-D

I

D
L-^ 1

I
SECTION H-H

SECTION 1-1

I
SECTION J-J

SECTION B-B

I
I SECTION N-N

`
SECTION C-C I

I SECTION M-M

SECTION E-E

SECTION K
SECTION K-K

SECTION G-G

SECTION 0-0

(b) Cross sections.

Figure 5.- Concluded.

Figure 6.- Long-EZ airplane used for natural laminar flow flight experiments.
 nnnnro o rn nr a wir ._ d _ f) C It --"

Figure 7.- Planview of Biplane Racer used in natural laminar flow flight experiments.

80
0
rn
1
a
e
Ir
-4
a4
a)
04
a^
a^
w
3
0
L14
p
as
r.
.1,
ro
(13
a
tz
a
a)
a)
U
a)
n3
rl
PQ
1
00
a)
rl
W
81
OD
N

L-82-1220
Figure 9- Gates Learjet Model 28/29 used in natural laminar flow flight experiments
 L-82-1195
Figure 10.- Cessna P-210 Centurion used in natural laminar flow flight experiments.

co
w
 u)
O
N
CO
a 0
4
cc
a
4)
O
w
(D
O
.1
0
4)
o^
U
O
N
U)
O
U
W
O
4J
W
O
0
O
ri
N
O
ro
cd
O
rl
W
O
!a
tP
rl
P4
84
b
r
y
r
0
b
0
0
Q-i
^i
Sc
tr
.4
ri
44
3
O
r
44
p
rd
rl
rl
fd
4J
co
N
w
0
fo
Sa
N
a
N
U
tU
N
N
CS+
W
85
w
rn

L-82-3004
Figure 13.- Bellanca Skyrocket II used in natural laminar flow flight experiments.
 170.8

WAKE SURVEY PROBE

^ = 0.53 PRESSURE BELT ^ = 0.53
^ = 0.667A
80.2 atBL0

FS 122. 0. - _ 45.9
0.3c
(zero sweep) BOUNDARY-LAYER RAKES
sh = 0.28
82.0

329.6

FLIGHT

CO O 1REFERENCE LINE
3o W L 60.0
_0___
WL 0
FS 0
Figure 14.- Three-view drawing of Bellanca Skyrocket II with instrument locations.
Linear dimensions are in inches.

87
OD
OD

60
.50
40
30
20
10
T, o C 0
-10
-20

-30 NAPHTHALENE
-40
_50
60
.000001 .00001 .0001 .001 .01 0.1 1.0 10.0
VAPOR PRESSURE, P S , mm Hg
Figure 15.- Vapor pressure of sublimable solids.
 L-81-9092
Figure 18.- Equipment for acoustic detection of boundary-layer transition.
OD
0
kD
0

.80

(a) Port locations on wing planform.

0.015 in. 0.060 in.

o
i

(b) Details of surface total-pressure tube.

Figure 17.- Detail of surface-mounted total-pressure-tube installation used for acoustic detection
of transition of VariEze airplane.
,
a
a^
104
4
a^
N
W
rI
O
N
r-^I
fa
O
4J
U
.H
i~
O
.H
U
N
r--I
44
O
rG
S4
O
D
N
r^
W
I
00
N
w
0
b^
ri
W
91
 L-81-8426
(a) Top view.

Figure 19d- Visualization of boundary-layer transition on VariEze airplane.

R = 0.625 x 106 ft 1 ; CL = 020

92
3 `c5
9 rq
a) 4-3
10z
,H o
N U
U N
0
r
rl
w
93
 M
00
I
a
4
m
rl Uo
3 I
U ^
N
54
rl
W
94
 L-b1 -641
(d) Winglet.

Figure 19.- Concluded.

Ln
tD
0) .4

.2

C 0.0
m
-.2

-.4
Canard transition
-.6 O Free
0 Fixed, (x/c) t . 5 percent

1.a

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
CL
.B

CD .6

.4

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 4 .2 0.0 -.2 -.4 -6
-8 -4
C7, deg C
Figure 20.- Effect of fixing canard transition on longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics
of VariEze model in Langley 30- by 60-Foot Tunnel.
 -2.0

)n

-1.0

-. 5

.5

1.0
0 1.0
x/C
Figure 21.- Effect of fixed transition on chordwise pressure distribution.
a = 8; 11 = 0.25.

97
W

Canard transition
O Natural
O Fixed, (x/c)t = 5 percent

.8

6
C m, c
.4

.2

.4

.3

L, c
C 2

.1

0 11 "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
CI, deg

Figure 22.- Effect of fixing canard transition on the canard lift characteristics.
 Canard transition
O Natural; water off
Fixed; (x/c)t - 5 percent; water off
O Natural; water on

.8

.6

C m, c .4

.2

.4

.3

C c .2

.1

0
-8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
CI, deg

Figure 23.- Effect of water spray on canard lift.

00

Transition

O Natural
0 Fixed WO t = 5 percent
n
to

4
Airspeed position
error, AV, knots 2

-2

-4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1,1
C (based on V C , SW
L + Sc)

Figure 24.- Airspeed calibration for VariEze airplane from pace-airplane method.
 TN-c q +inn frnnt

80
Percent 60
Chord 40
20
0

(a) Wing.

Figure 25.- Transition on VariEze measured during flight by sublimating chemical.

R = 1.40 X 10 6 ft-1 ; CL = 0.35.
0
 papnZouoo - SZ ainbt3
49tbutM (q)
LSL6-l8-Z
N
0
 14 sition

Natural
12

Vmin Fixed, (x/c) t = 5 percent

10

6e, deg 8

4
I Vmax

0 60 80 100 120 140 160

V i , knots

Figure 26.- Comparison of fixed- versus free-transition performance and longitudinal

control characteristics for VariEze airplane during flight.

103
 1.2 Transition

0 Natural
1.0 Fixed, (x/c) t = 5 percent 0
0.8

CL
0.6

0.4

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

a, deg

Figure 27.- Effect of fixed versus free transition on

lift-curve slope for VariEze airplane.

104
 L -81 -9795
(a) Wing

Figure 28.- Transition locations on Lonq-EZ airplanes R = 1.42 x 10 6 ft -1 a C L = 0.16.

0
o,
 -panuiquoo - 8Z aanbt3
s9Xpj4S (a)
06L6-18-Z
0
P
Ln
w
r,
0)
w
i
a
a^
4-) .1
N 0
'-+ 0
b) U
rl 1
r^
OD
N
U
^a
tT
r1
W
107
 oll
Co
r,
0)
co
1
a
a^
s.,
4-) (L)
U ^
^ -rl
n d-)
r.
d-) O
N U
^ I
s~ A
rl co
S N
I
^ N
^ 5t
.H
W
R9
108
 0)
panutquoD -8Z aanbz3 0
papup3 (a)
Z8L6-18-Z
 rn
rn
i
a
ro
a^
co
r. 4-)
a
m 0
^ U
N
co co
'a' N
W
_ N
44 0
v ^
w
110
N
t\
0)
00
I
a
Ts
a^
er
z 0rc$
rl^
I^-i
(zO
U
w U
r-i
N
I
N OD
N
^v
_ N
b
.. 0
ty)
.,..I
W
171
J
N
20

18

16

14 tent

12
S e , deg
10

p i
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

V i , knots

Figure 29.- Comparison of fixed- versus free-transition performance and longitudinal control characteristics
for Long-EZ airplane.
 1.6

1.4

1.2
ransition

1.0 O Natural
q Fixed, (x/c) t = 5 percent
CL
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

a, deg

Figure 30.- Comparison of fixed- versus free-transition lift-curve slopes for Long-EZ airplane.

3
W
 f,ll

r-
sr
ti
fD

LA)

H
^t

r-
rt
r-
O

b^ N

ro

P.) o
m m
n
a
n i-h
CD O
n ng
w
n
^ a
u`^
. p
w LU
00
x

O
rn
r-h
rt

0
r
0
w
 Ln
r
r
-papntouoo --L aanbT3
-f)UTM (432) aaddn (q)
99L6-L8-Z
 0
rN
N
1b
a
4J
w
0
x
w
0
0
M
w
0
N
0 4.)
RS 4d
1-1
040
14 O
rl Lf)
N
\ II
OD
N
rq
^"
rl N
3 ^ ^
O
`^ N II
n
$4
aN N
N
.1J O
C7 II
>~ a
O U
1~
O
rI
N
0
1
N
M
N
0
tT
rX+
116
 L-82-1214
(b) Winglet.

Figure 32.- Concluded.

 OD
0^ N
`- M
I
N O
00
O
a1 .1.)
N
O
Ua
w
0
x
OD
0
kJo
^ o
U ^
x
W
>4
d
^ M
W
^4
^ II
^ a
3 O
.,-1
>4
4)
O
U
O
N
I
a
a
N
UN
s~
O
0
O
q
4
.1-4
t^
$4
H
I
M
M
N
W
118
N
I
N
00
a
a^ bN
U
W
f4 .r{
0
U)
r-
0
N
N U
3
O 1
M
M
N
3
W
119
 m
rn
1
N
co'
1
a
z
U)
(L)
s4
0
r
0
a 0
^
N Uo
rl
rI 1
^ e
'Q M
4 M
In
N
r-4
fo
0
^. rl
O 5'
N
>4
xO
U
120
 -p9pnTou03 - 9anbz3
-aauutds aaTTadoag (p)
LOZL-Z8-Z
 rn
N
00
P4
O
M
O
C;
a
U
44
ko
O
00
M
N
ca II
`" a
0
0) ^4
a^4
a cn
0
a
3 N
^ U
N
PU
r.
O
0
O
.,-4
.4
rn
H
I
M
N
$4
0
IT
rl
W
122
 L-82-1215
(b) Turbulent wedges on wing upper surface.

Figure 34- Continued

N
W
N

L-82-1212
(c) Vertical stabilizer.

Figure 34.- Continued.

r-
0)
1
N
00
a
a^
ro
U ro
m
O
. r ., r,
4-) 4-)
U ^
O
(n U
1
k4
N el
rl M
r--I
N N
04 Sa
O '3
r`I ^
a ^
w
ro
725
 M
O
N
r
N
co
a
z
ro
-4
M 1^
(D W
N U
a)
0 U
s^
I
44 cj
N M
r-I
r-I
04 ^I
O
P4 .H
w
126
kD
^r
OD
a
N
N
O
it
a
U
w
O
X
co
co
N
U
r^
a
w
$4
H
N H
$4 d-^
N
Oa
a xUN
O
^4
x
3
U
r-I
N
t^
O
O
4
s~
H
M
N
bi
W
127
 r,
i
00
a
U N
4
$4
Sa
O
U U
3 ^
O
^ M
rl
^4
3 ^
tr^
-,4
^. w
128


TRANSITION
FUSELAGE SIDE UPPER SURFACE
PROPELLER TIP
- -- LOWER SURFACE
0
0
.2 - - - = 2

CHORD 4 - -- - - - - - - x/C
1
1 - '
F-J - - - .6
-
STATION, .6 _ ; - _ _ _ _
x/c - - _ _ - 1.0
.8
1.0 WAKE PROBE
STATIONS

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
SEMI SPAN STATION, n
(c) Nondimensional transition locations.

Figure 35.- Concluded.

-.8

-.4

C 0

4 -D FLIGHT MEASURED TRANSITION

PREDICTED TRANSITION (Granville criterion)
.8

1.2
.15

z/C
0

-.15
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/C

(a) Inboard wake probe station; R = 9.04 X 10 6 ; C = 0.288; M = 0.31.

Figure 36.- Comparison of predicted pressure distribution with transition for

Bellanca Skyrocket II (right wing).

130
 -.8
b
-.4

C 0

.4 -D FLIGHT MEASURED TRANSITION

- PREDICTED TRANSITION (Granville criterion)
.8

1.2
.15

z/c 0

-.151
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
x/c

(b) Outboard wake probe station; R c = 8.39 x 10 6 ; C^ = 0.254; M = 0.31.

Figure 36.- Concluded.

131


CHORD REYNOLDS NUMBER, RC

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 x 106
.0200 r

.0160 FLIGHT MEASURED q

O NATURAL TRANSITION
q FIXED TRANSITION, (x/dt = 5 percent
SECTION
DRAG .0120
COEFF I C I ENT,
Ca
PREDICTED ( REF. 36)
.0080

NACA 632 -215 (REF. 37)

O
.0040

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 12 1.4
SECTION LIFT COEFFICIENT, C,
(a) Inboard wake probe station.

Figure 37.- Comparisons of flight-measured, wind-tunnel measured, and predicted

section characteristics for Bellanca Skyrocket II airfoil (right wing).

132


CHORD REYNOLDS NUMBER, Rc

1098 7 6 5 4.5 4 3.5x106
.0200 q
FLIGHT MEASURED
O NATURAL TRANSITION
.0160 q FIXED TRANSITION, (xlc) t = 5 percent O

O
SECTION .0120 i
D RAG q i
CO EFF I C I ENT, q
Ca .0080 q ,i^0 PREDICTED ( REF. 36)
i
O NACA 632 -215 (REF. 37)
.0040

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4

SECTION LIFT COEFFICIENT, Cj

(b) Outboard wake probe station.

Figure 37.- Concluded.

133
 O6

.05

.04 SUPERCRITICAL
INSECTS
^j'/ R = 1.9 x 106 ft-1
.03 2.2-hr FLIGHT
.02 VC =,178 knots
SEA LEVEL
.O1 SUBCRITICAL INSECTS
z/ C
0
t .02 .04 .06 .08 .10 .12
-.O1 x/ C

- ,02 `^, INSECT HEIGHT SCALE

-.03- 0 .02.04.06
-.04 PREDICTED CRITICAL (in'
EXCRESCENCE HEIGHT
-.05
h = 25 000 ft; VC = 258 knots
h = SEA LEVEL; VC = 178 knots
Figure 38.- Insect contamination pattern on Bellanca Skyrocket II NLF wing,
accumulated in flight.

134


.7

O INSIDE SLIPSTREAM
.6 0 OUTSIDE SLIPSTREAM
SOLID SYMBOLS : FIXED TRANSITION,
(x/c)t = 5 percent
.5

HEI GHT .4
ABOVE
SURFACE,
Z, in. .3

.2

.1

0 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
BOUNDARY-LAYER PROFILE, u/ue

Figure 39.- Effect of propeller slipstream on Bellanca Skyrocket II boundary-layer

profiles. s/c = 28.7 percent; n = 1800 rpm; V = 178 knots.

135
 HOTFILM SIGNALS

BLADE
PASSING
FREQUENCY

F-^

TI
(measured TI IRRI II PKIT

0 .l .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 -.8
TIME, sec

Figure 40.- In-flight, hot-film measured, time-dependent effects of propeller

slipstream on laminar boundary layer (T-34C airplane). R = 1.5 x 10 6 ft-1;
n = 150 rpm.

136
 50 x 10-3

40
RELATIVE
GAUGE 30
READING, 20
in.
10

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52
DISTANCE ALONG SURFACE FROM LEADING EDGE, in.
(a) King Cobra (filled and sanded wing, circa 1950).

50 x1
-UPPER SURFACE
RELATIVE 40 MEASURED
GAUGE 30 --- CALCULATED MEAN
READING,
in. 20
10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
DISTANCE ALONG SURFACE FROM LEADING EDGE, in.
(b) Skyrocket II (as-produced composite wing, circa 1970).

Figure 41.- Indicated surface waviness for Bellanca Skyrocket II and King Cobra.

137
 Winglet
experimental
transition

Winglet root, R e = 51

(a) VariEze.

Figure 42.- Comparison of experimental transition data with spanwise contamination

criterion.

138
 Winglet
experimental Winglet tip, R e = 33
transition

root, Re = 36

(b) Long-EZ.

Figure 42.- Concluded.

139
 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
NASA TP-2256
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
NATURAL LAMINAR FLOW EXPERIMENTS ON MODERN AIRPLANE June 1984
SURFACES 6. Performing Organization Code
505-45-43-02
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Bruce J. Holmes, Clifford J. Obara, and L-15552
Long P. Yip 10, Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No.

Hampton, VA 23665
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Technical Paper
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, DC 20546
15. Supplementary Notes
Bruce J. Holmes and Long P. Yip: Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia.
Clifford J. Obara: Kentron International, Inc., Hampton, Virginia.

16. Abstract

Flight and wind-tunnel natural laminar flow experiments have been conducted on vari-
ous lifting and nonlifting
-1 surfaces of several airplanes at unit Reynolds numbers
between 0.63 x 10 6 ft and 3.08 x 10 6 ft 1 , at Mach numbers from 0.1 to 0.7, and at
lifting surface leading-edge sweep angles from 0 0 to 63 0 . The airplanes tested were
selected to provide relatively stiff skin conditions, free from significant roughness
and waviness, on smooth modern production-type airframes. The observed transition
locations typically occurred downstream of the measured or calculated pressure peak
locations for the test conditions involved. No discernible effects on transition due
to surface waviness were observed on any of the surfaces tested. None of the mea-
sured heights of surface waviness exceeded the empirically predicted allowable sur-
face waviness. Experimental results consistent with spanwise contamination criteria
were observed. Large changes in flight-measured performance and stability and con-
trol resulted from loss of laminar flow by forced transition. Rain effects on the
laminar boundary layer caused stick-fixed nose-down pitch-trim changes in two of the
airplanes tested. No effect on transition was observed for flight through low-
altitude liquid-phase clouds. These observations indicate the importance of fixed-
transition tests as a standard flight testing procedure for modern smooth airframes.
The results taken as a whole indicate that significant regions of natural laminar
flow exist and that this boundary-layer behavior is more durable and persistent on
certain modern practical production airplane surfaces than previously expected.
17. Key Words (Suggested by Authors) ) 18. Distribution Statement

Laminar flow Unclassified - Unlimited

Natural laminar flow
General aviation
Laminar boundary layer
Flight experiments Subject Category 02
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 143 1 AO7

For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 NASA -Langley, 1984