REPORT 1282

A SPECIAL METHOD FOR FINDING BODY DISTORTIONS THAT REDUCE THE WAVE DRAG
OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS AT SUPERSONIC SPEEDS ‘

lily HARVARDLOMAXand MAX. A. HEASLET

. .

SUMMARY from this point of view, the choice of a type of general solu-
tion to be used in analyzing a particular problem with the
For a given wing and supersonic Mach number, the problem
least mathematical effort depends on the geometric form of
of shaping an adjoining fusekge 80 that the combination ~
the object under consideration. For example, general solu-
huve a low wave drag i-s con.siabed. (?nZyjmekzgm that cun
tions based on Green’s theorem are well adapted to the study
be simukted by singuLari&s (multipokx) didributed along the
of forces on single planar wings in a steady supersonic flow.
body am% are studied. However, the optimum w-iu.tti of
On the other hand, the general solution given by Lamb (ref.
such singularities are completely epecij$edin ternw of the given
2)—which is composed of an iniinite set of multipole distri-
wing geometry. An application i-s made to an elliptic wing
butions disposed along a line-is well adapted to the study
having a bi.convexsecthn, a thickesa-chmd ra$w equal to 0.06
of the flow around fuselagdike objects.
at the root, and an aspect ratw equul to 3. A comparison of
In this report use is made of certain general solutions to
the theoretical result%with a wind-tunnel experiment is do
equation (1) but with a deviation hm the usual approach
pre8ented.
mentioned above. One considers, in fact, two different
INTRODUCTION kinds of solutions which represent separately, in a given
The most simplifying a.wmmptions that still permit the
~z /
construction of a mathematical model general enough to
contain quantitative information about steady three-
dimensiomd supersonic flow are those basic to we develop-
ment of linearized theory. Of these, the two principal
assumptions me that the viscosi~ effects are negligible and
the perturbation velocities are almost ev-here small
enough to be neglected relative to the flight or free-stream
velocity. Under such restrictions the flow field can be
described in terms of a perturbation velocity potential q
obeyiug the equation

B?%– PYu-$%=o (1)

whore @z=ikP— 1 and the reference coordinate system z is

shown in figure 1. Further, the wave drag of any object in
~ flow field governed by equation (1) can be evaluated (see,
e. g., ref. 1) by means of the equation

‘=-Rrs4ww@+’Jl ‘2)

where x, r, and 8 are cylindrical coordinates also defined in

figure 1.
General solutions to equation (1) are numerous and clas-
sical. In applying these solutions to the interpretation of
physical phenomena the usual approach is to fit them to the
given boundary conditions, that is, to make the flow field
sixmdat ed by them conform to the shape of the disturbing
object as well as to a uniform free stream at infinity. Hence,
1SU-M NAOA RM A6SB16 b Harvard Imnwand l&u A. HeseleL M&5.
lltahonfd hstressMtb8t the r d tothefrw+tmmdfrwtion (wind axfa)
so a My d
of revolution m b 6ylrlnletrl ‘%%% *b axkOrdyatmOangla OfmaOk. FmurM I.—Reference coordinate systems.
709
 —— — — -—

710 REPORT 128&NATIONAL ADVISOR? COMMTI’E E FOR AERONAU!llICS

vicinity, d.Merent classes of red objects and, by means of ffn(x) strength of nth-order optimum cancollat Dn
equation (2), iinds optimum combinations of these solutions multiples -.. (36).)
(See eq.
from the viewpoint of low wave drag. The analysis involved
in solving this problem has, in general, a distinct mathemati- i. slope of wing upper surface Jmwmred relnt V(3
cal advantage over the problem of calculating the drag of a to free-stream direction
given object; namely, that the iminediate problem of finding P tan-l (f? cos 0)
a shape with a relatively low wave drag is divorced from Po free-stream density
any detailed reference to the shape itself. It is true, of P perturbation velocity potential
course, that the stream surface repreaentiug this shape must
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM
eventually be found and, in fact, a limitation on the appli-
cability of the method is given by the requirement that this The problem of designing an airplane to have a minimum
shape be real. However, the problem of finding the shape wave drag must be stated quite precisely. If the aerody-
of the object when w is lmown is a matter of direct calcula- namicist is approached with the question, “Given an rtero-
tions One should also be careful to notice that the optimum ‘dynamic shape, can its wave drag be lowered?” he can always
solutions obtained by this procedure are not necessarily tie reply that any volume of material having a wave drag cnn
optimums but purely relative to the choice of solutions used always be reshaped within a space of finite dimensions so
in the analysis. that it will have less wave drag at a given Mach numbw.
LIST OF IMPORTANT SYMBOLS Such an answer is interesting but, at present, not very usofu]
to the airplane designer. There is tit, of course, the basic
A wing aspect ratio
criterion that the total drag should be minimized at a given
A.(x) (–9)” ti.RICSthem% derivative of the nth multi-
pole distribution an(z) (See eq. 16.) lift and minhizkg a component part of this total without
holding the othar parts fixed does not neceasmily ykld the
a semi-root-chord of elliptic wing
lowest possible drag for a given set of restraints. I?or m-
a=(x) strength of nth-order multipole distribution
multiplying cos n13 ample, the configuration illustrated in figure 2 has no wnve
BJx) (–B)” times the nth derivative of the nth multi-
pole distribution b=(z) .,
b semispan of elliptic wing \
b.(z) strength of nth-order multipole distribution \
// \
multiplying sin nll \
/ \
c. drag coefEcient, g ,\
S@ / \\
c, pressure coefficient, local presmre minus static
pressure divided by q
L\\ “\
\
D
D.
wave drag
wave drag associated with nth-order cancella-
\\\ Scaly of revolutlo%l
iI I
/
I //
./

\\\.
tion multipole distribution (See eq. (59).)
L:)LO maximum fore-and-aft extent of wing equiva-
lent multipole distribution
L’(o),L(o) mwinmrn for~and-aft extent of wing equiva-
lent multipole distribution for angle 8
M free-stream Mach number ———— Mach waves
pouo~ FIGURE2.—Body and shroud with zero wave drag.
u free-stream dynamic pressure, ~
p;
7 drag when traveling at zero angle of attack; but it has n
relatively high friction drag, because of the large amount of
78 se: equation (46)
wetted area, and its drag due to lift could also be relatively
R radius of body
high. Completely aside from all such performance consid-
s area of wing plan form
erations, however, are many other important considerations
SJX,13) normal projection of wing cross+ectional area
that are unfortunately more or less vaguely defined from m
measured in oblique planes
aerodynamic point of view. For example, an airplane must
t maximum thickness of wing root chord
contain a certain amount of usable volume, the shaping of
u. speed of free stream
individual parts is limited by structural requirements, and
v volume
the ammgement of these parts must not seriously hnrm tho
z,y,z Cartesian coordinate system, z parallel to l%ee-
airplane stability and control. The interrelation of nll such
stream direction
separate demands presents an extremely complex design
X,r,o cylindrical coordinate system, x parallel to free-
problem making it diflicult to deviate too far from the relinble
strefbm direction
shapes set by experience.
3 From a rmtbemntknl pint of* oftbe meibodoutlfnsdfIfxIve
tbe-waxm fsthattba
Involvesthesolntiento dhwt problem$ thst fS problems of fntegmtfnn. Ccl- As a result of the above-mentioned dii%culties, the nero-
the dm of a @mm My, on the other hand, fnvrhss tbe selntfon to fnvsrse pro~
*%
~ t & pm?blems Involvfng tbe Snvsa-sfon of fntegmf equatiom dynamicist who is concerned with discovering a prncticrd
4
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE D&K4 OF WING A.NT) BODY COMBINATIONS 711

airplane shape having low wave drag finds the real deihition .8 1 I I
of his problem somewhat obscure. In a sense his fimt prOb- Md = 1.41, hic =.5
Iem is, literally, to pose a problem; that is, to impose a
minimum number of arbitrary but pertinent restraints within
the framework of which the wave drag is to be minimized.
Even when this has been done, he still is concerned with the
question of uniqueness, since optimum shapw are not neces-
/\
sarily unique even when several restraints are imposed. /
.4 /
Consider, for example, the problem of finding the Busemwm
biplane which will have minimum wave drag at a given /
Mach number for a fixed section strength, volume, and
wetted area. If the design Mach number is 1.41, one such
design (on the basis of linearized theory) is shown in figure
3 where the chord-gap ratio, A/c, is equal to j4. The resulting
variation of the wave drag is shown in the upper part of
figure 4. However, when the gap is closed to the point o
where h/c equals X, the variation of wave drag, shown in
the lower part of figure 4, is the same within the interval .4 1 I
1.28 <M< 1.66 and everywhere else is lower. It is likely Md = 1.41, h/c =.25
that one would have fit discovered the former solution, yet
to the accuracy of the theory used, the latter is obviously
preferable. A \
With the above observations always in mind, attention
will be directed in this report to the analysis of simplified
configurations composed of two distinct types of volume:
planar types, that is, wing-likeVOIUDIe-S, thin in one dimen- o
I 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
sion and bounded by surfaces that never deviate far from M
a reference plane; and rectilinear types, that is, fuselage-like
Fmmn 4.-Drag variation for doubl~mdge Buswnannbiplan=.
volumes longer in one dimension than in the other two and
disposed more or less symmetrically about a straight line. where a.(~) is the source strength per unit of length. In
In particular the following problem is posed: order to calculate wave drag one needs ordy the value of pas r
Given a thin nonlifting wing, what is the shape of an approaches infinity. This asymptotic vrdue is simple enough
adjoining fuselage, the stream surface of which is to fmd provided it is observed that, as r is increased, x should
sinmh ted by a line of multiples in the same plane as also be increased so the potential can be studied in the
the wing, that will minimize the wave drag of the vicinity of the Mach waves radiating from the disturbing
combination at a given Mach number? object. Hence, set

BASIC CONCEPTS x=z.+f?r (4)

A LINE OF SOURCES
so for a given r, ZOmeasures the streamvme distance of the
The velocity potential induced at the point x,T,O by a group point z,r,13from the Mach wave emanating from the origin
of sources distributed along the x asis, starting at —LO, B and, in particular, the foremost wa~e is located at z*= —LO.
well known to be given by (See @ure 5.)

(3) r

/
// ,/-”””-”--”-----”
———— Mach waves at Af= 1.41
//
Y /’ ;

T
x=~r> /
/ /’
\ x+L#p7
A
‘. /’ ~/
\
\\ /“
/ / \\
“\ /
‘f )’
//
U. \x/ y’ I //
h / /’
/“ ‘\ / ‘\
//
/ \
/ //
\
/
/ \ ,’ \ // //
/ \ /’
I
l—-c~
FIGURE 3.—Busemam biplane.
~J

6- \
LO — +
\
b

FIQUEE5.—Coordinates introduced in equations (4) and (6).

~.
Xo —
 ..—. ——– .— —..

712 RDPOItT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI’M’RE FOR AERONAUTICS

If equation (4) is placed into-equation (3) and r is assumed niques. To begin with, rewrite equation (1) in terms of n
to be large, the potential induced by a source is polar coordinate system, thus

&m.-.——— 1 ‘“ %(’94
(5) (lo)
2m@@ J –L” SE

and the induced velocities are Next, define the Laplace transform of p(z,r,O) by
.
1 ‘0 &’(tMi ~(t?,r,e)= p(z,T,e)e-%iz (11)
*)_..—— (6a)
2q@F J –L” - Jo

d-+. =?% (6b) and apply this transform to equation (10). There results
(for a proof see Appendix A).
MULTIPOLES

Lamb, in reference 2, page 527, has presented a general (12)

solution to equation (1) consisting of an infinite set of basic
singular solutions. These basic singularities, referred to as Now, if a general solution to equation (12) is mqmwsc(l in
multiples, can be distributed aIong a line and weighted so the form
as to reproduce certain body shapes enclosing the line. The
7(8,7’,0) =f(T) COS d
expression for the perturbation velocity potential for a
distribution of nth-order (n=0,1,2,. . . ) multiples starting thenj(r) must satisfy the equation
at —LO and continuing along the z ati can be written in
terms of a cylindrical coordinate system (fig. 1) as

‘ 1 b “ -pr [aJ,i)cos 7u9+ b.(f) sin M] @

%J+w$+’289’=0
fo”(z,r,e)=-~
2.(-)s-.0 J(z–&--p’F
(7)
Solutions to this are given by

la~
The operator
()~~ is delined as .f(r)=an(8)I.@r8) +xn(8)K.@r8)

where Ix and Kx are modiiied Bessel functions as dofmecl in

reference 4, page 77. Hence, if G is to vanish M r goes to
iniinity, a general solution to equation (1O) can be written
and the definition of ~ ~a a follows by induction. If the in the form
()
notation’

os t)’
Tx
‘ A(v)d?q
“e
~]=(0(3). ;=(W) f
a
.-
The above result will be transformed back to the physical
plane in two ways. Firstj apply the identity (ref. 4, p. 79)
is introduced, where the symbol is read “finite part o~ the

integral,” equation (7) becomes

f Kx(z)=(–l)” (: -$~K.(z)
and re-express equation (13) as (only the coefficient of the
cos nO term is written since the treatment of the sine term is
identical)
and the geneml expressions for the induced velocities be-
com-writing only the term involving the cosine, since the
result for the tie is directly analogous

The inverse Laplace transform of K@8)-see refermce

5-is
o, z<pr
L-1[KO@r8)]=
~&v~ x>flr
{
So, since

Another very useful way of developing these multipole

solutions evolves from an application of operational tech-
~ :Lo (z–z,)”-lAJzJdq (14)
4 For a dekdfd dlwnsskn of tbe finffe-p-t mnmpt es used in w m~rt sw refmanca S. J
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY CO~lNATIONS 713
an application of the convolution integral and other standard o X<j?r
>
operational techniques yields [

from which equation (13) reduces immediately to

From comparison of equations (8) and (15), the relation

between the strengths a.(z) and A%(z) for the two different
forms of the solution is found to be The perturbation velocities in the field represented by
this potential are readily calculated. Thus
a@)=A&) , n=O
1
(16a)
= (z–z,)”-’A@,)dZ,, i>o w(w,O)= —~>. z-@A~(’)cOsh[ncOsh-l(F)l
cos no _%
(–~)s~’@)=&! J -.O
J J J(z–~)’–B’r2
or (19a)

(–~)na$) (z) =Az(x) (16b)

d“ : Ac,T,e)=& $ ‘n.sin ‘ne ~-@A.’’)wsh[nmslr& )l)l

where a:) (x) symbolizes the operation ~ a,(z) and where J -L. J(z–.y-fw
(19b)
use is made of the conditions
and by taking the derivative of equation (13) with respect
a:) (—LO) =a#’-u (—-Q= . . . =a=(—ZO) =0 (17) to r, one iinds

Another way to transform equation (13) back to the

physical plane is to do so directly. In this way one finds
(from ref. 5) which transforms to

(19C)

If the relation between the functions am(x) and Am(z) is

given by equation (16), the velociti~ represented by equa-
tions (9) and (19) are, of course, identical.
In order to obtain limiting values induced by multipolea d-=-l%% (21b)
distributed along the z axis starting at –Lo, one returns to
either equation (8) or (18) and calculates the leading term in
a l/r expansion. As in the derivation of equation (6), it is
necessary to observe that as r is increased, z should also be
In calculating the wave drag using equation (2) only the
increased so p is given in the vicinity of the foremost Mach
velocity component9 p=)~~_ and ~J~+ . are necessary.
cone created by the multipole distributions. Hence, using
Hence, from comparison of equations (21a) and (21b) with
equation (4), one finds for equation (18)
(6a) and (6b), it follows that at a given 0 a series of multiples
induce the same momentum flux on an infinite cylindrical
.A.(’)msh[ncOA-’6+%)l~ control surface as a line of sources having a strength varia-
––-~-&sn9 .
‘— 2T 0 tion so(x) equal to ~ cos nOAn’(g). If one identifies a line
‘-’0 ~) o
of sources with a body of revolution, then it is apparent
which has the leading term as r goes to inhity that, at a given 0, a dragwise equivalence has been estab-
lished between a line of multipolm and a body of revolution.

HA-’ THEOREM AND ITS APPLICATION

In the previous section a relation was found between

Similarly, the perturbation velociti= reduce to multipole and source strengths which produce, at a fixed 13,
 —.——. ——.. .. . ———. .

714 REPORT 128%NA’ITONAJ.J ADVISORY COMMITTED FOR AERONAUTICS

z, with the lMach forecone and aftercone from the point ZO,O,O,
Hayed result can now be stated 5

‘“I To the lowest order in I/r, as r tends to infinity, the

magnitude of the perturbation velocity potentird and
its gradients at a tied angle @ is invariant to a finite
translation of sources (or any other singular solution
to the wave equation) on planes parallel to that given
by equation (23).
Consider the application of Hayes’ theorem to planar
distributions of sources lying in the z,= O plane. As is well
known, such a distribution simulates a wing symmetrically
disposed about the horizontal (z,=O) plane. In fact, if
x~(zl,vJ is the local slope of the wing upper surface, tho
local source strength per unit area (according to thin airfoil
theory) required to simulate the wing is — ZJOhU/rand the
velocity potential of the disturbed flow field is given by

where r is the area of integration bounded by the wing edge

I?IGURD6.—Maoh forecone from z,r,O in Z1,V1,ZIspace. and the trace in the Z1=O plane of the Mach forecone from
the point x, y, z. Next introduce the new coordimtm & and
equivalent momentum transport across a cylinder of Mnite 71 such that & lies along the xl axis and V1 lies along the
radius. By using a theorem attributable to Hayea (ref. 6) intersection of the zI= O plane and the plane givcm by
one can derive the strength relationship between any distri- equation (23) (see fig. 7). Set
bution of singularities throughout space and a line of sources
which gives the same equivalence.
The essence of Hayes’ theorem is that, for a fixed 0, the
velocities induced on a cylinder of iniinite radius by singular
solutions to equation (1) (e. g., sources and doublets) are
Tl=yl sec A
invariant to displacements of the singularities alo~~ certti (26)
oblique planes. In order to be specific, the equation of Zl=&+T1 sin ,u
}
these oblique planes is next derived.
Consider the point z,r,Oin a flow field having a supersonic yl= ql Cos ,u J
free stream moving parallel to the z axis. Figure 6 shows
Then, in terms of the fl,ql system, equation (24) becomes
the Mach foreccme (by definition the Mach forecone is the
boundary of the region within which a disturbance in a Ml+ m ~ Am cog P) Cos P 41 ah
dz,y,z)=–: ,
supersonic stream can tiect the flow at the cone apex) SS -@-gl-ql sin p)’–/(y(?h?h Cos /!)’-/?’2’
from z,T,13in Zl,yl,zl space. The equation of the forecone is
(27)
zl=x—~~(r cos 0-yJ~+(r sin 6—zJi (22) Wing plon ferm-7

One wishes to let r become very large and iind the shape of
the forecone as it passes through regions close to the origin
of the z1,v1,z1coordinate system, regions in which the objects
creating the wave drag are located. From equation (4)
and the expansion of equation (22) for larger, it follows that

x1=%+ 13r-l?r 1—f (.Y1Cos 0+2, sin 8)* %

[ ‘1

and when r goes to iniinity

Xl=xo+g?yl Cos O+BZ1 Sin 0 (23)

which is the equation of the oblique plane mentioned above.

It should be noted that the envelope formed from these FIGUEE7.—Orientation of Z,,V1and fl,~l coordinates.
planes by fixing ZOand varying 0 between O and 27 coincides sForprm@ seaHayes’originaldorhmtfon
(ref.6)or,if mommnven!en~
rebroncs1.
 THE REDUCTION OF WATT DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 715
Wing plan farm+ induced by a given wing. Hence, the results given in
equation (6) yield

u. ‘o Siu’’(’%$ G
fcY.).cO=—— (29a)
2~@F- J _Lf~J Xo—&

$%),-+. = —/%% (29b)

A similar result exists for a planar doublet distribution

(see ref. 1 or 6) but, in this report, only problems in which
the wings have no loading (local lift) will be considered.
Lifting tiects have been treated in a similar fashion in
reference 7.
Equivalent I
single 93tIrce-’ ,’ CANCZLLA’HON MUUATPOLES AND DItAQ MININIZA~ON

1
‘Line of wing saurces Since the flow field is governed by a linear partial diiler-
XI,tl ential equation the velocities induced by different solutions
to it are additive. Therefore, the drag of an object simu-
FIGURE8,—Position of wing .wsrcea and equivalent single source.
lated by various multiples distributed along the x, axis
As before, the asymptotic value of p as r=&F+@~ ~ % to and a sheet of sources in the ZI=O plane is given by
be enlculated. Accordingly, one can apply Hayd theorem
rmd sum up all the sources along a line :1= constant (e. g., & lim T [(w)m+(%).1 [(Pz)nl+(*)tol
D=-PtITwJ:. {r.. }
between a and b in fig. 8) and place them as a single source
on the axis. The strength of this equivalent single source where the subscripts m and w refer to the. multiples and
iS:&’OKl by wing source9, respectively. But equations (21) and (29)
identify, for a tied e, these’ velocities with those induced by
uosw’(&,e)=2uo Cos p
equivalent line sourw. Hence, for any given 0; one can
Ufl+?ll Sk /%71Cos P) 4?1 C@
J Wfrlg immediately apply Kdrmfin’s drag formula (ref. 8) and
then for the total drag, integrate 0 from O to 27. This leads
where the integration is taken across the complete wing along
to
the~line f,=constant and Sw’(f@)=& sdfl,e).

The term &(z,O) has a clear geometrical interpretation

(see fig. 9), beiug simply the normal projection of the wing
(z,)costi+b:+~
uosm’’(z,,e)+$(–p)’[a:+~ (z,) Sinmq
area intercepted by the oblique plane e zl=z+@l cos 0. { }
The above defi.nea the strengti variation of a line of
sources (and, therefore, a body of revolution) which induces, (+y[ag’+~(q)cosn8+
?7.s.’’(%,0)+$
for large r ~nd a fixed 0, a potentkd field identical to that {

b :+~ (ZJ)Sinti] lnlz,–zs]

SW(X,8)=Normal projection af wmg area olong A& }
..-” 1
However, since both the wing and multiples are in the same
plane (interpreted physically, the wing is centrally mounted
on the fuselage) and the wing is simulated by sources only
(ha no twist or camber), one can show the optimum value
q
of each b K+D(zJ is identically zero.’ Hence, one can write

A
-++
7-. $ (–m%+” (%) Cos ‘nR
X,w-pylcod 1

Uos.’’(%,e)+$ (–B)%:+” (@cos ‘n9 ln[z,–ql

[ 1
(30)
1BY synumtry
t x, S.’’(z,a) -s.’’(z/
%-e)
Henm

J
k
FIcmnE9.—Wing area intercepted by oblique plane. SIn m9s.’’@)do.o
o
4WLO
~ Ob]tque
plsura
lagivenb eqrmtien @) but tbe wingfs$e &se to tbe nEO PIOM
tbBttbevwMorlmt
b2rmnlmm J eotd. and eny pitive or negative vorhtien of b.@~) (m) can OIISYinorwo the drag.
716 REPORT 128*NATIONAII ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ADRONAU’IWS

Next esprmd the term &“(z,13) in a Fourier series. One be reduced to zero is quite valid, but in the over-all picture
finds not only have the inevitable nose and tail drags been neg-
lected but also the shape sindated by the combination cm
(z)cm ‘ne
U.S.’’(Z,O)=5(–p)”ctg+’) (31)
o be unrealistic.
where
SOME PROPERTIES OF THE CANCELLATION MULTIPOLZS

%(z)=;: ~‘r Sm’(z,e)d (32)

.S Let us consider next some of the restrictions necees.arily
imposed on cancellation-multipole distributions and some of
_— u. 2’
(33) the particular properties of those given by equation (36). In
ay ‘R-B)’ s o ‘“’(z’e) ‘s ‘d
the first place, if a,(z) is any multipole distribution that
Place these expressions in equation (3o), integrate with generates a potential field given by equation (8) or (15), it
respect to t?-using the orthogonal property of the trigo- follows from equation (17) that the value of a.(z) and its
nometric series-rind one iinds first n derivativea should be everywhere continuous. Further,
if a.(z) is a constant behind some point, say L. (i. e., for
D=2D.+5D. (34) co >X>LO), the induced flow field would simulate exTanding
1 streamlines in the case n=O or some form of vorticity in the
where case n>O; the former case is to be avoided since any simu-
lated body is assumed to have a tite area at z= co, and tho
latter case is to be avoided if there are no resultant forces
normal to the free stream.
One can show that all the above properties are satisfied
by %(f), the optimum cancellation-multipole distribution
Since one can shows as defined by equation (36). First, notice that a~+l) (:)
must be zero everywhere outside the wing-enclosing lMach
forecone and aftercone, that is, for — OJ<~<—LO’ and
LO<E< ~ (see fig. 10). (Any multiples in these regions cnn-
the minimum value of D as expreesed by equation (34) is not combine with the wing equivalent multiples and must,
given when each D. is itself a minimum. In other words, therefore, increase the drag.) Hence, one can set
each Da can be minimhed separately. Further, it follows ~~) _LOf)=a$-l) (—LO’)
(
that the value of the minimum itself is zero and occurs when
=., . a.(—LO’)
~“(”+l)(z)=–am(. +l)(z)

u. 2“ =0
Sw”(z,o)ae, , n=o
—% J o
.

{-
—— u.
d-m Jo
‘r
S.”(x,O) cos d 0?$, n>O
(36)
t /r\ \
I
Ion-l@
I /’
Equation (36) is the mathematical
optimum cancellation multiples;
definition of the
namely, those multiples
which are just equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to
L;

/
/
/ “\
‘/
the wing equivalent multipoles-equivalent in the sense
that they induce an identical momentum flux across a / Iorm
cylinder of infinite radius. ,/

Obviously, if all the optimum cancellation ms.dtipoles

were used, the wave drag of the combination would be zero.
This result must, however, be properly interpreted with Y
regard to the simulated shape. In order that the multipole
‘\
lines can represent the distortion of a real fuselage, one

m
must assume a cylindrical body exists upstream from the
Mach cone z+ZO=& (the effects of the nose are being
neglected). This body forms the initial boundary of the
stream tube which represents the physical fuselage in the /’+ = constont
0 \
vicinity of the wing and multipole lines. Clearly, the area
\ /
enclosed by this initial boundary can be small enough for //
\\
the subsequent stream surface to cross itself and represent, i-
therefore, a physically unreal body. Hence, the fact that
the wave drag of the wing and multipole combination can
m + x,(
A. sinn~,z-–L.
1WJ7.$).S cm & Integration
givesI=: ~ nA4wldchcmnew
,.
b ncgath-e. ‘ FIGWEE10.-Symbols used in study of multipole properties.
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMWNATIONS 717
Then the condition of continuity is automatically satisfied for Further, this connection was direct and relatively simple if
a~) ($) in the entire interval — co<x< m if &’ ($,0) is the strengths and positions of the distributions were given.
derived from n wing having finite wave drag (in particular, Unfortunately the connection between the mukipoles and
from a wing having no blunt edges along which the normal the shape of the simulated surface is generally not so simple.
component of the free-stream lMach number is unity or Such a relation does certainly exist, however, and if the
greater). It follows immediately that c@ ($), m<n, is strengtha of the multiples are known, the relationship is
continuous since the latter is found by integrating (further again direct. That is, a given distribution of multiples
smoothing) %!i (~). yields directly, by the formulas given in the previous section,
The proof that an(LO) as given by equation (36) is zero the induced velocities everywhere in the flow field, these, in
requires more consideration. One can show, however, that turn, fix the stream surfaces along any one of which (since, ef
cr.w)(LO)=0 where Osm sn. I&t, the equality a$) (Lo) =0 course, the theory neglects viscosity) a physical surface can
follows from the fact that the &g closes and S=’ (L@) itself be imagined.
is zero. Ntwt consider the definition of %W (g). Thus In general, if

F.(z,y,z) =0
–U.
tY$fqg)=— “S.’(W) cm M d (39)
(–B)nr J o F,(z,r,e) =0
}
_ –2U0 2’
cos p cos n$ d ::’)~w(t+~ s~ %~ cos P) d~ ‘ are the equations of a stream surface in cartesian and polar
(–l% J o J 0, coordinates, respectively, then the equations

where use has been made of equation (28) for the deti.nition
of SW’(~,fl) and h. and hl are defined in figure 10. Since
(40)
1~
a~w(t)= r(n— m) -LOJ(&&)”-=-’%w(tl) 41 (37)
J
0n8 has
must hold.
For example, in studies of thin wings lying in a plane, the
particular form of equation (39)

Z—h(z,y)=o

is aemnned and equation (4o) becomes

Change the &,v coordinates back to the X,Y system by means
of equation (26) and this becomes –(U.+%):–W+%=O

‘ au$”)
–2U0
(Q=(_p).Tr(n-m)
so
‘“ma ~ ~
H.!q
(,+z+py .Cos 0)”-=-1 or, neglecting second-order effects,

ah —
—= 1
}U(ZJJ)(ix d~
ax u. “
The mea SE, shown in figure 10, becomes independent of o
which is the familiar boundary condition used in thin-airfoil
when ~=Lo (being then just the area of the wing itself),
theory. On the other hand, if the equation of the body
therefore
shape is written in the form
–2U”
a.w (~O)=(_p)wr(m—n) ~ xu(z,yjti dy 7’-R(Z,O)=O
SS

2r(Lo–x+By CoSo)”-*-l cos?14 CU3=0 then equation (40) becomes, for linearized theory,
Jo
~ bR
U. g=pr–z, ~ (41)
since, for m<n

9r
If the flow field is radially symmetrical or if the body surface
cos mtl cosnode=o
Jo is quasi-cylindrical, equation (41 ) reduces to

Hence, for the a,(:) defined by equation (36) 2)R 1

(42)
57E w
at) (LO)= C#-l) (LJ = an@-a(LJ = . . . = am(LJ=0 (38)
which is the familiar boundary condition used in the study
AIRPLANE SHAPE
of quasi-cylindrical bodies or bodies of revolution.
In the previous section a connection was established be-, In general, a nonlinear partial differential equation of the
tvmen multipole distributions and their resulting wave drag. fit order such as equation (41) can be reduced to two simul-
 ._ ——
-—. - .-....———
.—

718 REPORT 128*NATTONM ADV180RY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

taneous, ordinary, nonlinew differential equations of the 3 I \

tit degree (see, e. g., ref. 9). Thus equation (41) becomes i, J48 / “
./ \
2
\
t \
/ \
I
\
(43) //
\
,0 I
\ {
-? 11
\
and if ~ rmd p, are known fuuctions of x, R, and O, these can \
be solved numerically. -2 \
\
If the strengths of all rectilinear multiples and source — Exoct linearized theory
-3 k
sheets are given, equation (19) or (24) can be used to find ---- Slender -body theory

p, and ~ at arbitmmy field points. Hence, the first step in 41,9 --— Large 7 theory

finding the body shapes reduces to tlmt of integrating such

equations. However, these integrations are dii%cult and
tedious even when entirely numerical procedures are em-
ployed and the results still have to be interpreted in terms of
the body shape according to equations (43). Therefore,
from a practical viewpoint, it is necessary to study certain
approximate methods for obtaining the velocity field.
Let attention be concentrated on the disturbances created
-1 I
by a line of multiples. In particular, consider the fields

.4
2, I I I I I I I I I I I
.2 7 = .444

~o
0
\\
-.2

-4 I I I I I I I I I I I
-21

+$ & — Exoct Iineorized theory

;Q ---– Slender-body theory
I I I I I I 1-1- I I I I I I
l/t- 1% I I I I --— Lorge 7 theory
.2 –02=C2(I-F2)3Y x
I 2
I /! I I [ I
\ ~ ..888
$0 /
I I w t 1 I I I — \
I
-.2 I I I WI I I Y \
o y
1 .-’
~

.2 (b)
1 I I I I
/ ~ ~ . +,
— U4 = C4(I-WX o -1
\ _
~o — — . To
\ (b) Velocities, PO,.

i
FmuEE 11.—C!ontimzed.

--— Rodii ot which velocities +. ond +@ ore presented induced by simple polynomial distributions satisfying, in
each case, the end conditions given by equation (17). J?or

L
particular variations set

/
-1
~--
.
A’-

‘\\o
I
--—--—--A--.888

_—_+-_/;;::::

/
1
/

-7_--_:,,z148

Y
(o)
QJ5)=C.(1-P)Z

as(Z)=cJ1-qTz

a@=c4(l —3?)5 1 (4
-— Multiples
where co, Q, and cd are constants dete rmining the amplitudes
(a) Multipole dietriiutione.
FKWEE 11.—Radial and tangential velociti~ induced by three different and Z=z/Lo. Figure 11 (a) shows the variations of these
multipole distriiutione at four rati coefficients with Z, and figures 11(b) through 11(f) show
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMB12TATYONS 719

300. 1 400 - 1
7= .148 7 = .148
\ 3W , / 7
I 2W {

lrXl / 2m
\ I

~ i 100 I I I
\ \

-l(x)

-200
\ ,

/
I
/
-Q

-100
\
\
1 +PHi
. z 303 — Exact linearized theory -m
–––– Slender-kxiy theory
$ 8
-m
V ,= ~, IQ
+ -4JJ_U_lJ — Exact Ilneorized theory
40 “
k r., -–— Slender-body theory
& G
20
/
,/ t’
~ 60 ,
7=.296
:\ / 7 / - \
~,o \ / 40
\ y / “> \
L 20 \
f
-40 — / - .
o /
\\ \ /
/
-60, /
g /
Xo /
/

30 I -60
~- 1
0 I
7 = .444
20 I
/’
10 I

o
‘%,
-1

-201‘\ 1/ I I I I I I I I I I
Exact linearized theory
-30~ ‘s,en~er-~~~y theory
Icn --— Large 7 “theory
.&I; 15, I I I I I I I I I I I

--l&’ 10

5 10 I
7 = .888
. . \
0 5 \
/ ‘.
,’ ..- .
-5 o (F i.-.
. \

-lo
(d)
-1~: I I I I I I I I I I I -IQ,
o 0

(c) Velooitiee, m,. (d) Velocities, ~

Fmcmn Il.—Continued lhGmm 11.—tintinued.

I
 ——— . . _—-— —.

720 REPORT 128&NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI’ITEE FOR AERONAUTICS

600 1
7=:148 7=.148
400 I \ 400
/
/
200 / 1. 200

—--0
/
~–— i 1 I -200 \ t
-dzoo

W30 -400
/ /
— Exact linearized theory -600 — Exoct linearized theory
-600
–—– Slender-tody theory ----- Slender-body theory

201 30- 1
1 ,
7=.296 7,.296
Ill
10 20

-w.
10,

\ / 4
-lo

-2Q11 I I I 1 I I I I I I I -10
o I
-20, “
o -1

3 I
7=.444
2 4 I
i= .444
3 / T
I
\
/ ‘ + ~ 2 f
o / \,
/ T /
‘\
-1’ L I
/
/
/, o \.
-2 \
\ \
— Exoct linearized theory // /
-3 -1 \
— Slender-body theory
f
-–— Large i’ theory
./
-2

-3

— Exoct Iineorized theory

-4 ------ Slender -bodv Iheorv
--— Lorge 7 the~ry ‘
.8 I
7 =.888
.4 / \
/ / .\
/ ‘\
Xo /
o / \ / ~ \ c .
/
/ \ \ \
(e) Velocities, p,,. \d
.
FIGURE1l.—Continued. -.4 / \
\ /
(f)
how velocities induced by these distributions vary with -.ql
ZO(ZO=Z-f%) and F (7=&]LO). The results have been com- g I
Xo
pared with those for large 7 given by equation (21) and with
those for small F given by slender-body theory. Values for (~ Velocities, w,.
the latter theory am det.ermiued from equations (9) or (19) FIQUnD1l.—Concluded.
by expanding the expressions in powers of r and neglecting 1 sin ‘TlL9
(–2)%!CZ*(Z)
all but the first terms. Thus it can be shown ; %8),*= 4tia+l ) n>O (45b)

(q(z) The significance of figure 11 with regard to practical oppli-

) n=o
2ur mtions is more or less obvious. The iirst step in its usc is to
%,)7*= (45a) lind the effective length of the cancellation-multipole dis-
(–2)%da.Jz)cog~, ~>o
tributions. Since the wing is given, the streamwm variation
4#1+1
of the cancellation multiples can be calculated. Actunlly
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 721
this variation will extend between the apexes of the enclosing distance to the vicinity of the body surface as r,, and one em
Mach forecone and aftercone, a distance of Lo+L~ (see define the parameter 74 thus
fig. 10). However, depending on the wing plan form and
section, the effective lengths of the distributions (the interval (46)
of principal variation) can be considerably less as illustrated
in figure 12. Designate this effective length as 2L, and the Using figure 11 and the parameter 7., one can now estimate
the error incurred by the use of various approximate methods
for calculating the body shape. A convenient way to carry
out these estimations is to study the magnitude of the first
crest of the waves shown in figures 11 @) through 11 (f), and
the distance this crest lies from the foremost Mach cone.
Graphs showing the variations of these quantities with 7 are
given in figures 13, 14, and 15.
By means of the above concepts, let us study briefly four .
diilerent approximate methods that can be used to calculate
a body shape.
SLENDER-BODY THEORY

Slender-body theory is represented in figure 14 by the

straight lines ‘hving the slopes, on the log~log scale, equal
to — (n + 1) where n is the order of the multipole. Since this
theory amounts to an expansion of the equations for the
velocities in powers of 7, it obviously represents a good
approximation when F. is SufEcientiy small. A’otice that for
FmuRE 12.—Effective length of multipole distribution.
a given percentage error the limiting value of 7. for which the
method applies increases as the order of the multiples in-

Pasition
Position of
--— Moxima
—.-. .— Minima

/
/’ /
/ /’/’ /,’/
//
~
-1
/ /’
A-
-1

+,
cas 28

-1
b I

D
I F -1 I F
Small 7

+,
A+. t Cos 28

–1
-1
0
(a) (b)
Inrge 7
Large 7
(a) Radial velaoities induced bv sources I
Fmurm 13.—Po~tians of orests of waves or&ed by multipole distri- (b) Radial velocities induoed by second-rder multiples.
butions shown in figure 11. FIGURE13.—Continued.
 .—. ——..

722 REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI’ITEE FOR AERONAIJ’lTCS

x$’” / ,,,,’’’”~$/
/J;+.’’’,,,,,,<,,;$>’’/;$>
/’
Q /.’”
/,/’/
/’
/
/
/
//f “( (:+’’’’%’+5:--:;,,,’

z!-
-1
L-L
;

!
\\ ( /,;5/

/
------- Minlmo

-1 I 2 3
x

+.
COS48

0
-1

“
-1 I
.7

Smell T -+

-1 “

Loqe T

(c) Trmgentisl velocities induced by seccmhrder

FIGURE13.—Continued.
(c)

multiples.
-fwidb
(d) Radial velocities induced by fourth-order multiples.
l?mmm 13.—Continued.
‘d)

creases. For example, when Fe= 0.2, q., as given by slender- If for a particular problem r, is small enough for slender-
body theory is 19 percent less than that given by exact body theory to be considered a good approximation, the
linearized theory for the case shown, whereas ~, is only 3 equation for the body shape, r= R(z,O), corresponding to
percent less. Correspondingly, the positions of the wave the combined wing and optimum cancellation multiples
crests follow the path predicted by slender-body theory to defined in equation (36) is determined by the expressions
larger values of 7 as the order of the multiples increases. (using equations (45), (36), and (14) together with equa-
The latter trend is illustrated by figure 15. tion (42))

:a#z
Iv -Lo’
Ckq(z-z,y Cos n+s.”(z,,y) (470)

(47b)
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVlll DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMMNATIONS 723

i
0’
Position of: ,/’ ,/ /,” ‘ #
——— Moxlmo / ,,.’ ‘ ,.?
--— Minimo ,/’” ,,@
,,.
/
,/ / //
,</ / “ /7
/“ ,f/
“/ / ////
/’

Z/’’’’’”
,?’
/’ *’/
,/
,,’
,’ .SY
/ ,,’ ,J / ,*7
,/” ,,7
/’/ ,’ ,“

(/ ,<”/
1’ ,’
,’
It : /’ ./

d
#
i ,7
1 v I
!-
1 I 2 3
F

+8
sin 48
t

10

3,
.2 .3 .5 1.0 235 10
7

(b)$%,
FmuEE 14.—Continued.

10000

Lorge 7 5,000

(0) Tangential velocities induced by fourth-order multipok

l?mmm 13.—Concluded.
3,0CX3
10
2,000

5
1.000

3
so
:s2
1

300 !ory -~ I I Iw I I I I I

I
200

“5 .05 Jo .2 .3 .5 Lo
7 1003
.5 Lo 23 5 10
?
(a) p.,
Fmuwa 14.—Attenuation of first orwt of wava oreated by multipole (o) q,,
distributions shown in figure 11. FrGURH 14.-Ckmtinued.
 .—— —— —.. ..— —

724 REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI’ITEE FOR AERONAUTICS

1000

500

300

\
200

100

50
al
N
s
: 30
UN
‘Q
20

‘“bl=t=t

5
\
.
3

2 \
20
.

(e)
\
1 I03
.5 LO 23 5 10
.2 .3 .5 1.0 2 3
i i

(d) ~ (e) P*
Fmrmn 14.—Continued. Fmmm 14.—Conoluded.

Approximate methods for iinding (w/UJZ) ~~mo ~d (PJUJ win~, equations (21) are also shown in figures 13, 14, and 15.
the velocities induced by the wing, can often be used also; For n S4 it is clear that this theory can be used when 7,
but these apply to individual cases and cannot be discussed is greater than about 2.
here. CONTROLSURFACE THEORY
~12Y kOR LARGE ;=
The approximations inherent in ordinary control-surface
The asymptotic values for magnitude and position of the theory can also be estimated by inspecting figures 14 and
first wave. crest obtained by placing equations (44) into 15, where by control-surface theory one means that the
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 725

n ..-
-lpu
Ill --— Large 7 theory / ---
I I I / ,Z--
4 Slender-bcdy theory I -––— Slender -bady theary
/
I I --
/ /
,/) ~ Large 7 theory /
/ /
-. — — --
-,8 ,/ / c
-.8
//
/’
Xo ,

-.6 -.6

-,4 -.4 ‘d)

Y.
I I I I I I
-1.0
(a) /

-,20
.2 .4 .6 .8 10 -- --
T /
(a) Radial velauities induced by sources. /’ ~ ~
-.8 -
FIaum 16.—Pasition of fit crest of wavea created by multipole /
/
distributions shown in figure 11. /
/ /
-1.0 / /
./
-/ --

-.8
‘/
/
A
/
/
‘“6E12ZII
‘1/1 I I I
(e) v I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,

I
I
-.4; “
/ / .2 .4 .6 .8 LO
7
(d) Radial velocities induced by fourth-order multiples.
-.6
(e) Tangentii velocities induoed by fourth-order multipok.
Fmwrm 15.—Concluded.
/
(b)
exact linearized theory is used to evaluate induced velocities
-,4 - along a given surface and these values are assumed constant
~o for all ? in the vicinity of the surface. As shown in
-1.0 figure 16, this amounts to assuming ~ and ~ are given
by a straight horizontal line in iigure 14 and by straight
/ lines with a unit negative slope in figure 15. Obviously,
/
/ the error in the body shape calculated by this theory increases
/
-,8 / as the amplitudes of the disturbing multiples increase and
/ -- --
/ aa the radius of the contiol surface diminishes.
One of the simpk% applications of control-surface theory
/ arises in the study of quasi-cylindrical bodies. In such
/
-.6 / / cases the expression for the body surface can be derived
/ / immediately from equation (42). Thus, if the amplitudes
/
/ of the cancellation multipolea are small enough and Rc,
(c) —-- Large 7 theory
the radius of the control surface, is large enough for control-
–-– —–-”Slender-bady theory
-.40 surface theory to be considered a good approximation, the
.2 .4 .6 .8 Lo
7 body shape, T= R(z,O), corresponding to the combined wing
and optimum cancellation multipolcs is determined by
(b) Radial velooitiea induced by second-order multipolee.
(a) Tangential velacitiea induced by second-order multiples. using equations (19c), (16b), and (36) together with equa-
Fmmm 1S.—Continued tion (42)

(48)

where LT.=1 for n=O and un=2 for n>O.

 —.. - .—

726 REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

3.0
I I .+R= (x–Q cosh n COI&-’ ~) &
.%wrce distntwtion given by ~=~ (1-Y2)X ( e
s –Lo’ ~(z–&)’–#2R3
25 \ !ir
-Control surfoce theory
&“(t,*) COBn+@ (4q
. Jo
I which can be solved using numerical techniques.
20
I
I ~ Lirkorized theory A further refinement of equation (49)can be obtainod if
I /
I
the position of the induced velocities is also varied according
to the slope (again at 7=7,) of the curves in figure 16. De-
fining this dope as ~., see figure 17, and z, as
I.5
-—i— —
I za=w—0(l+6,)(R—R.)
I
\
one can see this refinement simply amounts to replacing
:
the value of z in the right-hand term of equation (49) by X8.
j R= I
“Amplitude of fi&t crest ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE-ELLIPTIC WING
I I I
L5 .3 In order that one may be able to assw.s the practical sig-
i
nibmce of the preceding sections, the concepts presented
-.81 therein will now be applied to the solution of n particular
I !%sition of first Crest I
problem. For the basic wing plan form in this particular
Lmearlzed theorq
I 3.0
\l Sourcedistribution
givenby UO=
~ (I-12)X

% Control surface theory–: 25

I
-.6
I

I 20
I
I -& @
!=Q r Lmeorized theory
i w !
1 I
p?= I I
-.4, .3 1.5
.2 \
i ~ Modified ~ontrol~
FIGURE 16.—Comparison of velocity fields given by exact-linearized surface theory
I
and aontrol-surface theory.

A study of optimum fuselage shapes using control-surface

1%
Amplitude
I of first crest
theory has been carried out by Nielsen (ref. 10) for a constant-
chord”sweptback wing having a bicmmex section and a sonic .15 .2 .3 .4 5
leading edge. The set of interfering singuhwities used in 7

reference 10 are equivalent (the singularities are limited to .-

the z axis) to the multiples used herein. The fuselage
shapes calculated by IVielsen are thus the sam~within the
T Modified control
\, surfoce theory
Rx.itian of first crest
I
/ I
accuracy of control-surface theory-as those given by equa- \
tion (48). /
\ I
MOIXF2ED CONTEOBIJRFACE ~JiY 70 ‘- Linearized theory I
A method of modifying control-surface theory to increase -.6 f
I
its accuracy is illustrated in iigure 17. Induced velocities
computed by thie method are based on those calculated
along a given control surface but are extended away from
this surface by varying their magnitude as (F)7mwhere the
/
value of Y. is fixed by the slope of the curves in figure 14 at I
7=7., T. being defined by equation (46) (fig. 17). With this t&
-.4,
modification equation (48) becom~ 2 .3
i
l?mmm 17.—Comparieon of velocity fields given by exaot-lirmariml
and modified contzol-surface theory.
 THE REDU(YITON OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 727

example rm ellipse will be chosen. There are two good

reasons for this choice; tit, the ellipse is electively un-
swept and plmes a severe teat on the role of body interfer- ,<= constont
ence in reducing the wave drag at-s supersonic speed, and, \
second, for a given volume, the optimum section (i. e., the
ono yielding minimum wave drag) for these wings when
considered separately has been discovered (see ref. 11) so
the reduction in wave drag brought about by the body
will reduce the minimum value possible for such wings when
flying alone, The drag reductions for the ii.ret few cancella-
tion-multipole distributions will be calculated and compared
with the totrd drag of the wing alone, the wing mounted on
an intl.nite cylinder, and the wing mounted on a basic body
of revolution. I?imdly the details of calculating a body
shape simulated by the wing source sheet, a source line
representing a basic body of revolution, and the fit two
optimum crmcellation-multipole distributions will be carried
out.
THE ELLIPTICWING

Consider the elliptic lens specified by the equation

‘=+=
X1-H-J (50)
Wave drag,-The
Fmmm 19.—Elliptio wing in f,~ coordinat~

wave drag of the elliptic wing repre-

where the thickness, span, and chord are shown in iigure 18. sented by equation (5o) can be calculated by means of
The streomwiee slope of the upper surface is seen to be equation (3o) in which, since one wishes now to find the
wave drag of the wing alone, the an’s are set equal to zero.
Z)z
— =X&/)=+ (51) The value of S’@’(z,o) follows by placing equation (51) intQ
ax.
equation (28) and integrating. Thus
and the total wing plan-form area S and volume V are,
I
res~ectively, UOSW’(X,13)=2U0cos p (f+q sin J@i’=
1(-+)
S’=mzb
1
(52)

J where, by referring the equation of the plan form to the &v

coordinates (see eq. (26)) and solving for the points where
the straight line ~=conetant intersects the wing edges, one
fids-see figure 19

h,~= —b’~sin p+ab~a’ COS’p+ba sin’ ,u-.g’ COS’~

hvj a? toss P+ N sid P
Y
Hence,
4ztab
S.’(z,e)=
– d~ (53)
(a’+b’~’ cd o)’

From the relation

~’(tl) =az+b’@ COS’o (54)

ix the wave drag can be expressed in the form (integrating once

Wing plan form by pint@

:=-* JXP..)%E)4%$I’

-4
lF-

+2”+ Further integration yields

Root section

FKXJZE18.—Deflnition of paramotere used to study elliptic wing.

43587 &07~7
 .—— . ..--_— ..—

728 RJIPORT 128*NATIONA.L ADVISORY COMMFITEE FOR AERONAUTICS

equation (36),
the optimum cancellation multiples. Hence,
Mnt Exoct Ackeret combining equations (53) and (36)
numk hneorized wove—
theory t(x-f)/u2
I .044 .050
2 -.053 -.050
3 -.102 -.100 where um=l for n= O and u.=2 for n>O. Particular vari-
4 -.104 -.100 ations of a.w (z) are shown in figure 21. These results aro
Regicm to be z
2
ocwpied by
My streamline ----— 1 —7 r \

I \

o\
/ I / x

Fmmm 20.—Points at whioh exactAinearized themy was compared -1- \ ,

with an Ackeret wave in plane of symmetry for elliptic wing.
\J
Finally, the wave drag can be expressed in coficient form, (o)
-g=
based on the total wing area xab, as -4 -2 0 2 4 6

(a) n=;

(55) 2

r\

1 / ‘ \
Equation (55) represauts the lowest value of wave drag
T
po~ible for a wing having an elliptic plan form and fied g s’ /
o- -
volume. This equation was first derived by Jones in
%’1 \ \
reference 11. 0 /
The velocities induced by the wing source sheet in the
vicini~ of the fuselage .-Later, when one wishes to calcu-
Iat e a stream surface in the presence of the source sheet that /
-1
simulates the wing given by equation (50), it is necessary to \
know the velocities induced by these sources at the body /
!
surface. Hence, the value of p, induced by the source sheet (b)

was calculated at the four points indicated in figure 20. ‘Z6 -3 0 3 6

x
As it turns out, these values are w close (see the figure for a
(b) n=2
numerical comparison) to those obtained by assuming the
1.0
source sheet to be two-dimensional with a chordwise intensi~
identical to that along the root section of the elliptical sheet .8
(i. e., using the Ackeret wave generated by the root section) /-~ \
I
.6
that the effect of the wing can be assumed to be given every-
where in the vicinity of the body by the latter velocity field .4
if (as will be the case ‘in subsequent application) the surface /
, \
of the body passea through the region shaded in the figure. .2
That is, the effect of the wing in the equations for the fuselage /
o
shape (such as eqs. (47), (48), or (49)) is assumed to be
/
-.2

I /
-.4

/
-.6
/
\
/
-.8
THE OPTZNUM CANCELLA~ON MULTIPOLE9
(c)
-lg6 -3 0 3 6
One can now find the strengths of the multiples along the
x axis which induce arcund a cylinder of iniinite radius a (o) :=4
momentum field identical to that created there by the elliptic FrGURE 21.—Variation of nth derivative of nth-order cancellation
wing. The negatives of these variations are, acccrding to multipolea for elliptic wing.
 THE REDUCTION OF WATTl DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMIHNATIONS 729
for JZ=O, 2, awl 4, since C# (zj for any odd n is zero by become increasingly wavy and, correspondingly, increas-
symmetry, rmd apply when the wing plan for and free- ingly diihcult to evaluate numerically.
strenm Mach number are related by Figure 22 presents the values of an(z) for the same elliptic-
wing Mach number relation given by equa Lion (58). hTotice
att
—= —
(58) that each of these curves has only one root (they necessarily
Z@ 3ir
have at least one) in the interval –LO<X<LO and is in-
which contains the particular case for which the Mach creasingly smooth with increasing n. The latter follows
number is & and the aspect ratio is 3. It is apparent that from equation (37) and the fact that the first n derivatives
there are at least n+ 1 roots to %$ (z) for –LO<X<LO. of these curves must, in general, be continuous. For mam-
This follows immediately from equation (38) and is true in pleat z= +Lo the fit four derivatives of al(z) must vanish.
general. As rLresult the curves for the higher values of n Wave drag,-One can now calculate how much the wing-
alone drag is reduced when combined with each successive
optimum cancellation-multipole dis&ibution. If ~= clenot es
P \ the drag saved by the nth-order cancellation multiples,
.06
then by equation (35)

.04 /

/ \
where L. is the maximum value of L(o) as given by equation
.02 / (54)
\
/ L~=a2+b’& (60)
T
-w N40 / The total drag saved by means of the first m multipolo dis-
o + \
m ~o
tributions, would, by equation (34), be
‘Q /
\

-,02 / (61)
/
Using equations (53) and (36) h’ deiine the a~+D (.x) in
\
-.04 / equation, reversing the order of integration, and int e-
W* once by parts, one finds
/

D. r12
-,06 \J
/ —=_ –4 ‘~
Ccs ‘nl?ldl
(o) fl 7+ J, Jo WSnO~ZJ:;:,d~IJ::.d~3
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
(4td)’ L’(eJ-2&’ &,/L’(e’)–g,’
(a) n=2x L4(eJL4(e2) J- tl–f?

.0006
64 (tab)g ‘/2 TB
=— Cos ?l.&del costide2
T’ Jo Jo
.0004
— +!D(o’), L’(o,) s .L’(/32)
/
\ { —T*/4L’(eJ, L2(oJ2L2(13J
.0Q02 /

/ It is apparent fkom @e 23 that this can be written

%
-v *Q \
0 /
~: $
\ t

-,0002 /
\
/
or
-.0004 I ~, 32(tub)2 ’12 cm W31dl Xl’
—. COS“&d, (62)
/J J
fl~ o (a’+ b’f?’cos2tlJ2J ,91

(b)
-.OOCK= The total drag saved by using all the cancellation multiples
-A -?. n 9 A c
“ L -1 c1
x is, by definition,
(b)n=4
J?munn 22.—Variation of nth-order cancellation multiples for elliptic ~
—= 16 (tub)’ ‘n
%@ ~SiII
ml costiel
wing. !l~o J (a2+b2$cos28J2 ( 2 )
730 REPORT 128&NATIONAlJ ADVISORY COM&fITTDE FOR AERONAUTICS

81=82>,
\ /
\
\\ /’
\ /
‘\\//
/
/
L<81)<Lq82) /
/
/
/
/
/
q /
/
/
/
/
/
/ L%,)#(e2)
/
/
/
/
,/
—
o x
I (a)
.. / Radial velocities induced bv sources.
FIQURZ23.-Regions used in developing equation (62). Fmmm 25.—Velocities induced by the elliptic-wing cancellation
multiples at the control surface where 19R/L.= 0.148.
and since
-1 When various ordem of multiples are distributed along
z=~—~ – sin 2nz 00s 2nz
4 .=ln a line, one can show the cross-sectional area normal to the
free stream of the simulated body as given by slender-body
this is equal to the drag of the wing alone, as it, of course, theory is a function of the source distribution only (me
should be. Appendix B). Coupled with the discussion in the preceding
The reduction in wave drag as the wing is combined with paragraph, this can be used to demonstmte that, for Mach
the fit three optimum cancellation multiples is presented numbers close to 1, the ‘%upermnic aren rule” proposod by
in figure 24. In studying figure 24, one sees, as the Mach Jones (ref. 12) and Whitcomb and discussed in reference 13
number approaches 1 (i. e., p~O), more and more of the gives a good approximation for the wave drag of an elliptic
original wing wave ~m is destroyed by a line of simple wing and body combination which is symmetrical with
sources alone. Further, the value of Fe which can be writ- respect to the plane of the wing.
ten-see equations (46), (54), and figures 21 and 22— The induced velocity field.-A method for calculating tho
velocity field induced by the multiples when a~(~) is given
(63) numerically is presented in Appendix C. By means of this
method, velocities induced by the Q and a~ m~til?ole di+
tends (for n fixed avemqge distance to the body surface re) tributions shown in figure 22 have been calculated for 7
to zero as the Mach number approaches 1; and this, in turn, equal to 0.148 and the results are shown in figure 26.
means that as ~ goes to zero the dlect of the multipole Since the distributions in figure 22 were for the particular
strengths on the body shape can be calculated using slender- case a]bD=4j3~, it is evident from equation (63) that the
body theory. values in figure 25 apply to the case r,/b equal to O.161;
that is, when the body radius is about 16 percent of tho
1.0
/f wing semispan.
I For ~mparative purposes, the values given by slen(ler-
/
/ body theory are also shown in figure 25. The degree of
.8 ,
agreement between the two curves is consistent with tlm
results shown in iigures 14 and 15.
I
INTERPRETATION OF DRAG REDUCTIONS
t I i . ~ I I I
&
Comparison with wing mounted on a oiroular oylinder.—
.4 / \\’\
I With regard to figure 24 one should be careful to no~ico
/ I \h I I I
that the drag of the wing alone has been used for tlm
/ ‘
.2 -b reference drag. The drag reductions shown, tlmrefom, ropro-
I I A I I I
=H7r-1 sent gains brought about by interfering with the velocity
field induced by a planar murce sheet, or, in terms of a
— ,
o .4 .8 1.2 L6 ZLO 24 28 3.2 combination with an upstream cylindrical stream surface,
Reduced ospect rotio, &l gains made by modiftig a body, shown in figure 26, which
FIGURE 24.-Portions of elliptic-wing wave drag oreated by various bulges behind the wing leading-edge Mach wave in accord-
equivalent multipole distributions. ance with the velocities induced there by the sourco sheet.
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVlil DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 731

,6 8 1 1 I I .6
–––- Slender-body }heory
t
1 I I # 1
––– Slender-bdy theory /- ‘\
f- $\
,4 .4 \
+
r!{ <
/‘ 4
\
‘q
,2 i
.2 \
m I ,
N
k /
Im I ~ $
l-i -a ~ ‘ \\
/ / %.
S.:o k a’ (y — “
{
iS \ t ,
/
\ I
\ [ \
-,2 -. 2
/’
\
,
\ I
, , //
-.4 \ f~ 1 1 1 1 -. 4
fl
~/ ‘
.
(b) (c)
-.~6 4 6
-4 -2 0 2
“56 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 x
(b) Radial velocities induced b; second-order multiples. (o) Tangential velocities induced by second-order multiples.
Fmwan 26.—Continued. fi@JRE 25.—Concluded.

Obviously, from this viewpoint, a considerable reduction in where Vg and VI are the volumes of wings 1 and 2, respec-
drag con be brought about merely by eliminating the bulge, tively.
thereby making the body a circular cylinder throughout. For a supersonic Mach number, D, is closely approximated
Mathernaticnlly, such a procedure amounts to using a certain by the wave drag of a rectangular wing having the same
set g of cancellation multiples along the z axis behind the section and aapect ratio. If A,, 4Ra, and r, are, respectively,
point –l& and, if the drag of this remlting combination the aspeet ratio, plan-form area, and thickness ratio of the
wero u8ed as a reference, the gains shown in @me 24 would rectangular wing, its drag can be expressed in the form
be diminished.
An approximate way to e9timate the drag’ of a wing (65)
mounted on a circular cylinder is illustrated in figure 27
and coneista merely of subtracting from the wing source where
sheet those sources blanketed by the body. Using the
subscripts 1, 2, and 3 to designate the wave drags of the
individual wings as indicated in figure 27, Jones (ref. 15)
has shown that if wing 1 is an elliptic wing with a bi-
convex section and wing 2 lies entirely within the plan
form of wing 1, then

“=D’O+%)+D’ (64)

r n
———— Moth waves from wing mat section , Wings
,/
,/

(3
/’ /“ 1
/ /
2b 20
— 2R [—l

u
/ /
/
/
,/
/
/
L I
-fl--2o4

2 3
\ \
\ \\
\

l?mmm 213,-Wing and stream tube simulated by planar shmt of sources.

Ra5
\\\\ &5\ \
Equivalent wing–body combinations
$Theexactevaluattcn
of mnlt@Jedistributions
nrmmargrasinndatea drctdarcylIndar
forthacntlrobodyImzthlm hemstnd1a3 inrefamnw14. FIGURE 27.—Method of approximating wing mounted on a cylinder
 .—— — . ..— —

732 REPORT 1282—NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITCEE FOR ADRONATJTICS

Further, if Al is the aspect ratio of the elliptic wing, one can estimates, however, the results of the following two theorems
showaee figure 27 and equation (52)— due to R. T. Jones (ref. 15) are needed.
1. Designate the closed body of revolution which, by
(67) slender-body theory, has a minimum drag for a fixed volumo
and length as a Seara-Haack body. Then the total wavo
The drag of the elliptic wing follows from equation (55) and drag of a Sears-Haack body and any other body of revolution
or any centrally mounted thin wing which lie entirely within
can be written
the Sears-Haack body’s enclosing Mach fomcone ancl after-
(68) c.one is given by the equation

where
(71)
‘=D=O+%3+D’
where:
(69)
Ds= wave drag of Sears-Haack body alone
D, wave drag of other body or (e.xPosed) wing alone
Vm volume of Sears-Haack body
Finally, therefore, equation (64) can be put in the form v, volume of other body or (exposed) wing

(70) 2. Designate the body of revolution which, by slender-bocly

theory, has a minimum drag for a fixed base diameter and
and the ratio N../Nl is a function of the parameters R/b and length as a K&rm&n ogive. Then the total wave chmg of (L
/3A1Old~. Kfmn6n ogive and any other slender body of revolution or
By means of equation (70),the dashed curves shown in any centrally moqnted thin wing which lie entirely withiu
figure 28– the ogive’s enclosing Mach forec.one and aftercone is given
by the equation
D= D~+Da (72)
-7 =7
,.’ ~. where:
I.0 .,//
,,.,,
D= wave drag of Kfwmfm ogive alone
,? D, wave drag of other body or (esposecl wing alone
,Q,,
.8
In order that the theoretical results could be tested by
R/b _ --
wind-tunnel experiments, a basic body of revolution lmving
.12
.6 a finite base area was chosen. Such a body can be simulated
.16
~ by a combination of the source distributions which produce, 1°
D#f 00+ o~ -7
.20– —- ‘—
separately, the Sears-Haack body and the Kfwmfm ogive.
.4
Thus, if 21 is to be the body length, the line of sources

.2 a.(z) 2
~=~ V.–4V.. ; F–2 (73)
--uo+o~+. o~ ( )
I simulates (by slender-body theory) a body of revolution
o 2 3 4
PA
having a total volume V equal to V&+ V~, a cross-sectional
area given by
FIWRE 2S.-Drag of various multipole distributions compared with
drag of wing mounted on circular cylinder.
s(z)=%
representing approximately the vrwe drag of a wing mounted [“=+’’(s+sin-?)]+
centrally on a circular cylinde~were calculated. Though
considerable drag reduction is indicated by adding just
those multiples necessary to make the body cylindrical,
it is apparent the total wave ‘drag can be reduced further, and a base area S(i) equal to V=/l.
for the range of parameters shown, by using only the first The wave drag of a wing mounted on this basic, unmodified
tmo optimum cancellation-mukipole distributions, so(z) body will now be calculated. Just as was the case in study-
and as(x), given by equation (36). ing the wing attached to an infinite cylinder, the assumption
Comparison with wing mounted on a basic body of revo- @ made that the wave drag of this combination is the samo
lution.-Figure 2S shows the effect on the wave drag of as the wave drag on the contlguration simulated by super-
adding the optimum cancellation multiples either to the imposing the singularity distribution M which create seplI-
wing alone or to the combination of an iniinite circular
cylinder and a centrally mounted wing. Estimates of their
effect when added to a wing mounted on a basic body of
revolu (ion can also be carried out,. In order to present these by llne&ked theory. -
 THE RDDUCXION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 733

rat ely the exposed wing panels and the body of revolution. .024
\
With this assumption, the wave drag can be written ex- 4 ,,
plicitly in terms of the wing and body geometry by applying \
equdione (71) and (72). Hence, \
.020
ambinat ion

‘=D’+D=(l+%)+D’
,~ Unmodified
(75)
\
\
where D3 is the drag of the exposed wing panels alone, given .016
\
by equation (7o) and shown for various values of R/b in \
figure 28, and V3 is their volume (see fig. 27) .
\
.

‘7’=’”(=:) (76) CD .012

,
Since D~ and Ds=, the wave drags of a K6rm6n ogive and a \
\
Senrs-Hanck body flying alone, are well known to be ~ - ,1
.00s
\;
Modified combinotlons; ~i
Some total volume –J {
Less tatal volume---J

.034

tho wave drag coe5cient of the unmodified combination,

based on the complete wing area mzb, can be expressed as ~.o 1.10 L20 130 1.40 L50
M

I?IG- 30.—Drag variation for modiiied and unmodified wing-body

combinations.

where V4 is the total volume and D, the total wave drag per-
(78)
%[(1-%+%1 taining to the wing (now the complete wing including the
portion blanketed by the body) and the multiples. How-
where N1 and NZ are defined in terms of Mach number and ever, within the accuracy of the approximation-being, in
wing-body geometry in equations (66) and (69). An ex- fact, exact within slender-body theory, see Appendix B—
nmple of the variation of CLJwith lMach number for the par- the volume added by the wing is subtracted from the bnsic
ticular combination shown in figure 29 (R/b was set equal to body by the optimum cancellation-source distribution so
0.181) is given by the dashed line in figure 30. that VA is zero. Further, if N4 is the value of D/Dmread
It is now possible to find how much the drag of this un- from figure 24 for a speciiic value of &41 and a specific num-
modified combination can be reduced by means of the opti- ber of multipole types, one can readily show
mum cancellation-multipole distributions used to derive the
results shown in figure 24. Again applying equations (71) (80)
nnd (72), one can show
where NI is defined in equation (69). Hence, the drag of
‘=”’+”4’%3+”’ (79) the unmodified combination can be reduced to either

D
–=cD=*{vK2+8[v”H
(pub

(81)

k=--L
if the same total volume is maintained (maintained, as is
obvious from an inspection of the equation, by increasing
the value of the Sears-Harwk portion of the basic body an
amount equal to the volume of the ecrposed wing) or to
Moxlmum thickness of wmg
along center line, t =0.234

Total valume of body= 44.15CI

—
c“=dj~. (VK’+8Vs.~+__& ATIAT4
VW=31.72
VK=12.88
if the volume of the fuselage is reduced by an amount equnl
FIGURE29.—Dimensions of wing-body combination analyzed. to the wing volume.
 -—. —

,
734 REPORT 128&NATION&G ADVISORY CO~ FOR AERONAUTICS

sides by the cancellation multiples (see fig. 31), decreasing

the average body radius in the wing region from about 1.00
Actual to about 0.89. One must be careful to notice that the solicl
cross section -e
14.5
curves represent minimum (relative to the special method
01 stotion 8.5 I [5
I I being discussed) values which can be obtained by a specific
design at a speciiic Mach number and do not represent tho
---—Original body variation of wave drag with Mach number for any given
combination.
~ BODYSHAPE-FIRST
CALCULATION
,.2= The final step in studying the effect of the optimum
cancellation multiples, defined in equation (36), is to find
the distorted body shape which they produce in combination
with the wing and a basic body. The decision was maclo to
calculate a body shape which would be optimum at a Mnch
Distonce from nose
number equal to ~ The details of the wing and body
Note: verticol stole five t!mes horizontal
geometry are given in figure 29 and~he basic body pnmmotem
V. and Vs were interpreted in terms of source strength by
Lo equation (73).
It was apparent from the results of figure 26 thot, for 111o
.8 values of r. and b given by figure 29, the velocity field induced
.6 by the first two optimum multipole distributions can bo
calculated with good accuracy using slender-body theory.
1.0 Combining the values of ~r and w so calculated with those
R .8 induced by the wing, given by equation (56), and thoso
induced by the basic body, using also slender-body theory to
.6
interpret equation (73), one can iind the body slmpo by
1.0 solving the two simultaneous nonlinear differential equations
presented as equations (43). These were solved numerically
.8
by the method outlined in Appendix D and the results were,
.64 unfortunately, unrealistic. Figure 32 shows an example of rL
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distonce from nose streamline close to the 0= O plane and the crossing of such
Note -vertical stole five times horizontal streamlines obviously invalidates the solution.

BODYSHAPE-SECOND
CALCULATION
1.0
The failure observed in the tit calculation hns a simple
.8 enough interpretation. For the chosen wing the basic body
.6 was too small in diameter at the wing-body juncture to per-
1.2 mit the use of the first two cancellation multiples in their
entirety.
I .0
R Several avenues of approach are yet available. One could,
.8 for example, maintain the same wing and basic body but
reduce the Mach number, one could start with a huger basic
.6
l., body, or one could lower the thickness ratio or aspect rnlio
of the wing, thus diminishing the strength of the cancellation
1.0
multiples. All of these, however, are modifications of tho
.8 basic conditions or basic restraints and as soon a-s such

.64 Y
6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distonce from nose
Note -vertical stole five times horizontal

Fzcwnn 31.—Body shape having favorable interference wave drag at

ilf= 1.41 when combined with elliptic wing.
I
The results expressed by equations (80) and (81), when
applied to the fit two optimum cancellation-multipole dis-
tributions, are shown for the geometrical parameters pre- 1? =.888 - /
/
sented in figure 29 by the solid curves in figure 30. The 1;
;/
value of R/bused for the solid curves was 0.161 instead of the
Multiples -J’ ~- Streamline, 8-O
0.181 value used to calculate the dashed curve. The smaller
value was used since the moditled body is drawn in along the FIGURE32.-Stree.rnline when starting body rsdius ia too smrdl.
 THE lU3DUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBIITAIYONS 735

restrictions me abandoned it must be remarked that no

matter how low the wave drag of a set of nonlifting, volume-
cnclosing surfaces has been made, another arrangement of
the same volume within rLfinite space will give a lower value,
unless, of course, the wave drag of the first arrangement ie
already zero. Therefore, instead of modifying any of the
initial restraints, consider the following alternative:
How much cm the drag be reduced by using only a
portion of the first two cancellation muhipoles so that a
real body would still be simulated?
In order ta answer the above question, examine briefly the
first calculation. Notice, from figure 25, that the cause of
the body collapse is attributable to the large values of ~
and ~ induced by the second-order cancellation multiples,
a~(z). Hence, let so(z) be maintained at its full value and
reductions permitted only in the magnitude of C&E). To
carry out such a procedure efficiently, one must be able to
determine the effect of a given variation bf a,(z) on the body
shape. I?ortunately, Graham, in reference 16, has developed
a method by means of which the relation between c&) and
body shape. can be quickly estimated. Graham has shown
b
if
-f;,
1. a rectilinear distribution of second+rder multipolea
of strength al(z) is placed along the z axis (see fig. FIQUEEI34.-Variation of RIRO with –F*=U.
33) in a supersonic stream (iW=fi) occurs along the plane 19=0 or ~. The variation of RIR.
2. slender-body theory is used to evaluate q, and ~,
with F*~u is give; in figure 34 from which one can see t~at
3. R=R. is the radius of a circularly cylindrical tube the maximum value of IF*I must be less than 0.6 if the
for —Lo>z>– co, simulated stream tube behind the plane z= —LOis to be real.
The problem can now be continued, using Graham’s
result as a guide, by assuming-the critical body radius in the
then more complicated source and multipole arrangement is
principally determined by F*(O)—the parameter governing
1+227*(Z)Cos24+ J1+4F*(Z) Cos 20+4[F*(Z)]’‘“ the body indentation at the center of the cutout and at the
R=RC
{ 2 } wing-body juncture. In the first place, since there is no
(83) interference between ditlerent orders of multiples, it is
is the continuation of the stream tube for z> —LO. necessary to consider only the d-rag produced by the second-
Since the initial strengths of the cancellation muhipoles order multipole. Appendix E presents a method for finding
nre negntive, F*(x) is negative and the critical value of R the optimum distribution of the second~rder cancellation
multiples for a given wing and a fixed value of F*(O).
The resulting wave drag is given in equation (E1 1). At a
Maoh number equal to@ and for the basic wing and body
parameters presented in figure 29, FW*(0) (defined by eq.
(ES)) equals –2.90 and the reduction in ~’/@’, the amount
of drag caused by the wing second-order multiples alone —
see equation (62) and figure 24-is shown in figure 35 for a
range of F*(O). Variations on the strength of various com-
binations of second+rder multiples are shown in figure 36.
It is important to notice that for a given percentage reduction
in the maximum strength of the multiples the resulting
Multiples - percentage reduction in ~~ is much larger.
The strengths of a,(z) shown in figure 36 must now be
combined with the zero-order multiples and wing source
sheet, and the combined velocity field used to calculate the
shape of the new body. Using again slender-body theory to
evaluate the velocity field inducad by the multiples and the
numerical methods given in Appendix D to compute the
Ramm 33.—DcJlnition of parameters used to study effeot of seoond- streamlines, one finds, by restricting the distribution and
order multiples on fuselage shape. strength of the second-order cancellation multiples to their
435s7G-G7~8
 .— -—-
.— —. ———.
— —.

736 REPORT 128&NAlTONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR “~RONAIJTICS

.004 .024,
\

NO Cancellation multipdesv /
,/ -Unmodified co mbmat Ion
—————. ______ ____ ————— k“ -
.020
\
\
\
\
.016 \
\.
\
\
-.
\
co .012
— —— — r“
I I

/’ If
.008
;;
Modified comblnotions with some
} total volume w
Complete frost IWO multipole distributions- /’
.004 Second-order multiples dlmmished to
t provide reel body shopes – ——— — H
I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8
-f%(o)
n
Fmmm 35.—Reduction in drag caused by second-order multipolcs. “1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.X)
M
.6 FIGURE37.—Drag of unmodified and modified oombinrhione with real
I I I
/- - -uz(x), vorlotion of second-order body shapes.
/ \ /
multiples for wing olone. (If
there were no restraints on resent an estimate of the amount the wave drag of nD
.4 . F*(x), this would be reduced
elliptic wing mounted on a basic body of revolution can bo
reduced by realistic body distortions-are shown in figure 37.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

.2
It is possible to gain some insight into the reasons for the
various body distortions shown in figure 31 by inspecting,
y in another light, the body shape first calculated. Consider
o / first the elliptic wing at the top of figure 38. The air over
the forward part of this wing, when it is alone in a super-
sonic stream, is compressed (mathematically, the sign of p=
is negative), the compression being greatest near the lending
-.2 edge. On the other hand, the air over the after portion of
\
the wing is undergoing an expansion, the magnitude of which
is greatest near the trailing edge. Consider now, in combi-
\ A + v nation with this wing, a body which is to have a slmpo
-.4
providing favorable interference. It is apparent that the
body should cast expansion waves over the forward portion
L 1
of the wing, destroying the compression there, and nbsorb
-.:.6 the expansion waves coming from the wing af terportion.
-.4 -.2 0 .2 .4 .6
Or in another light, the positive pressure on the forward
F1amm 3f3.-Variation of second-order multiples for several valu= region of the wing (one can use the equation (7P= @—p.)/Q=
of F*(o).
—2Pz/U0 for the preslwre coefficient) should be reduced ns fnr
as possible by a wave shed from the body and having lnrge
optimum values corresponding to the restraint II P(O) =
negative pressures where it comes in contact with the wing
—0.6, that a retd as well as reasonable body shape results.
forward region.
The details of this shape are presented in ilgge 31 and their
Since waves in a supersonic flow field are fundamentftlly
general interpretation is discussed in the next section.
associated with the slope of the disturbing surface, the afore-
Finally, using the value P(O) = —0.6, the drag curves shown
mentioned favorable interference fields would be created by
in figure 30 were reinterpreted, and the results-which rep-
a body having, longitudinally along its surface, slopes such
11 m-w @m OSm the
marbnrm .~le woe of — F (z).However, that valoe
as those shown in the lower part of tigure 38. This is ex-
ls bawd on a dktrfbntkm of m(r) alonsj end in orm mm sensraf mm the added wlwlty
Preldmwd by tbe prewnce of the other sin@nrItles fwmnh tbe larger raloe. actly what the solution obtained from the calculation of 1he
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DR4G OF WTNG AND BODY COM.BINATIONS 737
to provide the longitudinal e.stent of favorable slopes neces-
U. sary to create the positive pressure called for by the wing
I forward compression region, and the body streamline near
————
———— the wing root, following a path such as that shown by the
—— —— ——

——
——
_
—— —— —. — line in figure 38, crossed the body center line before it reached

———.
—
———
——
E&

E —.
—————
——

——
——
———— ——_
.
_
the wing chordwise center.
Consider now the second body calculated in the previous

1———
““=+ —— _
section. In this case an additional restraint was imposed
which, effectively, ‘fked the maximum body indentation.
Subject to such a condition, an optimum interference field
was discovered. If the resulting fuselage shape is inspected
near the plane of the wing, surface slopes are found similar
to those shown in figure 39. The following discussion is
intended to show that, from a physical viewpoint, this ar-
rangement is reasonable.
Most of the wing pressure drag occurs on the wing inboard
portions. Hence, for a tied maximum fuselage indentation,
it is beneficial, from an over-all point of view, to create

y=
I
I initially a compression wave, which increases the pressure
~-7 Cenler lines drag on the forward portion of the wing tip but provides n

4 J
_ Body streamline

Lo

,“;.), streamline
. . .

/“:.
.- –A
..,.. . -. :1
/ ~:..;:.-... . -i
::-:;\::. .“ . “.
.— ....-
–.—==-%——
/ — — ——— \
/--% — — ———

‘A
/($,.;.
..:.-/..
..
‘––—––=
—— —=
....<.. - -. —— ——
——
/;-:.-.;
.::-:.. . . ——
. . . . -- —

— ..-. . :, ----
-— .- ...1 F;
\~= — . ..-
- . . -,.=. . .
... ... ... . .
—- ., -. ..-. ./:-...-..
/

.,
--L Multiples
--- --
\
I

Q ..
1 . .
.-
FIGURE 38.—Regions of expansion and compression on wing with
unmodified and modified fuselage.
. -Multipoles
--- ,---
first body shape tried to establish since the fuselage near the /-
Region of:
plane of the wing (the portion most strongly affecting and ———
————=
—. compression
being affected by the pressures on the wing) and ahead of the ~;s~.<;< exponsion
wing chordwise center line was distorted in a manner that
caused rm expansion across the wing entire forward portion. FIGUEE 39.—Regions of expansion and compression on wing with
The dficulty arose because the fuselage was not wide enough fuselag-e distortion show&
738 REPORT 128%NATTONAL ADVISORY COMllTITD E FOR AERONAUTICS

succeeding extent of fuselage having slopes that generate a The results are similar to the estimates presented in figure
strong expansion wave over the forward portion of the wing 39. The large drag saving near the root section is illustrated
inboard section. Similarly, the iinal portion of the body is in figure 40 by the graph showing the low valuea of section
forced to have a region of unfavorable interferences where drag cmdiicient along the inner portion of the wing.
the e.spansion waves from the wing tips combine with body Another important characteristic of wing-body combina-
expansion waves to increase the local drag (i. e., increase the tions designed to have low wave drag is ah illustrated in
Iocrd suction pressure) in order that the over-all interference figure 40. As shown in the graph of UIUO, over the surface
effects are as beneficial, under the given restraints, as possible. of a two-dimensional biconvex section the air is everywh ore
This arrangement (i. e., unfavorable interference near the accelerating in the streamwise direction. In studies con-
wing tip and favorable interference near the wing root) is cerning the eflects of viswsity on the fluid flOW and, in
given further support by the attenuation property inherent particdar, studies concerning the boundary layer, this posi-
in three-dimensional waves. Thus the pressures induced tive fluid acceleration is referred to as a favorable pressure
by the body on the wing tips are not as strong, for a given gradient. If the flow is ]amimir in the vicinity of the leading
generating surface slope, as those induced on the inner por- edge of a smooth wing and the pressure gradient is every-
tion of the wing, dply because the tips are farther from the where favorable, the flOW tends b remain laminar and
disturbing surface. unseparated over most of the wing chord. Notice that the
Although these considerations are somewhat oversimplMed modiihd wing-body combination has a line of zero prmsum
(the shape of the upper part of the body has been completely gradient extending along a Mach line downstrmm from a
ignored in estimating the eilect of the waves), the longitudinal point near the body and wing leading-edge juncture. Im-
variation of surface slopes near the plane of the wing and the mediately behind this line the pressure gradient is unfa vor-
resulting body streamlines there are, from a physical point able which gives rise to the possibility of flow separation or,
of view, reasonable. at least, transition from laminar to turbulent flow there.
In order b support the above conclusions, the source and
multipole distributions simulating the final modiiied body CO~ARISONmTH EXPERIMENT
shown in figure 31 were used to calculate (see Appendix C)
U/ Ue in the plane of the wing near the root section. The The modified wing-body combination shown in figuro 31
values of u] UO induced by the wing sources along these was tested in the Ames 2- by 2-foot transonic wind tumml.
sections were amuned to be the same as those induced by a The Reynolds number of the test, based on the mean aero-
two-dimensional biconvex section having the same local dynamic chord, was approximately 1.5 X 10e. This com-
chord; that is, tip effects were neglected. These values for bination had an exposed wing volume of 3.44 cubic inches
body and wing were added and the resulting pressure distri- and a body volume equal to 44.60 cubic inohes, for a total
bution, shown in &me 40 (0,= –2 UIUJ, were obtained. vohme of 48.04 cubic inches. As a control, an unmodified
combination composed of the same elliptic wing mounted
.15 on a body of revolution (the area distribution of which was
detetied from equation (74) with 1=10.5, Vx= 12.88,
and V9E=29.02 cubic inches) was tested. The exposed
Two-dimensionol biconvex section-. / wing area in the unmodified combination was 3.32 cubic
inches and the body volume was 41.90 cubic inches, for a
/ / total volume of 45.22 cubic inches. Thus, the unmodified
/
40 ~ . / /
q / combination had the same body length as the modified ono
but less volume.
/
0 The wave drag at .kf= 1.41 of the combination shown in
/
/ figure 31 has already been calculated and presented in figuro
0 / ,
/ 37 by the curve pertaining to real body shapes. By use, in
equation (78), of the values of Vx amd VW mentioned abovo
-.150
100 and a value of 0.176 for 12/b, the wave drag for the unmodified
Percent chord body was calculated throughout a supersonic Mach number
Wing Ieodlng edge-;~ range. The theoretical results obtained for body conilgura-
tions are shown by the dashed curves in figure 41.
‘o*r r-Two-dimensional The wind-tunnel results for the total drag on both con-
\II biconvex section
figurations are shown in figure 42 for 0.6 <MS 1.4. Notico
--———
that three groups of data are shown. The lower one repre-
cd .01 sents the unmodified body alone, the middle one represorhs
t the modified and unmodified combinations with no fixwl
] Wing ond modified body
~. transition, and the upper one represmts both combinations

o
u .1 .2 .3
with transition fixed along the leading edge. The mochds
tested with natural transition did not show the predicted
drag reduction. As was pointed out in the discussion of
FIQmm 40.—Variation of pressure and section-drag coefficient on figure 40, however, the adverse pressure gradients on tlm
sect ions indicated. modified model could be inducing transition in the vicinity of
 TBE REDUCTION OF WAVE DRAG OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 739
.024 I I I I I I
— Experimental volues of &CoM=.6 .
–––– Theoretical wove dreg

,020
\\
\
\
\
~Unmodified (totol volume 45.2 in?)
‘\.
.016 \ /’
/ < \ X .
I ~,
G —
~.
---
\ ---
.012 ---

\ 7-
~ /

,(M3
Modified (totol volume 48.0 in?)-~
M

FIGURE 42.-Experimental valuea for drag coefficient.

.(XI4
JZ=O.6, the resulting values of experimental wave drag are
as shown in figure 41.
Figure 41 shows that the experimental reduction in
wave drag brought about by the modification agrees with
%0 1.10 1.23 1.30 1.40 K-O that predicted by theory. Both theory and experiment
M
show a reduction of about 0.0015 in the drag coefficient at
FIGURE 41.—Variation with Mach number of theoretically and experi-
the design Mach number (1.41), and the experiment further
mentally determined drag coefficient.
shows an average reduction of 0.0020 over the Mach number
the 46° line behind the juncture of the wing leading edge with range 1.2<.M<l.4. A further study of figure 42 shows that
tho fuselage. This, in turn, would cause the wing of the the difference between the experimental and theoretical
modified model to have a larger area covered with a tnr- wave draga shown in figure 41 for the wing-body combina-
bulent boundary layer and, hence, cause the drag of the tions is nearly the same as the d.ifbrence between experiment
model to increase. Jn order b separate the potential and and theory for the body alone.
viscous effects, the transition-tied tests were made. If the AMES AEROI.TAUTICULABORATORY
experimental wave drag is taken to be the difference between NATIONAL ArwrsoRY CoanmrrBE FOR&ROZ-TAUTICS
the drag at a supersonic Maoh number and the drag. at MOFFETTCFIELD, CALIF., May 16,1966’
 —— —-

APPENDIX A

DERIVATION OF THE OPERATIONAL FORM

For convenience, take the normalized form of the wave

equotion in Cartesim coordinates, thus

a’v bZP bZP_O Further, integrating by parts gives

(Al)
T@–~–G– .
e‘= ~ dz=e’p-e-’r ~ (A6)
and define the Laplace transform of p(z,y,z) by Jo () z-f

. Hence,
p(s,y,z)= e-=q(z,y,z)dz (A2)
Jo

Now if a=j(y,z) is the equation of the foremost Mach cone

or Mach cone envelope and ~(y,z) 2 0, it is apparat

(A7)

The last term on the right is the directional derivative of

(A3)
the perturbation potential along the surface x=j(~,z).
since (p)=.f is, but — is not, necessarily zero. From This is, of course, along the so-called c.onormal. Since q is
() $ z-f a constant on the forward envelope, its gradient along the
equation (A3) we see envelope is zero and

APPENDIX B

ON THE ~OLUME OF BODIES CALCULATED USING SLENDER-BODY THEORY

The following proof shows that in a rectilinear distribution multiply by de, and integrate
of singularities, only the murces contribute tQ the total cross-
sectional area of the simulated body and, hence, to its volume.
According to slender-body theory, the velocities induced
in the field by distributions of mukipoles along the x axis can
be written

(z@ or
9 n=O
[ 2n-r
2Z70 & W=2TUO(Z)+$ (–2)”(n-l)!(zn(z) J:r $ (+) do
(B3)

Since the integrand in equation (B3) is a periodic function

1 (–2)WZ.(Z) sin ?20 int?,
we have
; vno= @lb) :;=&(z)
4n-r=+l (134)
u.
Further, we have derived-see equation (41)-neglecting
which shows the simulated-body normal cross-sectional mea
only second+rder eflects, the equation representing the
to be dependent only on the source strength. Further, the
boundary condition for the body, thus
total volume is given by

@2)
‘=J:s(’)h=J:(’’-’)(z)&+(
Combine equations (B1) and (B2) and when S’(1’) =S(—1) =0, there results

@b)
 TEE REDUCTION OF WAVE DR4G OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 741

APPENDIX c
ON THE CALCULATION OF VELOCITIES INDUCED BY ARB~RARY SOURCE DISTRIBUTIONS

The potential and velocity fields represented by equations Then

(18) rmd (19) are diilicult to evaluate analvticallv even if I
‘-’ A.Om& (c~a)
.&(t) is a ‘sf.&ple function. However, the ~alcula%ons can qo@,7,e)= —;
J -1 J(~–~’_~
be reduced to a relatively simple process. First, let equation
(18) be expressed in t&rns of ~he dimensionless variables
Z,z, and 7 where COS 28 ~-7A@2(Z-~z-P]&- (c~b)
w@7,e)=-—
5= z/LO 2T J _~ ~(z–a’–~
)
~=~/Lo (cl) “
and so forth. Consider next the variation of An@) shown
7=&/L. J in @e 43 and represented by the equation

(l!X&360nZ)+(390n-760nZE+(200n-400m)~, –1<2<–0.9
A=(?)= (C3)
{
n > –0.9<7

As seen in the figure, Ax vanishes at ~= – 1, is a parabola greater than –0.9. The velocities induced by a multipole
distribution given by equation (C3) can be calculated in a
between —1 and —0.9 (assuming the values m at ~= –0.95
straightforward manner in the two regions — 1 +7 sZ<
and n at ~=— 0.9), and the straight line, An@=n, for ~ –0.9+7 and –0.9+FSZ. For example, if

Z+l .o+J@+l .O)*—7

–(Z+O.9)4(Z+1.0)*-F+7% . ~ ) –l+F<Z<–O.9+F
T7M9(Z)
200 -
(C4)
–(Z+o.9)4@+l.o)*-7+ (Z+l.o)4(Z+o.9)’-7+Fln 5+1.0+ J@+1:0)2–F, –0.9+7<Z
{ Z+O.9+ .@+o.9)~7

E+l.o+.@+l.o)*—7
4(Z+1 .0)2–7’-7%
(Z+O.95) ) —1+7<5<—0.9+7
T-N%(Z)= 7
(C5)
100
@+o.95)4(Z+l.o)’–F-@+ l.05)l@+o.9)’–71n:+1+1 .O+ J@+l”o)’–~, –().9+7<Z
{ . Z+O.9+ 4@+o.9)~—F

then q% cah be written Values of M% and IV% are tabulated in table I for 7 equal
to 0.074, 0.148, 0.222, and 0.296. The asymptotic magni-
tudes of these functions are given by slender-body theory.
Hence, one can easily show for large Z
ISOW) if one is given a distribution of sources that is
composed of, or is adequately approximated by, a series of
20 equally spaced parabolic arcs, equation (C6) ean be used
for each individual arc and the results superimposed for the (C9)
completa solution. To this effect, define mt and ni in terms
of A&) by
An(:)

-(%+%+) (C7)

“=4+’%+) }
so they represent the magnitudes shown in figure 44. Then,
if [~ denotes the greatest interger contained in Z(e. g.,
[6,34] equals 6), the equation for the radial velocity becomes
E
[ I I I I
-1 -.95 -.90 -.85 -.80 -.75 -.70
l?rrmm 43.—Detition of symbols used in equations (C3) and (C6,)

.
 . —.— -— ————

742 REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

where values of the M’s and N’s are listed in tables II and
Ill. Their asymptotic values, as given by equations (C1O)
and (Cll), are

+_l;5_tt~

150Z-+275Z+126
-1 -.9 -.8 -.7 Ne
1507
(C13)

-++
I?mum 44.-DeSnition of symbols used in equation (C7).
. 15@+275~+ 126 ——_
1
3728=
Notice that both functions have essentially reached their 150%-73 2m .
asymptotic values for large z by the time Z= — 1+7+0.5.
By applying simple tabulative procedures to equation and these are also given in the tables.
(CS)-for example, listing m, and n, in reverse order and As the tables show, equations (C13) are su5cimtly
accumulating multiplications of adjacent terms-the value accurate approximations to M and N for pra cticrd calcu-
of q% for any A.(Z) representable by equation (C7) is readily lating purposes when o — 1 +?+0.5. Hence, the velocities
calculated. at the point Z,7 induced by the multipolea in the interval
The velocities induced by higher order multiples can be – l<~<Z–7–O.5 can be calculated using equations (C13).
In terms of the distribution for A,(f)-which is equal to
calculated in a similar fashion. Because of the asymptotic
behavior of the M’s and N’s, however, one is led into the %$ (~), see equation (16)—this means the multipole clis-
numerically inefficient process of obtaining small numbers tribution shown in the upper part of figure 45 can be cal-
from ~erencea of large numbers. For the velocities ~ and culated by means of the asymptotic formulas and the result
added to that obtained for the distribution shown in the
m, the following is a method for circumventing this difficulty.
It follows from equations (9) or (19), that for small lower part of @ure 45 by use of equations (C12b) and tables
H. and III in a manner identical to the one represented by
7, ~+ and p~e can be expressed in terms of the multipole
strengths a.(ii) —as defied by equation (7) — by the equa- equations (C6), (C7), and (C8).
tions The value of ~(Z,F) induced by a multipole distribution
such as that shown in the upper part of figure 45 is, on tlm
p+l
() %
Cos M
=CO+C1r+. . .+CW+. .. (CIOa) basis of equations (C1O) and (Cll),

ra+l = =DO+D1r+. . .+.D,P+. . . (Clob)

()
so
where for vsn, n 2 I

(C14)

0 AJ:)
I
1 , Vodd

DV–
(–1)
n+:

4T
‘&2”-’ ‘r () 6 ,,)(z)
J
, even ~cllb)

r lfi
( r
1 0- , V odd

Consider now the velocities ~ and *O induced by the

multipole strength defined by equation (C3); thus
I I

&=mM@)+nN@ (C12a) ,
!
-1 -.8 0

_&=mM,8(Z)+nN,o@ (C12b)
FIGURE 45.—Range of application of equations (C12) and (C13).
 THEI REDUCMON OF WAVl!l DR4G OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 743
whore 132& (z) =Az(x) and zt is shown in figure 45 and de-
fied by the equation

[lo@–F)]
5{= o.4+z—& (C15)
10

the symbol [1O(Z-7)] meaning, as before, the highest integer

value contained in 10 (Z-7). A similar result can be derived
for p% and one has finally for –1 S[1O(Z-7)+11]S5
The streamwise gradients of induced velocities can also be
defined in terms of M’s and N’s as were the velocities

==[’O”?l][miM’~(’-%)+~N+(’-w)l
(C16b)
Values of Me;, Nq, M,z, and N% for 7 equal to 0.148,0.222,
and for [10(7 ?-7)+ 11]26 and 0.296 are given in tables IV and V.

APPENDIX D

NUMERICAL METHOD USED TO CALCULATE BODY SHAPE

The method used to calculate the body shape was a stand-

9 0 @ @
ard step-by-step solution to the two simultaneous total
differential equations (eq. (43) in the text)
ag:y @.&o-
n f
0 Ii
0 -o. &a 0.w 0.149
1 –. m ---------- ----------
(01)
2 –. m ---------- ---------- ‘------- l-=+=-lI --------
-------- I -------- I

Tho essentials of the process are recognized from the following

computing-sheet heading set up for initial valuea of o and R
:qual to 30° and 0.148, respectively, where ?i=z/LO and
R= PR/LO
.

<
APPENDIX E

OPTIMUM VARIATION OF ~ (x) FOR A FIXED VALUE OF :L a~ (x) dx

J 0

Given Ifj(z) =~(–cc), then

L1
L L 11
D2= –~ 0 [fz.j$(z,)+&(@]
[fz$(q’)+%m(%)] W)j(zJl&-x#w%
4TU: SS-Le0 -LO -1 -1
00
=2 mm’m+t+ldwkc’
li FQ fixdx’ (m) SS-1 –1
0
and since cq(-LO) =@ (—LO)=a.j-n (—LO)=0
where the variation of Go)(z) is iixed, pose the restraint
0 %(z)dZ=-* :L Z%& (Z)dz
10 J -LO J
a@dz=~*(0) : Rl=constant (E2)
v. J _&e Therefore, the standard variational problem

and ask for the function cq(z) which minimizes D2 for a given
— =0 (E3)
vahm of the constant. a~’+’s’%%~h] 0
 ——. —. —

74 REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMI!ITEE FOR AERONAUTICS

reduces to

0 [(z!! (Z,) +a.j$ (zI)] [a.jm(G) +%$ (m)]

s{~J:.. J... -
Equation (J36) is the familiar singular integral equation
lmown, in aerodynamic applications, as the airfoil equation,
Its inversion is discussed, for example, in reference 3. If one
and this becomes solves equation (E6) and applies the conditions

(#I (o)=a-fI (L.)=0

S:Lo’[wI&’ then
4&L: ~2=48AOL0
.yO. ——
15tT‘ 15?r
Integrating three times by parta, using the relations and

aaJ-.L@)=&& (–L.)=&+@ (–L)=O

W(0)=&@ (0)=0, by symmetry

and
(E7)

Now set

(Es)

so that FW*(0) is a known coustant. Then

Using the above expressions, one caa show

%(4 : du@& [F*(0)+F’W*(0)I

u. u.

{bo(5Y~41J1-(:Y+3 (5)ln:;Y-}
(E1O)

The wave drag can be calculated by combining equations

(335) and (El).

Integrate three times by parts and there results, finally

D,=% qL:T~ ~
() o
4 [~(o) +~u”(o)l’ (ml)

REFERENCES

1. Heaalet, Max. A., Lomax, Harvard, and Spreiter, John R.: Lin-
earized Compressible-Flow Theory for Sonio Flight Speeds,
NACA Rep. 956, 1950.
2. Lamb, Horaoe: Hydrodynamics. Sfxth cd., Dover Publication
(New York), 1945
3. Lomax, Harvard, Heaslet, Mas. A., and Fufler, Franklyn B.:
Integrals and Integral Equationa in Linearized Wing Theory.
NACA Rep. 10S4, 1951.
4. Watson, G. N.: A Treatise on the Theory of Beesel Funotions.
Second cd., Cambridge Univ. Prem (Cambridge, England), 1952.
 THE REDUCTION OF WAVE DR4G OF WING AND BODY COMBINATIONS 745
5.Erd61yi, Arthur: Table of Integral Transforms. VOL I, McGraw- 11. Jones, Robert T.: Theoretical Determination of the Minimum
HiLl Book Co., Ins., 1964. Drag of Airfoils at Supemonia Speeds. Jour. Aero. Sic., vol. 19,
(3, Hayea, Wallace D.: Linearized Supersonic Flow. North American no. 12, Dee. 1952, pp. 813-822.
Aviation, Inc., Rep. No. AL-222, June 1947. 12. Jones, Robert T.: Theory of Wing-Body Drag at Supersonic
7, Lomcw, Harvard, and Heaslet, Mas. A: Recent Developments in Speeda. NACA RM A53H18a, 1953.
13. Lomas, Harvard: The Wave Drag of Arbitrary Conjurations in
the Theory of Wing-Body Wave Drag. IAS Preprint 617, 1956.
Linearized Flow as Determined by Areae and Forces in Oblique
8, von lGirm6n, Th.: The Problem of Reaietance in Compressible
Plan-. NACA RM A55A18, 1955.
Fluide. (Fifth Volta Congress) Roma Reale Acoademia D’Itdia
14. Nielsen, Jack N., and Pittsj ‘iVilliam C.: JViug-Body Interference
1936.
at Supersonic Speeds With an Application to combinations With
9. Webster, Arthur Gordon: Partial Differential Equatione of Mathe- Reotan.gularWings. NACA TN 2677, 1952.
mnt[oal Physics. Second cd., Hafner Publishing Co., Inc. (New 15. Jon~, Robert T.: Some Recent Developments in the Aerodynam-
York), 1950. ic of Winge for High Speeda. Zeitscbrift Fti Flugwiweuaohaf-
10, Nidsen, Jaok N., rmd Pitts, William C.: General Theory of Wave- ten, 4. Jahr., Heft & Aug. 1956, pp. 257-262.
Drag Reduction for Combination Employing Quasi-Cylindriwd 16. Graham, Ernest W.: The Pressure on a Slender Body of Non-
Bodies With an Appliontion to Swept Wing and Body Combina- Uniform Cross-Sectional Shape in Axial Supersonic F1ow.
tion, NACA TN 3722, 1956. (Formerly NACA RM A55B07). Douglas Aircraft Co., Ino., Rep. No. S~-13346-A, July 1949.
 —.—. — - —. .—

REPORT 128%NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMJTTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TABLE I.—VALUES OF JfCTAND N+ TABLE 11.—VALUES OF ~~~ AND N=.

4_Tl
3!
Eraci A8ym Exact As&y
totio
~ I
? -0.074 F~a14s I 7-0.074 ?=0.149

4.926 0 ---- -0.832 0 ---- 0 ----- –a 026 o .... o -.. . -a am ---- 0

-.870.116 ::1 –m ----- –. 870 9.77 ---- –. 16 ---- –. 802 .... 231 ::::
-.826–z 96 . ..- J2 :::: –. m –$~ :::: 3:ti ---- –. Sm la ol
–. 776 law
--—
----
8.31 ----
...-
–.752 ....
.-. .

-----
-. n6 —. 24 ---- 2s2 ...- –. m Lm ----- m E3 –.m i% ::::
–. 720—. a3 ---- 234 ---- –. 652 :: :::: :. . . . .. –. m a. 44 ---- !&U ---- –.0s2 .... &w ----
-.070 ---- -.. . ...-

-——
–. 676—. 04 ---- Z!m ---- –. au –. 03 ---- ----- 45.32 –.@n
–. e03 S.u! ---- .... ...-

--.--
-.03 —. Ca --- La ---- –. S&2 –. 04 ---- L18 ----- 6a 17 –.6s2 M ::::
–. 676 39.16 ---- ----

-----
-.S76 —. 02 ---- 2!m ---- –. m –. m ~--- L 14 ----- –.m lC%!30 ----
–.&a —.m 0 2aI 215 –. 4.52 CQ L 14 LU3 –. fm 4423 4441 12. % 119.M –.4b2 21.20 21.17
-.476 0 0 118 215 –. 4a2 7 0 L@ –. 476 49.ea 49. e4 IEL M la 32 –.402 2a 01 !2hW3
-.4m 0 0 218 215 –. 3.52 0 0 ;$ Lm –. 4m 64.87 64= lm. 91 KDLw –.mz 31.30 3L 29

Y-cum 7-0.293 ?-022

——

1
-a 778 o ---- 0 ---- –o. 704 o ---- 0 –0. m ---- 0 ..-. -a 704 o ---- 0 ----
....
–. T23
-.878 –:z ....
---- 2% ----
----
–.
–.
654
604 –? z :1: 25! –. 723
–. 678
----
----
----
3:;
----
...-
----
–. 654
–. em
1.w ----
....
...-
2E ..-.
-.. .
–. m
-. S7a :%
-.
----
-.. .
ao ----
L12
.94
----
....
----
–.
–.
b54
604 =%
—.
::::
----
:E
.70
–. 623
–. 678
–. m
----
----
::
4.47
....
----
~. g
–. 4s4
–: R
.07
.78
-.. .
....
L 80
2Z2
2n
....
----
—.E
-.623 –. 464
–. 478
-.423
—.04 -.. .
-. 02
%
.m
...-
----
–.
–.
404
354 —.m
----
---- :ti
–. 4i%
–. 423
----
----
hos ..-.-
----
-.404
–. 364
.87 ....
...- :E
.-. .
....
–.3m —. CQ .78 a72 –. m4 —.Cu 0 .a 0.54 –. 378 !L!a :!? –. 304 i$ 1.w 4.04 4<w
–. 323 —. Cf4 .7% .72 –. 264 —. m 0 –. 323 10.10 1;% –. m4 L 13 L 14 &42 h 39
-. 27a o .76 .72 –. m4 0 0 :: :: –. 278 :: lLE3 lL 60 –. m4 1.23 L 22 am IL!Z3

TABLE IJ1-VALUES OF M%AND N2,. TABLE IV.—VALUE OF M.z AND Nm.

f
f
f I ‘O; I ‘“; f
I
M.; NG
I
Jf.j
I ‘e;
;-0.148 5.022! ?-am

-o. m 0
-t m
:%
-0.778
–. Ta
–. 678
+ &’~ –. 654
–. m4
-!. m4 –.311
1.7c+3 -2134
–. 62s .297 -.654 .2&5 -.7E43
-am .----.--- .191 –. 678 . ma –. m4 .Ln -.661
–. 876 ........ .121 –. 623 .WJ –.464 .m –.447

--------
—. Sa .-------- .0’36 –. 478 .070 –.404 .MU -.350

.---
.—
-
–. n6 -------- .Om –. 423 .am -.964 .046 -.332
–. 720 --------- .049 –. 37a .042 –.3c4 .036 -.260
–. 676 --------- .O-to –. 3X .C34 –.m4 .036 -.ma
–. 6m ,-------- .Cm –. 278 .CQ3 -.mt .@ -.246

--------
-—------
–. 576 ,-------- .027 –. Z3 .CQ4 -.154 .021 -,no

.--.-----
–. m na3 .Uz3 –. 178 .Om –.104 .018 –.210

---------
-.470 24.m –. E% . 01s -.0s4 .010 -.lW

--_-----
–.426 mm :E –. 078 .016 –.KM .014 ~: pJ

-.--.-.--
.016 –. 023 .014 .640 .012

n -------.-
.014 .622 .012 .Wo .011 -.104

---------
r
.012 .072 .011 .140 .010 -.ml
.011 .U2 .010 .160 .m –. 14s
.010 . 17?2 .W4 .240 .m -.141
-_: ~ 0 -------- 0 . ------- –a 704 o o .m .m .Wa .2m .am -.136
.83 -------- –. cm------- –. 0s4 .69 .C07 .340 .037 –. 130
-.678
–. 623
LB
L32
--.-----
-------- L54
.s9 .- . . . ..-
--------
–.
–.
W4
554
.74
.n
–:3 :%
.C07
:E
.372
.m7
.Ix6
.390
.446
.mn
.ml
–.124
–. 120
–. ma .m .COo ....... ------ ........

---------
L48 -.-.--.- 251 -------- –. So4 .70 il! .W
–. Ea LM -------- 3. al -------- –. 454 .s3 ----- ... ....... ...... ...-----
–.4nl LW -------- 482 -------- –. 404 .m :2 :% -------- ...---- ...... ........
–.423 204 .--i-%- &18 ---i-%- –. 354 3.23

I
-.3n 7.09 . –. 304 ig L@3 4a3 407
–.3m $Z –. m L 15 L 14 482 485
-.27$ 261 :: l!% It: –. m L23 L22 .5.67 &c@

TABLE V.—VALUES OF M= AND N=.

r-a148 ?.O.2M ?-0.296

–am2 ------ 0 ------ -am -------- ------ -a 7Q4 ---------- .. -. .-. .

-. mz 4°:: ------ –.31 ------ –. 723 –; 18 ------ –O. Ta ------ –. w -:72 -- . . . . –O. n . . . . ..-.
–. 762 . . ---- -405 ..-.. - –. On3 L21 ------ -3.0-4 ------ –. m4 L2K ------ -252 ........
–. m –. 8s ------ –3. 23 ------ –. 623 –. 30 ------ –2 a5 ------ –. 534 -.11 ------ –1. 62 .-- . . . . .
–. 032 –.az ------ -3.91 ------ –. 678 –. 3a ------ –227 ------ –. m –. 19 -.... - –L CKI ........
–. O@ -. Q5 ------ -461 ------ –. 623 –. 41 ------ –2 WI ------ –. m –. n ------ –L74 . . . . . ..-
–. 6.52 -. % ------ –h 23 ------ –. 478 –. 42 ------ –286 ------ –. 404 -.23 ------ –LW -- . . . . . .
-. m2 –. WI ------ –0. 04 .-... - –. 4n –. 42 ------ -3. 1s ------ –.364 . . . ..- –2. 07 ........
–. m -. %3 –a 97 –6. 76 -CL 76 –.378 –. 42 –a 43 –3. 49 –3. 4s –.304 :: z -a 24 –224 -123
-. 4a2 –. 97 –. 97 –7. 49 –7. 49 –. 323 –. 43 –. 43 –3. 81 –3. w –. 2M –. 24 –. 24 -z 42 -241
-.352 –. 97 –. 97 -a 21 -a 21 –. m –. 43 –. 43 -4X3 –4 r2 –. m4 -.24 –. 24 -2 WI -2.56