AI AA-86-2693 Aerodynamic Design of Low-Speed Aircraft With a NASA Fuselage/Wake.Propeller Configuration F.R. Goldschmied, F.R. Goldschmied P.E.

, Monroeville, PA

AIANAH S/AS EE Aircraft Systems, Design ti Technology Meeting

October 20-22 1986/Dayton, Ohio
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019

AERODYNAMIC DESIGN OF LOW-SPEED AIRCRAFT WITH A NASA FUSELAGE/WAKE-PROPELLER CONFIGURATION F A B I OR,GOLDSCHMIED * M O N R O E V I L L E PA 15146
Abstract

AIAA 86-2693

A brief parametric study has been carried out on the application of a NASA axismmetric fuselage/ wake-propel l e r configuration , using f u l 1 -Scale wind-tunnel data, t o low-speed general aviation a i r c r a f t w i t h conventional NACA wings. The design matrix comprises two wing aspect ratios, ( 8 and IO), tHo wing loadings (15 and 21 PSF), f i v e fuselage diameters (40", 42", 48", 55" and 65") and f i v e corresponding gross weights (800, 1200, 1400, 2400 and 3200 l b ) . The experimental propulsive efficiency of the NASA fuselagdwake-propeller configuration goes from 103% f o r the bare fuselage t o a range between 96% and 85% f o r the a i r c r a f t . The aerodynamic efficiency index ranges from 17.95 t o 11.47 while t h a t f o r conventional a i r c r a f t ranges from 7.95 t o 5.00, a s shown by a survey Of 76 general aviation and sport a i r c r a f t . A 50% power reduction, f o r the same gross weight and speed, i s a very practical possibility.

Fuselage diameter,

ft

f = L D

Fuselage fineness r a t i o Net axial drag force on fuselage/ wake-propel l e r , 1b Axial drag force on bare fuselage (no propeller), l b Net axial thrust force on fuselage/wake-propeller, l b

F
FO

T = -F
TO

T h r u s t produced by propeller, l b
Fuselage length, f t Propeller speed, RPS
=

n
qo
RL
kPU02

Free-stream dynamic pressure, PSF Length Reynolds Number Volume Reynolds Number Free-stream velocity, FPS Fuselage volume, f t 3 Fuselage equivalent area, f t z Fuselage equivalent length, f t
aircraft grossweight-wing l i f t , l b

Finally, a specific comparison has been carried out between the 55" diameter 4-seat design and one of the l a t e s t 4-seat pusher a i r c r a f t , f o r the same 2400-lb gross weight and 180 MPH speed, yielding 78 HP f o r the former and 180 HP f o r the l a t t e r ; t h i s demonstrates t h a t , while a wake-propeller iS a pusher, a pusher propeller i s not necessarily a wake-propeller. Nomenclature Propeller advance r a t i o Wing area, f t 2 Aerodynamic efficiency index

- -LUO
= _vo.33u0 -

Rv

"

u,
V

u,

YO. 66

~0.33
WO

Wing aspect r a t i o Wing span, f t Volume axial drag coeff. of fuselage/wake-propel l e r Volume a x i a l drag coeff. of bare fuselage Volume axial thrust coeff. fusel age/wa ke-propel 1e r

B
TI

Propeller blade angle

TOUO

HP
q

Propeller efficiency Propulsive efficiency

Air kinematic viscosity. ftz/sec

? --Ti-

FOUO

of

"

Air mass density, I b sec2/ft4 I.

Introduction

Area axial drag coeff. of Wings etc.

Wing area l i f t coeff.

Lift/drag r a t i o Propeller power coeff.

HP Volume power coeff. of fuselage/ CHP = 90u 0~ 0 . 6 6 wake-propeller d Propeller diameter, f t *Consultant. Associate Fellow, AIAA. "Copyright 1986 by Fabio R. Goldschmied. Published by AIAA w i t h permission.

The concept of body wake regeneration f o r propulsion originated i n 1865 with Froudel; h i s t h i n k i n g was based on the overall momentum balance of the moving vehicle and he believed t h a t the Rankin drag/thrust concept was an anachronism from the days when canal barges were towed by horses. When a force i n one medium must be overcome by power i n p u t i n another medium, o r more generally when there i s an impedance matching problem, the drag/thrust concept may have great merit. In steady motion through a single f l u i d , however, a s w i t h an a i r c r a f t , a LTA or a submarine, the drag/ thrust concept i s misleading i n i t s apparent simp l i c i t y and i t invariably r e s u l t s i n the adoption of reduced performance targets. For instance, when

a fuselage i s s a i d t o have a c e r t a i n drag a t a given speed, i t i s i m p l i e d t h a t the fuselage wake's momentum i s condemned t o useless d i s s i p a t i o n , w i t h o u t p o s s i b l e recourse o f any kind; i t i s i m p l i e d t h a t the drag can o n l y be balanced by an equal prop e l l e r t h r u s t , according t o the Rankin concept. S t i l l today, general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t . a r e viewed e s s e n t i a l l y as powered g l i d e r s , w i t h t h e t h r u s t e r ( p r o p e l l e r o r j e t u n i t ) i n s t a l l e d i n a manner n o t conducive t o e f f i c i e n t wake regeneration. Even fuselage-mounted pusher p r o p e l l e r s a r e t o o l a r g e and a r e n o t t a i l o r e d t o t h e s p e c i f i c wake, as w i l l be seen i n Section V, where the wake-propeller a i r c r a f t i s compared t o a conventional p u s h e r - p r o p e l l e r aircraft. The r a t i o n a l approach i s t o f o l l o w Froude's concept' and t o expend power t o prevent o r t o m i n i mize the occurrence of the wake. Smith and Robe r t s , * Kuchemann and Weber,3 Edwards," 5 Davidson,6 Goldschmied7 and many o t h e r s have cont r i b u t e d t o t h e development o f wake regeneration, w i t h and w i t h o u t a c t i v e boundary-layer c o n t r o l . For instance, Goldschmied7 8 has shown t h a t , f o r an axisymmetric fuselage, the wake drag can be reduced b y a f a c t o r o f 10 w i t h an e f f i c i e n t s i n g l e s l o t s u c t i o n boundary-layer c o n t r o l aftbody design; t h e o v e r a l l power was reduced b y a f a c t o r o f 2, f o r equal fuselage volume and speed.I0 I n hydrodynamics, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f wake-propellers has become standard p r a c t i c e f o r a l l high-speed underwater v e h i c l e s such as submarines, torpedoes, e t c . An e x c e l l e n t reference on t h i s subject i s given b y Huang, Wang, S a n t e l l i and Groves."
It has been t h i s a u t h o r ' s experience t h a t commun i c a t i o n s between h y d r o d m a m i c i s t s and aerodynamic i s t s have n o t been good; even w i t h i n t h e A I A A i t s e l f , papers i n t h e Journal of Hydronautics f a i l e d t o get many readers from the a i r c r a f t community. As a t y p i c a l example, a v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t 1976 paperi2 was ignored b y a t l e a s t f o u r A I A A authors.13 l6

(fuselage?) wake. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e p r o p e l l e r e f f i c i e n c y can be g r e a t l y reduced." The power assessment o f a i r c r a f t i s c a r r i e d o u t on the b a s i s o f t h e Aerodynamic E f f i c i e n c y Index (AEI) which i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : AEI
=

Gross W t . x Speed P r o p e l l e r Power

4-J

_Lift _ _x Propulsive E f f i c i e n c y Drag

Since t h e r e i s no r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e A E I data base f o r general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t , such a data base has been compiled f o r 76 a i r c r a f t and i t i s tabul a t e d i n Appendix I and I 1 f o r convenient r e f e r r a l . The A E I d a t a p o i n t s have a l s o been p l o t t e d a g a i n s t a i r c r a f t speed i n F i g . 12.
11.

NASA Wind-Tunnel Test

The NASA wind-tunnel t e s t program was c a r r i e d o u t i n the Langley 30' x 60' Wind-Tunnel and was reported by McLemore.17 The axisymmetric fuselage had 50.88" diameter and 246.46" l e n g t h , w i t h a fineness r a t i o f = 4.84 and an enclosed volume V = 184 f t 3 . The p r o f i l e shape o f the body was o f t h e well-known "Akron" a i r s h i p f a m i l y 2 0 21 b u t shortened from the A k r o n ' s f = 5.9 t o f = 4.84. It can be noted t h a t a body w i t h f = 4.5 had a l s o been t e s t e d i n t h e wind-tunnel by Abbott,22 y i e l d i n g no h i g h e r drag. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the Akron wind-tunnel t e s t mode12Q 2ihad a l e n g t h o f 236" and a diameter o f 40", w i t h a l e n g t h Reyn o l d s number o f RL = 1.8 x IO6 and a volume drag c o e f f i c i e n t Cg = 0,022. O n t h e o t h e r hand, the d r a g c o e f f i c i e n t o f McLemore's'7 model was ( w i t h o u t p r o p e l l e r ) CD = 0.021, i n c l u d i n g the t h r e e t a i l f i n s and the "gondola" a t t h e same Reynolds number. The n e t drag c o e f f i c i e n t o f t h e bare body can be estimated from the t e s t r e s u l t s o f Abbott** ( F i g . 8 o f Ref. 22): the drag c o e f f i c i e n t increment due t o the presence o f the f i n s i s ACD = 0.002 and t h e drag increment due t o t h e gondola i s ACD = 0.001. Thus an i n c r e ment of 0.003 must be added t o t h e n e t t h r u s t data, so as t o t r u l y p o r t r a y the bare body perfotmance. It can be noted t h a t t h e minimum pressure occurs a t 18% l e n g t h , thus l a m i n a r f l o w can p l a y Only a minor r o l e i n t h e performance; Abbott** found no drag d i f f e r e n c e f o r h i s f = 4.5 body when the t e s t model was p o l i s h e d a l l over ( F i g . 5 of Ref. 22). The maximum diameter occurs a t 40% l e n g t h ; Table I below l i s t s the l e n a t h and diameter coordinates of the t e s t body f o r - c o n v e n i e n t reference, since t h e y a r e n o t given b y McLemore.17 The wake-propeller had 4 blades and 24" diameter ( l e s s than h a l f body diameter); the diameter corresponds t o the measured diameter of the wake ( w i t h out propeller). Although t h e t e s t model was l a b e l e d a 1/20-Scale A i r s h i p Model, i t happens a l s o t o be a f u l l - s c a l e fuselage f o r general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t , being l a r g e enough f o r side-by-side seating! F i g u r e 1 presents t h e schematic o f the t e s t model w i t h 3 t a i l f i n s and t h e "gondola"; i t i s reproduced from Fig. 1 o f Ref. 17. I t can be noted t h a t the drag o f an a i r c r a f t empennage would n o t be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e t o t a l drag o f t h e t a i l f i n s and o f the gondola.

The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s b r i e f p r e l i m i n a r y paramet r i c study i s t o acquaint the general a v i a t i o n comm u n i t y w i t h the aerodynamic p o t e n t i a l of fuselage/ wake-propeller c o n f i g u r a t i o n s f o r single-engine low-speed a i r c r a f t . T h i s p o t e n t i a l was demonstrat e d e x p e r i m e n t a l l y b y a NASA wind-tunnel t e s t o f a full-scale fuselage (50.88'' diameter, 246" l e n g t h ) w i t h i t s custom-tailored wake-propeller (24.00" diameter) a t 100 MPH. The v e r y e x t e n s i v e t e s t r e s u l t s were reported b y McLemore" i n 1962 b u t i t appears t h a t t h e y have been ignored f o r a i r c r a f t a p p l i c a t i o n simply because the p r o j e c t had been funded b y the LTA program and t h e fuselage was designated as a "1/20Scale A i r s h i p Model . ' I
A recent NASA-funded survey of p r o p e l l e r propuls i o n system i n t e g r a t i o n b y M i l e y and van Lavante18 does n o t i n c l u d e any reference t o McLemore'sl7 exc e l l e n t work, although a m a j o r i t y of the survey's e f f o r t i s claimed t o have been d i r e c t e d t o t h e time p e r i o d b e f o r e 1964; no o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f fuselage/wake-propeller i n t e g r a t i o n i s t o be found among t h e 121 references reviewed b y M i l e y and van Lavante. I n t h e i r a u t h o r i t a t i v e textbook on a i r plane aerodynamics and p e r f o m n c e , Lan and Roskam'g simply do n o t recognize even the possib i l i t y of wake-propulsion; on pase 269 of Ref. 19 i t i s stated: " I n pusher c o n f i g u r a t i o n s the p r o p e l l e r w i l l be o p e r a t i n g i n s i d e the n a c e l l e

....

Max. D i ameter 50.88

FIG.^

- .-

SCHEMATIC LAYOUTOF NASA WIND-TUNNEL HULL, GONDOLA AND T A I L , REPRODUCED

FROVI

TEST ~KODEL, SHOWING FIG, 1 OF NASA TN D-1026.

. 1 c

.08

CP . 0 6

. 0 4

.02

.6

.E

1 . 0

.1.2

c
__~.
~

.6

.a

1 . 0

1 . 2

i'IG.2

- AXIAL FORCEC O F F . C n "

VS.PROPELLER FIG,3 -

ADVANCE RATIO. REPRODUCED F R O M FIG.^ D) OF NASA TN D-1026

PROPELLER POWER COEFF. Cp Vs. PROPELLER ADVANCE RATIO. REPRODUCED FROM FIG.^ B) OF NASA TN D-1026.

Table I

NASA Test Body Coordinates

1 . 4

Lenqth, in.

Diameter, i n .
1.2

1 . 0

24.624 36.936 49.248 61.560 73.872 86.184 98.496 110.808 123.120 135.432 147.745 160.056 172.369 184.68 196.993 209.305 215.461 225.000 227.773 233.929 240.085 246.46

36.304 42.564 47.020 48.885 50.149 50.753 50.880 50.880 50.633 50.642 48.888 47.200 49.732 41.299 36.904 31.426 27.867 24.564 20.977 16.677 9.493
0

. 8

r
.6

.4

. 2

.6

.8

1 . 0

1.2

1.4

Figure 2 presents the net body/propeller d r a g coefficient Cg = F/qOVo.@j against propeller advance r a t i o a = Uo/nd f o r 3 blade angles 15*, 20" and 25'; i t i s reproduced from F i g . 4d) Of Ref. 17. I t can be noted that negative d r a g Coefficient Co values represent net t h r u s t ; i t can be seen that more than enough net thrust was generated t o tow two o t h e r identical bodies. Indeed the maximum thrust coefficient was Cg = -0.053 and the d r a g coefficient of the body ( w i t h o u t propeller) was Cg = 0.021!

FIG.4

- PROPELLER

E F F I C I E N C Y VS

PROPELLER

ADVANCE RATIO. REPRODUCED FROM F l G , q C ) O F NASA TN 0-1026

However, the propulsive efficiency n = FoUo/HP i s down t o a mere 103% a t equilibrium gecause the propeller-induced flow f i e l d aver the body causes additional d r a g , as compared t o the bare body, o r a so-called "thrust-deduction" of the propeller t h r u s t . The same propeller, mounted in a convent i o n a l free-stream i n s t a l l a t i o n , achieved 73% prop e l l e r a n d propulsive efficiencies. T h u s despite the "thrust-deduction." the power g a i n of the wakepropeller was an impressive 41% over the freestream p r o p e l l e r . This i l l u s t r a t e s the power that can be extracted from the fuselage wake's kinetic energy and which i s going t o waste today in the general aviation a i r c r a f t . I t can be added t h a t the "thrust-deduction" i s n o t a necessary e v i l : i t can be eliminated by designing the body shape t h r o u g h a complex i t e r a t i v e process t h a t includes the propeller's e f f e c t on the body pressure d i s t r i bution and boundary-layer development. The final body shape i s such t h a t maximum pressure recovery i s achieved on the fuselage's aftbody with the prop e l l e r , while the aftbody flow would be f u l l y separated without the p r o p e l l e r ' s e f f e c t . This maximum pressure recovery i s assumed t o be t h a t given by the Goldschmied turbulent separation criterion.27 The NASA experimental t e s t d a t a are tabulated below in Table I1 f o r convenient reference; in addition, the volume power e f f i c i e n t CHP has been computed from the propeller power coefficient Cp.

W'

Figure 3 presents t h e propeller power Coefficient Cp = HP/pn3d5 against the propeller advance r a t i o a = Uo/nd f o r 3 blade angles 15", 2 0 ' and 25O; i t i s reproduced from F i g . 4b) of Ref. 17. I t must be noted t h a t t h i s power Coefficient Cp does not include any body dimensions a s such; i t has t o be translated into the volume power coefficient CHP = HP/qoUoV0.66 so a s t o be used f o r a parametric fuselage analysis.
Figure 4 presents the propeller efficiency ' I against the propeller advance r a t i o a = Uo/nd f o r 3 blade angles 15", 20" and 25'; it i s reproduced from Fig. 4c) of Ref. 17. To i s the actual measured thrust of the propeller, Uo i s the measured free-stream velocity and HP i s the measured shaft power t o the propeller. The seemingly impossible evidence i s t h a t propeller efficiency i s up t o 122% f o r advance r a t i o s yielding zero net thrust (equilibrium f l i g h t of body): t h i s i s conclusive proof t h a t the wake-propeller does indeed operate within an area of lower velocities and t h a t the efficiency does not have t o decrease, a s predicted by Lan and R ~ s k a m . ' ~
= ToUo/HP

w
4

Table I1

Experimental Parameters of URSA Fuselage/ Make-Pmpeller Test

Figure 5 presents the plot o f CHP vs CT and Fig. 6 presents the plot of a vs. Cy.
It design, 120 MPI As sug should

___
0.505 0.545 0.640 0.685 0,700 0.740

Advance Axial Propeller Volume Propeller Fff iciency Ratio Drag Power Power a Coeff. C g Coeff. Cp Coeff. CHP n

___

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE 6 = 15"

-0.053 -0.041 -0.017 -0.0085 -0,0060 -0.0015 0.050 0.048 0.0435 0.0410 0.040 0.0370 0.0960 0.0730 0.0412 0.0317 0.0289 0.0227
=

t o be noted t h a t the propeller was f o r speeds of 100 MPH; a t speeds above the propeller tip-speed becomes excessive. ;ked by McLemore, a larger number of blades ! used, such a s 6 o r 8.
;

0.87 0.92 1.04 1.08 1.09 1.10

NASA BODY/WAKE-PROPELLER
TN 3-1026
0.0:

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE B

0.63 0.69 0,765 0.825 0,860 0.890 -0.0370 -0.0245 -0.0135 -0,0055 -0,0035 0.00 0.077 0.073 0.069 0.065 0.063 0.061

20' 0.96 1.01 1.08 1.14 1.18 1.21

0.08

NOTE: THRUST -

HAS B E E N

0.0764 0.0552 0.0383 0.0287 0.0245 0.0214

CORRECTED FOR GONDOLA R T A I L DRAG

0.07
a
V
LL L L W

I :

0.06
0
V

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE E = 25"

0.720 0.775 0.845 0.930 0.965 0.990 -0.0355 -0.0255 -0.0175 -0.0120 -0.0055 4.0035 0.118 0.112 0.0785 0.0597 0.0444 0.0318 0.0279 0.0253
0.80 0.90 0.97 1.05 1.08 1.10

0.05
Id

0.108
0.103 0.101 0.099

a
W
3 J

004 '
0.03

Table 111 below presents the parameters t o be used f o r the parametric aerodynamic design procedure. The net thrust o f the body/wake-propeller system T has been corrected f o r the t a i l and gondola drag, i . e . 0.003 has been added t o the given experimental ~4 values of the thrust coefficient. Table 111 Advance Ratio a __
0.505
0.545

>

C.02

FuselageNake-Propeller Parameters (Corrected f o r Tail & Gondola Drag) Thrust Coeff. CT Volume Power Coeff. CHP
0.01

0 . 0 1

0 . 0 2

0 . 0 3

0.04

0 . 0 5

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE 8 = 15"

0.056
0.044

THRUST CGEFF, C,
0.0960
0.0730

FIG.5

- VOLUME POWER

C O E F F ~ C H PV S ~ T H R U S T
Objectives

0.640 0.685

0.020 0.0115

0.0412

r n c cr c, r
CYLl

CT

0.700
0.740

0.009
0.0045

0.0317 0.0289 0.0227

= 20-

111. Aerodynamic Design

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE E

0.63 0.69 0.765 0.825 0.860 0.890 0.040

0.0764

The aerodynamic design objective of t h i s brief preliminary study i s t o determine the Aerodynamic Efficiency Index AEI of the N A S A fuselagelwakepropeller a i r c r a f t w i t h conventional NACA wings a t the maximum cruise speed. These AEI values wiIl then be comnared t o he . t. corresponding data of U.S. Business,-Utiiity and Personal Aircraft (tabulated in Appendix I ) and of S p o r t and Home-built Aircraft (tabulated i n Appendix 111, a s computed from gross weight, maximum engine power and maximum a i r c r a f t speed. From the data of Appendix I1 i t i s seen one-seat a i r c r a f t range from 500 t o 800 Ib, 115 t o 150 MPH and from 22 t o 60 HP. For the sent study an appropriate fuselage diameter i s so a s t o allow ample elbow room t o the p l l o t . that from pre40",

PROPELLER BLADE ANGLE E = 25"

0.720 0.775 0.845 0.930 0.965 0.990 0.0385 0.0285 0.0205 0.0150 0.0085 0.0065 0.0785 0.0597 0.0444 0.0318 0.0279 0.0253
a

ier*i

1.0

NASA BODY/WAKE-PROPELLER TM 0-1026

From t h e data of Appendix I and 11, i t i s seen t h a t two-seat a i r c r a f t range from 950 t o 2400 l b , from 110 t o 276 MPH and from 50 t o 300 HP. For t h e present study an a p p r o p r i a t e fuselage diameter i s 42" f o r tandem s e a t i n g and 48" f o r side-by-side seating. From t h e data of Appendix I and 11, i t i s seen t h a t four-seat a i r c r a f t range from 2400 t o 3900 l b , from 138 t o 230 MPH and from 160 t o 235 HP. For t h e present study an a p p r o p r i a t e fuselage diame t e r i s 55". From t h e data of Appendix I , i t i s seen t h a t s i x - s e a t a i r c r a f t range from 2750 t o 6775 l b , from 158 t o 302 MPH and from 200 t o 760 HP. For t h e present study an a p p r o p r i a t e fuselage diame t e r i s 65", so as t o a l l o w room between t h e seats. For t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study, t h e speed range has been l i m i t e d t o 140-180 MPH and t h e gross weight range has been l i m i t e d t o 800-3200 l b . The t a b l e below l i s t s t h e m a t r i x of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t o be analyzed.

\ur/

0.9
0

7 0 . 8 4
aL

W 0

n
4

>

0.7

W a
0

0.6

LL

a 0.5

. diameters,

0.4

NOTE:THRUSTH A S BEEN CORRECTED F O R GONDOLA 8 TAIL DRAG

I n o r d e r t o assess t h e roominess of t h e fuselage i t can be noted t h a t a cross-section of 24" x 36" i s o f t e n quoted f o r s p o r t s i n g l e - s e a t a i r c r a f t a s s a t i s f a c t o r y t o accommodate t h e p i l o t , as a g a i n s t t h e selected 40" diameter. A crosss e c t i o n of 42" x 40" i s quoted as s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r side-by-side two-seat a i r c r a f t , a s against the selected 48" diameter f o r t h e 2-seat side-by-side and 55" diameter f o r 4-seat a i r c r a f t . Wing aspectr a t i o s of 8 and 10 w i l l be considered, as w e l l as
IV.

THRUST COEFF.
:i~.6-

cT
VS~THRUST
. -.

Parametric A n a l y s i s

PROPELLER ADVANCE
COEFF.

cT

RATIO

The f i r s t wing parameter t o be considered i s t h e wing a s p e c t - r a t i o (AR); F i g . 7 presents t h e general a v i a t i o n survey of wing a s p e c t - r a t i o a g a i n s t wing l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t from t h e data tabul a t e d i n Appendix 111. I t can be seen t h a t t h e r e d o e s n ' t seem t o be any trend: t h e range i s from 6 t o 10, w i t h a preponderance o f p o i n t s between 7.25 and 8.50. For t h i s b r i e f p r e l i m i n a r y study, i n o r d e r t o keep a s o l i d wind-tunnel experimental basis, NACA AR = 10 and AR = 8 wings have been selected; t h e wind-tunnel t e s t data a r e shown i n F i g . 8 (reproduced from Fig. 18 of Ref. 23) f o r t h e AR = 8 NACA 652-415 wing and i n F i g . 9 f o r t h e AR = 10 NACA 653-418 wing.

Table IV Number of Seats

1

Sunmary o f A i r c r a f t Parameters 4 Tandem Side-by-Side

Fuselage Diameter Fuselage Length Fuselage Volume Equiv. Area

in. in.
f t 3

40 193 90.0 20.0 18.85 800 104.0 22.0 19.80 155.0 28.7 22.65 1400

5:2
234.0 37.8 26.00 2400

v
d

~0.66 ftz in. lb MPH

Wind-Tunnel Model

3: : 386.0 52.8 30.65 3200

5:ir
184 32.2 24.00

P r o p e l l e r Diameter Gross W t . Speed

Wo
UO

__
100

140

180
-

X
MA"LE

2X
/
I

,
I

4
/

/
I

rx

x x

x
XI

I '

* e /

'

FrG.8
X I
/ /
I

m
0 0

WING DRAG C O E F F . ~ V~ S . W I N G LIFT C O E F F , C ~ , NACA 652-415 8 2415 WINGS OF AR=8. REPRODUCED FROM FIG.^^ OF NACA REPORT 824

/ ,

I '

,m

0.2

0.3

17.4 f t (800 l b , AR = 8, 2 1 PSF) t o 45.9 f t (3200 l b , AR = 10, 1 5 PSF). Table V I presents t h e summary o f wing l i f t coeff i c i e n t s CL f o r 140, 160 and 180 MPH and f o r 15 PSF and 21 PSF wing loading. The l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t ranges from 0.180 (180 MPH, 15 PSF) t o 0.415 (140 MPH, 21 PSF). Table V I 1 presents t h e summary o f wing l i f t / d r a g r a t i o s (as obtained from Fig. 10) f o r 140, 160 and 180 MPH. AR = 8 and AR = 10 and f o r 15 PSF and 21 . .. . PSF wing loading. The r a t i o ranges from 32.0 (180 MPH, AR = 8, 15 PSF) t o 41.5 (140 MPH, AR = 10, 1 5 PSF). From the gross weight W, and t h e l i f t / d r a g r a t i o , t h e wing d r a g is computed; a 10%wing/fusel a g e i n t e r f e r e n c e drag i s added. The empennage drag i s assumed t o be 27.5% o f t h e wing drag. From t h e t o t a l drag F, t h e p r o p e l l e r t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t CT i s computed:
CT
i_

W I N G LIFT COEFF, C,

3 MAX-SPEED

SEA-LEVEL
FIG,^ - GENERAL

W I N G ASPECT RATIO AR C O E F F . ~ a MAX.SPEED

A V ~ A T I O N SURVEY : VS.WING LIFT 8 SEA LEVEL

The l i f t / d r a g r a t i o s o f t h e two wings a r e p l o t t e d i n F i g . 10; i t can be seen t h a t top l i f t / d r a g values a r e i n the l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t range from 0.25 t o 0.50. The n e x t question i s t o examine the general a v i a t i o n p r a c t i c e i n terms o f wing l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t a g a i n s t a i r c r a f t speed: such a survey i s presented i n F i g . 11 from t h e data t a b u l a t e d i n Appendix 111. Three p l o t s a r e shown w i t h d o t t e d curves: t h e top p l o t i n d i c a t e s the highest l i f t c o e f f i c i e n t s a c t u a l l y used i n general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t design and i t shows a v e r y c o n s i s t e n t trend. If CL = 0.30 i s chosen, i t can be seen t h a t i t i n t e r sects t h e p l o t @ 140 MPH, y i e l d i n g a wing l o a d i n g of 15 PSF, w h i l e if CL = 0.25 i s chosen, i t i n t e r sects t h e p l o t @ 180 MPH, y i e l d i n g a wing l o a d i n g o f 21 PSF.

-~ F qoy0.66

Note: The Vo.66 i n Table I V

values a r e given

From Fig. 5, t h e corresponding values of t h e volume power c o e f f i c i e n t CHP a r e determined f o r 15O blade angle ( b e s t p r o p e l l e r performance). The summary o f CT and CHP values i s presented i n Table VI11 f o r convenient reference. The t h r u s t coeff. CT ranges from 0.0163 t o 0.0473, w h i l e t h e volume power c o e f f . CHP ranges from 0.0370 t o It can be noted t h a t i n Table 111 t h e 0.0780. h i g h e s t experimental value of t h e power c o e f f i c i e n t i s CHP = 0.0960 and t h e corresponding t h r u s t c o e f f i c i e n t i s CT = 0.056. 7

Table V presents t h e summary of wing areas and wing spans f o r t h e m a t r i x o f AR = 8 and AR = 10 and of 15 PSF and 2 1 PSF wing loading. The wing area ranges from 38.1 f t 2 (800 l b , 21 PSF) t o 211.2 f t 2 (3200 l b , 15 PSF); t h e wing span ranges from

i
0
Lift coefficient CL
.
~ ~~

NACA 65-015 AR=S

\4lNG 8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

WING LIFT COEFFICIENT CL

.. . . . .. -.
~

FIG.^ - WING DRAG C O E F F . C ~ VS.WING LIFT C O E F F . ~ ~ NACA 553-418 ~ N 23Cl8 D WINGS OF AR=10. REPRODUCED FROM
-

F I G , ~O W I N G LIFT/DRAG

RATIO

VS.WING

LIFT C O E F F . ~ ~ . NACA 65+18 A R = l 0 WING NACA 652-415 M = 8 VING

~

FIG.^^ O F NACA

Rpy,824.

W'

120 ..~. j
'

150

.~~

. .

~~.

;-i

- .

MAXIMUM AIRCRAFT SPEED. MPH

. .~ !

250

..

. . .... . .. . . .

. I

..-

300 W

..

Fic.11 - GENERAL AVIATION

SURVEY : WING

LIFT

C O E F F . C ~ @ S E A - L E V E L Vs.

MAXIMUM A I R C R A F T SPEED,

MPH
8

Table V
Gross W t . W ,

S u n m r y o f Wing Areas and Spans lb

800 I

1200

1400 92.4 66.6

2400
-

1
.
I

3200 211.2

The n e x t parameter t o be considered i s the prop u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y i n t h e h i g h t h r u s t area r e q u i r e d f,o r a i r c r a f t design. The p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y i s computed as f o l l o w s :

158.4

np = ( T

'

FO)uO

= cT

= CT

+ 0.0190
CHP

114.2 ' 152.3

HP

CHP

27.1t 15'59
Wing Span, ~b i t 17.4 AR = 8 21 PSF j Wing Span, b ft j 22.9 AR = 10 15 PSF I Wing Span, b ft 1 1 9 . 5 AR = i o 21 PSF

41.10

21.3
:

23.0 30.4 25.8

30.2 ' 34.9 39'8 33'8

45.9
39'0

28.1 23.9

-_

Table VI

S m r y o f Wing L i f t C o e f f i c i e n t s

_-

Wing Loading

PSF

21

The bare body drag F , must be added t o t h e n e t t h r u s t T t o compute t h e t o t a l t h r u s t power; t h e r a t i o o f t h i s power over the a c t u a l p r o p e l l e r power i s the propulsive e f f i c i e n c y o f the a i r c r a f t . Table IX oresents t h e summary o f o r o o u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c v : i t 'can be seen t h a t i t - r a n g e s i r o m 91.2% t o 9 6 . i % f o r t h e 800 l b gross weight, from 87.6% t o 9 3 . a f o r t h e 1250 l b , from 88.5% t o 92.8% f o r t h e 1400 l b , from 85.0% t o 92.8% f o r the 2400 l b and from 85.6% t o 93.8% f o r t h e 3200 l b . These values can be compared t o 103% f o r t h e p r o p u l s i o n o f t h e body alone and t o 65% f o r a t y p i c a l t r a c t o r a i r c r a f t . The n e x t step i s the computation o f the a c t u a l p r o p e l l e r power
HP = CHP qpUoVo.66

__--_
Table VI1 Smmary

140 MPH 160 MPH 180 MPH

Speed

0.30 0.228 0.180

'

.-

0.415 0.317 0.25

of Wing L i f t / D r a g R a t i o s
!

550

I
Speed

Wing AR = 10

Wing AR = 8

140 MPH 160 180

15 PSF 41.5 39.0 35.5

'

21 PSF .____ l5 41.0 37.5 41.5 36.5 40.0 32.0

Table VI11

'"w
!

Table X presents t h e summary of the p r o p e l l e r vower r e s u l t s . The power ranges from 18.30 HP f o r the 800 l b a i r c r a f t @ 140 MPH t o 117 HP f o r t h e 3200 l b a i r c r a f t @ 180 MPH.

37.25 37.0

__- .Gross W t . W , lb
I

___

S m r y of T h r u s t and Power C o e f f i c i e n t s

800

1200

1400

2400

3200

AR = 10, 15 PSF Winq Uo = 140 MPH CT CHP U , E 160 MPH CT CHP U , = 180 MPH CT CHP A R = 10, 2 1 PSF Winq Uo = 140 MPH CT CHP U , = 160 MPH 2 P Uo = 180 MPH
AR = 8, 15 PSF Wins U , = 140 MPH

0.0262 0.0485 0.0212 0.0425 0.0184 0 3390 0.0265 0.0490 0.0200 0.0410 0.0163 0.0370 0.0290 0.0525 0.0227 0.0440 0.0205 0.0415 0.0298 0.0535 0.0223 0.0440 0.0177 0.0380

0.0357
0.0610

0.0290 0.0525 0.0251 0.0475 0.0361 0.0615 0.0271 0.0500 0.0223 0.0440 0.0396 0.0665 0.0310 0.0550 0.0278 0.0505 0.0406 0.0680 0.0304 0.0540 0.0241 0.0460 9

0.0319 0.0560 0.0260 0.0485 0.0224 0.0440 0.0323 0.0570 0.0244 0.0465 0.0185 0,0390 0.0353 0.0610 0.0277 0.0505 0.0249 0.0470

0.0415 0.0695 0.0338 0.0590 0.0292 0.0530 0.0420 0.0700

0.0400 0.0675 0.0322 0.0570 0.0279 0.0510 0.0400 0.0675 0.0303 0.0540 0.0232 0.0450 0.0439 0.0730 0.0344 0.0600 0.0310 0.0550 0.0452 0.0750 0.0338 0.0590 0.0268 0.0495

0.0317
0.0555 0.0260 0.0485

U,

= =

160 MPH 180 MPH

2 P CT CHP

U ,

0.0460 0.0760 0.0361 0.0615 0.0324 0.0570 0.0473 0.0780 0.0354 0.0610 0.0280 0.0510

AR = 8, 21 PSF Winq U , = 140 MPH CT CHP U , = 160 MPH

0.0363
0.0625 0.0272 0.0505 0.0215 0.0430

Uo = 180 MPH

CT CHP

Gross W t .

Wo

lb

800
I
i

1200 0.896 0.914

! i
I

1400

2400 0.870 0.895 0.909 0.871 0.913 0.928 0.855 0.896 0.902 0.850 0.892 0.921

3200 0.874 0.898 0.919 0.874 0.913 0.938 0.862 0.890 0.909

AR = 10, 15 PSF Winq Uo = 140 MPH Uo = 160 MPH

0.932 0.946

0.909 0.928

Uo = 140 Uo = 160 Uo = 180 AR = 8, 15 Uo = 140 Uo = 160 Uo = 180

MPH MPH

MPH
PSF Wing MPH MPH MPH PSF Wing MPH MPH MPH

0.928 0.951 0.954 0.914 0.948 0.952 0.912 0.939 0.966

,
;
1

0.922 0.938 0.881 0.909 0.927 0.876 0.915 0.937

1
!

0.933 0.961 0.890 0.925 0.934 0.885 0.915 0.942

AR

= 8, 21 Uo = 140 Uo = 160 Uo = 180

0.895 0.925

Table X Gross W t . AR = 10, Wo

Sumnary of Pmpeller Power, BHP

1200 25.23 32.66 42.05 25.49 31.10 38.95 27.63 34.19 44.79 28.13 33.55 40.80 1400 30.29 39.35 50.89 30.83 37.74 45.12 33.00 40.94 54.39 33.81 40.60 49.75

lb

800
18.30 24.03 31.38 18.46 23.14 29.83 19.80 24.85 33.46 20.12 24.85 30.63

2400 49.50 63.06 80.74 49.86 59.12 73.89 54.13 65.66 86.87 55.53 65.13 77.72

3200 67.26 85.11 108.50 67.18 80.54 95.72 72.62 89.48 117.00 74.64 88.00 105.35
kd

15 PSF Winq U, = 140 MPH U, = 160 Uo = 180 AR = 10, 21 PSF Winq U , = 140 MPH U i = 160 Uo = 180 AR = 8, 15 PSF Wing Uo = 140 MPH Uo = 160 Uo = 180 AR = 8, 21 PSF Winq Uo = 140 MPH Uo = 160 Uo = 180

In regard t o propeller speed, the advance r a t i o can be found from F i g . 6 and the speed can be computed; however, i t has been found t h a t f o r speeds above 120 MPH the NASA 4-blades propeller requires T h u s the propeller excessively high tip-speeds. RPM has n o t been reported f o r the 140-180 MPH speed range. McLemore himself suggested the use of large r number of propeller blades: 6 and 8 blades would be e n t i r e l y practical t o reduce the tip-speed while maintaining o r improving the efficiency. The new propfan technology can be p u t t o excellent use f o r the development of optimized wake-propellers i n the 200-350 MPH speed range. Finally the aerodynamic efficiency index can be computed from the given gross weight and speed and the computed propeller power. The r e s u l t s a r e given i n Table X I ; the range i s from 11.47 t o
17.95.

On the other hand, the data of Table X I are presented in the plot of Fig. 13 f o r convenient visual evidence: i t seems t o be c l e a r t h a t i n the 140-180 MPH, 800-3200 l b range the NASA fuselage/wakepropeller a i r c r a f t o f f e r s substantial aerodynamic efficiency index improvements over 100%.

I t can be argued t h a t the AEI data of F i g . 12 represent actual operational " d i r t y " a i r c r a f t while the AEI data of F i g . 13 represent "clean" windtunnel model performance, with neglect of several miscellaneous drags.

In order t o assess the meaning of the AEI numbers, F i g . 12 presents the general aviation survey of the aerodynamic efficiency index against a i r c r a f t velocity. I t can be seen t h a t the range i s from a low of 5.00 t o a high of 7.95.
10

A 15% speed reduction i s a most generous allowance f o r such miscellaneous drags; a s an example, f o r the single-seat Moni a i r c r a f t . the fixed landing gear causes a speed reduction of only 5 MPH (4.1%) a s compared t o the retracted gear. Thus the highest points of Fig. 13 would drop t o the 15.0 level and the lowest points t o the 10.0 level; the aerodynamic efficiency index improvements a r e s t i l l very substantial, a s compared t o the Fig. 12 range from 5.0 t o 7.95.

Table X I

Summry of Aemdynamic Efficiency Index AEI

800 1200 17.74 15.63 13.66 17.53 16.35 14.73 16.21 14.95 12.87 15.88 15.23 14.06 1400 17.26 15.08 13.12 16.86 15.80 13.79 15.84 14.57 12.35 15.45 14.68 13.45 2400 17.95 16.14 14.22 17.89 17.23 15.57 16.52 15.58 13.26 16.16 15.69 14.81 3200 17.72 16.00 14.14 17.71 16.93 15.00 16.47 15.23 13.10 16.00 15.50 14.53

Gross W t .
4

W ,

lb

AR = 10, 15 PSF Wing U , = 140 MPH

U , = 160

!
i
~

u ,

180

16.28 14.15 12.23 16.09 14.72 12.86 15.09 13.72 11.47 14.77 13.72 12.50

AR = 10, 21 PSF Winq U , = 140 MPH Uo = 160

U ,
=

1
i

180

AR = 8, 15 PSF Wing U , = 140 U , = 160 u , = 180

AR = 8, 21 PSF Wing U , = 140 MPH

= 160 Uo = 180

U ,

FIG,12 -

GENERAL A V I A T I O N SURVEY: AERODYNAMIC E F F I C I E N C YINDEX AEI

VS.

M A X I M U M SPEED

1 1

q _ c l 4 0 MPH AR=10.21 PSF

-

0 6 1 A--140

MPH AR=10.21 PSF

MPH AR=8.15 PSF

v- - - -

-- - - ! 3

' 8
'P

,
c

, I

_-_---/--

-b--

- - - - - 4--

\I80 MPH AR=8,15

PSF

140 MFH
~.

160 MPH 180 MPH

3

II
~~~~. .

2
AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT LE x 1000

F l G , l 3 - NASA FUSELAGE/WAKE-PROPELLER : AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY . 18G MPH SPEED RANGE AIRCRAFT GROSS WEIGHT FOR 140 .
V.

INDEX AEI Vs,

Fuselaqe Power R a t i o

The Dower r e a u i r e d f o r t h e o r o o u l s i o n of t h e fuselage i s t h e ' l a r g e s t c o n t r i b k o k t o t h e t o t a l conventional a i r c r a f t power. For a t y p i c a l s i n g l e engine t r a c t o r g e n e r a l - a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t , t h e drag d i s t r i b u t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : T o t a l A i r c r a f t Drag Coeff. COA = 0.0275 100%

i s 0.0190 f o r z e r o n e t t h r u s t , i . e . f o r e q u i l i b r i u m f l i g h t c o n d i t i o n s , w i t h 103% p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y . The Dower r a t i o 0.019/CHP has been ComDuted and i s dresented i n Table XI1 f o r t h e f i v e arass weights, t h e two wing aspect r a t i o and t h e two-wing loadings.
I t can be seen t h a t t h e range i s from a maximum o f 0.513 (corresoondina t o A E I = 12.86) t o a m i n i ,~~ mum o f 0.243 (corresponding t o A E I = i6.52). Also i t can be noted t h a t t h e maximum A E I = 17.95 corresponds t o a r a t i o of 0.273 and t h e minimum A E I = 11.47 corresponds t o a r a t i o of 0.457.

Empennage Drag Coeff. CDA = 0.0025 Fuselage Drag Coeff. CDA = 0.0150 (Note:

9%
54%

I n conclusion, t h e NASA fuselage/wake-propeller c o n f i g u r a t i o n has made i t p o s s i b l e t o reduce t h e fuselage power c o n t r i b u t i o n from 54% t o 25%.
VI.

Assessment of 4-Seat Pusher A i r c r a f t

CDA i s based on wing area)

The fuselage i s t h e l a r g e s t c o n t r i b u t o r t o a i r c r a f t drag; d e s p i t e t h i s obvious f a c t , aerodynamic o p t i m i z a t i o n o f t h e fuselage has n o t received much a t t e n t i ~ n . ?Most ~ of t h e research has been focused on t h e wing, which accounts f o r o n l y 36% o f t h e t o t a l drag. I n conclusion, w i t h t h e assumption t h a t t h e p r o p e l l e r t h r u s t can o n l y make t h e fusel a g e d r a g higher, then t h e t y p i c a l fuselage i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r 54% of t h e power, a t t h e l e a s t .
It i s most i n t e r e s t i n g t o examine t h e fuselage power r a t i o (fuselage power/total power) f o r t h e NASA fuselage/wake-propel l e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h NACA AR = 10 and AR = 8 wings, w i t h wing l o a d i n g s o f 15 and 2 1 PSF.

The 4-seat 2400 l b c o n f i g u r a t i o n has turned o u t t o have t h e h i g h e s t A E I values, as shown above i n Table X and i n Fig. 13, i n t h e speed range between 140 and 180 MPH. Also t h e 4-seat a i r c r a f t i s t h e most p o p u l a r general a v i a t i o n model to-date; economy, roominess and range a r e among t h e most desirable characteristics. An i d e a l engine would be t h e Teledyne Continent a l GR-36 85 HP r o t a r y u n i t , w i t h RPM i n t h e area Of 7000, a d r y weiaht of 110 l b and a s o e c i f i c f u e l consumption o f 0:45 lb/HP hr, as keported b y DeMeis.25 As shown i n Table I X , t h e power r e q u i r e d @ 180 MPH w i t h 21.0 PSF winq l o a d i n q i s 77.72 HP f o r AR = 8 and 73.89 f o r AR = - l o wing: An assessment should be c a r r i e d o u t a g a i n s t t h e l a t e s t and most advanced 4-seat pusher a i r c r a f t a v a i l a b l e today; one such a i r c r a f t i s t h e P r e s c o t t Pusher, as described b y Cox.26 Table XI11 below 12

From F i g . 5 i t i s seen t h a t t h e fuselage power c o e f f . CHP ( c o r r e c t e d f o r gondola and t a i l drag)

p r e s e n t s a side-by-side l i s t i n g of a l l r e l e v a n t parameters f o r the two d e s i g n s , so a s t o allow e a s y comparison. Table X I 1

~

Summary o f Fuselage Power R a t i o

1200 1400 2400 0.273 0.322 0.372 0.271 0.342 0.391 0.250 0.309 0.333 0.243 0.311 0.372 3200 0.281 0.333

Gross W t . AR
=

Wo

lb

!
i

800 0.390 0.447 0.400 0.387 0.463 0.513 0.362 0.431 0.457 0.355 0.431 0.500

10, 15 PSF Wing = 140 MPH U , = 160 U , = 0.487

Uo

0.311 0.362 0.431

0.339 0.391 0.358 0.333 0.408 0.487 0.311 0.376 0.404 0.304 0.376 0.441

AR

= 10,

2 1 PSF Wing 0.308 0.380 0.431 0.285 0.345 0.376 0.279 0.352 0.413

Uo = 140 MPH
U , = 160 Uo = 180

0.281 0.352 0.422 0.260 0.316 0.345 0.253 0.322 0.383

AR

8, 15 PSF Winq = 140 MPH Uo = 160 U , = 180

=

Uo

AR

8, 21 PSF
= 160 = 180

W i n s

U , = 140 MPH

U ,
U ,

Table X I 1 1 Parameter
!

T a b u l a t i o n of 4-Seat Pusher Aircraft Parameters Fuselage/Wake-Propeller

4 2400 22.08
I

P r e s c o t t Pusher
4 2400 20.25 42" width x 40" h t .
111.0

No. of S e a t s
Gross Weight, l b
Fuselage Length, f t
% & d

Fusel age Cross-Secti on

Wing Area, f t 2 Wing Span, f t Wing Aspect-Ratio Wing Loading, PSF
Power @ Speed

55" d i a m e t e r
114.2 30.2 8.0 21.0
77.72 HP @ 180 MPH 65.13 HP @ 160 MPH 55.53 HP @ 140 MPH

29.33 7.75 21.6

180 HP @ 184 MPH

Engine:

Type Power RPM Dry Weight, l b

GR-36 Continental 85 HP

0-360 Lycoming 180 HP 2700 257

Fuel Tank Propeller dia. RPM No. of Blades

45 g a l . = 270 l b 26" d i a . 7000 8

45 g a l . = 270 1 b 72" d i a . 2700 2 0.42 lb/HP hr 12.0 g a l . / h r 15.3 690

13

The economy i s enhanced b y t h e 85 HP engine a g a i n s t t h e 180 HP; t h e roominess i s enhanced by t h e 55" d i a . cross-section a g a i n s t t h e 42" x 40"; t h e range i s increased from 690 t o 1300 miles, u s i n g t h e same 45-gal. tank. The A E I value f o r t h e P r e s c o t t Pusher @ 184 MPH i s 6.5 w h i l e i t i s 15.57 f o r AR = 10 21 PSF wing and 14.81 f o r AR = 8 21 PSF wing; i t i s c l e a r t h a t a v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l imDrovement p o t e n t i a l has been made - a v a i l a b l e b y t h e NASA fuselage/wakepropeller configuration.

5. Edwards, B., "Laminar Flow Control-Concepts, Experiences and Speculations," AGARD R-654, 1977, pp. 4.1-4.41. 6. Davidson, I. M.. "Some Notes on A i r c r a f t Prop L l s i o n b j Aage Regenerztion, InternationalConqress. & Suosonic Aerona.tics, hew Yom Academy o f Sciences, ?member 1968, pp. 641651. 7. Goldschmied, F. R., " I n t e g r a t e d H u l l Design, Boundary-Layer Control and Propulsion o f Submerged Bodies," A I A A Journal of Hydronautics, Vol. 1, No. 1, J u l y 1967, pp. 2-11.

VII. 1.

Conclusions

The NASA fuselage/wake-propel l e r c o n f i g u r a t i o n , as a p p l i e d t o a m a t r i x o f a i r c r a f t designs i n t h e 140-180 MPH speed range, has shown conc l u s i v e l y t h a t a 50% power r e d u c t i o n i s a pract i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y , f o r t h e same gross weight and speed; t h e b a s i s f o r t h i s comparison i s provided b y a survey of 76 general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t (Appendix I and 11). The p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c y f o r t h e a i r c r a f t design m z t r i x ranges from 85% t o 96%; t h i s can be s u b s t a n t i a l l y improved by e l i m i n a t i o n o f fuselage d r a g increments induced b y t h e p r o p e l l e r through fuselage shape o p t i m i z a t i o n . T h i s i s t h e area where f u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l and wind-tunnel research i s h i g h l y recommended. It can be remembered t h a t conventional t r a c t o r a i r c r a f t have 65% p r o p u l s i v e e f f i c i e n c i e s . While t h e conventional fuselage accounts f o r 54% o f t h e t o t a l drag and power, t h e fuselage power of t h e NASA c o n f i g u r a t i o n ranges from 51% down t o 24%; t h i s represents a s u b s t a n t i a l design improvement over conventional p r a c t i c e . The most p o p u l a r general a v i a t i o n a i r c r a f t i s t h e 4-seat model i n t h e 140-180 MPH speed range. A d e t a i l e d comparison has been c a r r i e d o u t a g a i n s t t h e 4-seat P r e s c o t t Pusher, f o r t h e same 2400 l b gross weight and 180 MPH speed, i n d i c a t i n g 78 HP a g a i n s t 180 HP, 5.8 g a l l o n s / h r a g a i n s t 12.0, 30.9 MPG a g a i n s t 15.3 and 1300 m i l e s range a g a i n s t 690. Clvde McLemore was 20 vears ahead o f h i s time: hi; e x c e l l e n t work w i i l bear f r u i t i o n now f o r t h e general a v i a t i o n i n d u s t r y . L i s t of References

8. Goldschmied, F. R., " I n t e g r a t e d H u l l Design, Boundary-Layer Control and Propulsion f o r Submerged Bodies: Wind-Tunnel V e r i f i c a t i o n , " A I A A Paper 82-1204, 1982.
9. Goldschmied, F. R., "Jet-Propulsion o f Subsonic Bodies w i t h J e t Total-Head Equal t o FreeStreams," A I A A Paper 83-1790, 1983.
10. Goldschmied, F. R., "On t h e Aerodynamic Optimiz a t i o n of Mini-RPV and Small GA A i r c r a f t , " A I A A Paper 84-2163, 1984. 1 1 . Huang, T. T., Wang, H. T . , S a n t e l l i , N. and Groves, N. C., "Propeller/Stern/Boundary-Layer I n t e r a c t i o n i n Axisymmetric Bodies: Theory and Experiment," David W. T a y l o r Naval Ship R&D Center Report 76-0113, December 1976.

2.

3.

12. Farn, C.L.S., Goldschmied, F. R. and Whirlow. D . K.. "Pressure D i s t r i b u t i o n P r e d i c t i o n f o r . Two-Dimensional H y d r o f o i l s w i t h Massive T u r b u l e n t Separation," A I A A Journal o f Hydron a u t i c s , Vol. 10, July-Aug. 1976, pp. 95-101. 13. Goldschmied, F. R., "Comment on Separation Model f o r Two-Dimensional A i r f o i l s i n Transonic Flow," A I A A Journal, Vo1. 12, No. 7, p. 1138, 1985. 14. Blascovich, J . D., " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f SepaAIAA r a t e d Flow A i r f o i l A n a l y s i s Methods," Paper 84-0048, Jan. 1984.

4.

5.

15. Goldschmied. F. R . . "Comments on An Inverse Boundary-Layer Method f o r Compressible Laminar and Turbulent 8oundary-Layers," A I A A Journal o f A i r c r a f t , Vol. 14, No. 5, p. 509, May 1977.
16. Goldschmied, F. R., "Comments on Experimental I n v e s t i g a t a i on o f Subsonic Turbulent Separated Boundary-Layers on an A i r f o i l ,'I A I A A Journal of A i r c r a f t , Vo1. 14, No. 9, pp. 927-928, Sept. 1977. 17. McLemore, H. Clyde, "Wind-Tunnel Tests o f a I/ZO-Scale A i r s h i p Model w i t h Stern Propell e r s , " NASA TN 0-1026, Jan. 1962. 18. M i l e y , S. J . and von Lavante, E., " P r o p e l l e r Propulsion System I n t e g r a t i o n - S t a t e o f Technology Survey," NASA C o n t r a c t o r Report CR-3882, J u l y 1984.

1.

Froude, W., "Discussion o f Paper by W.J.M. Rankin," Trans. I n s t . Naval A r c h i t e c t s , Vol. 6, 1865, pp. 35-37. Smith. A.M.O. and Roberts. E.. "The J e t A i r p l a n e ' U t i l i z i n g Boundary-Layer ' A i r f o r Propulsion," J . Aero. Sciences, Vo1. 14, 1947. Kuchemann, D. and Weber, J., "Aerodynamics of Propulsion," McGraw H i l l Book Company, New York, N.Y., 1953. Edwards. J . 8.- 'Fundamental Aspects o f Propuls i o n f o r Laminar Flow Aircraft,' Boundary-Layer and Flow C o n t r o l , G . V. Lachmann, ed. Pergamon Press, 1961, pp. 1077-1122.

2.

3.

4.

14

19. Lan, C.

E. and Roskam, J., " A i r p l a n e Aerodynamics and Performance," The U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1981.

20. Freeman,
&

Hugh e., "Force Measurements on a I/4O-Scale Model of t h e U.S. A i r s h i p Akron," NACA Report 432, 1932.

24. Parsons, J . S., Goldschmied, F. R. and Goodson, R. E., "Shapinq o f A x i s m m e t r i c Bodies f o r Minimum Drag i n Incompressible Flow," A I A A Journal o f Hydronautics, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 100-107, J u l y 1974. 25. DeMeis,
Richard, "Rotary Grows Up," America, June 1986, pp. 48-51. Aerospace

21. Freeman,

Hugh B., "Measurements o f Flow i n t h e Boundary Layer o f a 1/40-Scale Model o f t h e U.S. A i r s h i p Akron," NACA Report 430, 1932.

26. Cox, B i l l , "Pusher f o r t h e Zlst Century," Homeb u i l t A i r c r a f t , May 1986, pp. 30-63. 27. Goldschmied, F. R.,
"An Approach t o T u r b u l e n t Incompressible Separation Under Adverse Pressure Gradients," A I A A Journal o f A i c r a f t , Vol. 2, March/April 1965, pp. 108-115.

22. Abbott,

I r a H., "The Drag o f Two Streamline Bodies as A f f e c t e d b y Protuberances and Appendages," NACA Report 451, 1932. I r a H., von Doenhoff, A l b e r t E. and S t i v e r s , Louis S., "Summary of A i r f o i l Data," NACA Report 824, 1945. APPENDIX I Designation

23. Abbott,

AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY INDEX OF U.S.

BUSINESS, UTILITY AND PERSONAL AIRCRAFT Max. Power HP

I
I

Seats

W t

I
I
I

Max. Speed MPH

AE I

BEECH AIRCRAFT CORP.

!
145 158 198 198 212 230 216 230 239 256 277 275 191 121
I

C-23 Sundowner C-24R S i e r r a

F-33A Bonanza V-358 Bonanza A-36 Bonanza B-36TC Bonanza B-55 Baron E - 5 5 Baron 58 Baron 58P Baron 58TC Baron 860 Duke 76 Duchess C / R 77 Skipper CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. Aerobat Skyhawk Cutlass Cutlass RG Skylane Skylane RG Turbo 182 Skylane Turbo 182 Skylane RG 185 Skywagon 206 S t a t i o n a i r 6 T-206 Turbo S t a t i o n a i r 6 207 S t a t i o n a i r 8 T-207 Turbo S t a t i o n a i r 8 210 Centurion T-210 Turbo Centurion P-210 Centurion T-303 Crusader 340-A 402-C Business L i n e r 402-C U t i l i l i n e r 414 Chancellor 421 Golden Eagle MAULE AIRCRAFT CORP.

k '

4 4- 6 4- 5 4- 5 4- 6 6 4- 6 4- 6 4- 6 4- 6 4- 6 4- 6 4 2

2450 2750 3400 3400 3650 3850 5100 5300 5500 6200 6200 6775 3900 1675

180 200 285 285 300

300

520 570 600 650 650 7 60 360 115

5.26 5.77 6.28 6.28 6.86 7.85 5.63 5.62 5.82 6.49 7.02 6.52 5.50 4.68

152 152 172 172 172 182 182

2 2 4 4 4 4 4
4

1675 1675 2407 2558 2658 3110 3110

3100

108 108 160 180 180 230 235

235

I
~

122 122 138 140 161 163 180

182

5.03 5.03 5.52 5.29 6.32 5.86 6.34

6.38

4 6

6
6 8 8 6 6 6 6 6 6- 10 6- 10 6-8 6-8

I I
I

iI

i
! I
I

3112 3362 3612 3616 3812 3816 3812 4016 4016 5176 6025 6885 6885 6785 7500

235 300

300
310

300 310 300 310 310 500 620 650 650 620 7 50

I
i
~

i
1
!
!

189 169 169 192 165 185 197 226 208 226 264 242 242 258 277

7.00 5.03 5.41 5.97 5.57 6.05 6.65 7.75 7.16 6.22 6.82 6.81 6.81 7.51 7.36

M5-180C
MS-210TC

4
4 4
A

i
!

M5-235C M6-235

2400 2500 2500 2500

~

180
210 235

156
196 172 150

5.53
6.20 4.86 4.24

735
15

Desi gnation MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP. M20J201 M20K231

P I P E R AIRCRAFT CORP.

Seats

Gross W t
lh

Max. Power
HP

Max. Speed MPH

A E I

4 4

2740 2900

200 225

201 231

7.32 7.94

\ray

PA-28-161 W a r r i o r 2 PA-28-181 Archer 2 PA-28RT-201T Arrow 4 PA-28-236 Dakota

PA-32-301 Saratoga PA-32R-301 Saratoaa SP PA-3ZR-301T Saratzga SP PA-32-301T Turbo Saratoga PA-34-220T Seneca 3 PA-38-112 Tomahawk 2 PA-46-310P M a l i b u PA-60-602P A e r o s t a r PA-60-700P A e r o s t a r NOTE:

4 4 4 4 6 10 7 6 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 6

2440 2550 2990 3000 6500 7000 7200 3600 3600 3600 3600 4750 1670

160 180 200 235 650 700 700 300 300 300 300 440 112

5.92 5.61 7.63 5.60 6.72 6.78 7.35 5.52 5.84 6.51 6.06 6.37 5.03 7.35 7.81 7.24

Weights, Powers and Speeds quoted from: A v i a t i o n Week & Space Technology, March 12, 1984, p. 144. APPENOIX I1 AERODYNAMIC EFFICIENCY INDEX OF U.S. SPORT AND HOME-BUILT AIRCRAFT Seats Gross W t
lb

Desi gnat i o n T a y l o r Mini-Imp Taylor B u l l e t Swearingen SX-300 Fa1co Windex 1100 Moni Moni Tri-Gear P r e s c o t t Pusher Whisper Star-Li t e Silhouette L a n c a i r (Lancer) 200 Glasai r FT-180 Sparrow Hawk MK I 1 cozy Whitehawk-65 Whi tehawk- 100

Ref.

Max. HP Power
60 100 300 160 22 22 22 180 160 40 44 100 180 50 118 65 100

Max. Speed MPH

AEI

800 1650 2400 1808 506 500 560 2400 1800 500 700 1275 1700 1000 1500 950 1250

182

5.33 6.60 5.88 6.38 7.66 7.27 7.80 6.50 6.75 4.00 5.09 7.24 6.04 5.86 6.80 6.12 6.06

NOTE: Weights,
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ( 7) (8)

Powers and Speeds a r e quoted from t h e f o l l o w i n g sources as l i s t e d below. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Sport A v i a t i o n , A p r i l 1986, p. 20. Sport A v i a t i o n , March 1985, p. 42. Sport A v i a t i o n , A p r i l 1985, p. 14. Sport A v i a t i o n , August 1985, p. 15. Sport A v i a t i o n , June 1985, p. 52. Homebuilt A i r c r a f t , April 1986, p . 29. Builder's specifications. Builder's specifications.

(9)

Sport A v i a t i o n , August 1984, p. 24. Homebuilt A i r c r a f t , May 1986, p. 24. Homebuilt A i r c r a f t , October 1985, p. 29. Homebuilt A i r c r a f t , August 1985, p. 27. Builder's specifications. Builder's specifications. Builder ' s specifications. Homebuilt A i r c r a f t , May 1986, p. 62. Sport A v i a t i o n , March 1986, p . 47.

NOTE: -

76 a i r c r a f t see l i s t e d i n Appendix I and 11. Category A E I between 4 and 5 has 4 a i r c r a f t o r 5.2% Category A E I between 5 and 6 has 26 a i r c r a f t o r 34.2% Category A E I between 6 and Category A E I between 7 and 8 has 18 a i r c r a f t o r 23.6% The 7 has 28 a i r c r a f t o r 36.8% l o w e s t AEI v a l u e i s 4.50 and t h e h i g h e s t 7.94.

...

...

...

...

16

APPENDIX 111

WING PARAMETERS O F U.S. BUSINESS, UTILITY, PERSONAL SPORT & HOME-BUILT AIRCRAFT Wing Aspect Ratio

Designation
a4

Wing Loading PSF

Power Loading 1b/HP

Wing L i l CL @ S.L. @ Max. Speed

:oeff.
CL @ 6000 f t

BEECH AIRCRAFT CORP. C-23 Sundowner C-24R S i e r r a F-33A Bonanza V-356 Bonanza A-36 Bonanza B-36TC Bonanza 8-55 Baron E-55 Baron 58 Baron 58P Baron 58TC Baron 860 Duke 7.36 7.36 6.20 6.20 6.20 7.60 7.17 7.17 7.17 7.59 7.59 7.21 7.97 6.92 16.78 18.83 18.78 18.78 20.16 20.47 25.60 26.60 27.60 32.96 32.96 31.82 21.54 12.88 13.60 13.75 11.92 11.92 12.16 12.83 9.80 9.30 9.16 9.53 9.53 8.91 10.83 14.50 0.300 0.280 0.185 0.185 0.173 0.148 0.211 0.192 0.184 0.191 0.165 0.159 0.229 0.338 0.359 0.335 0.221 0.221 0.207 0.177 0.252 0.230 0.220 0.228 0.197 0.190 0.274 0.404

CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO.

151 152 Aerobat 172 Skvhawk

182 Skylane 182 Skylane RG Turbo 182 Skylane Turbo 182 Skylane RG 185 Skywagon 206 S t a t i o n a i r 6 T-206 Turbo S t a t i o n a i r 207 S t a t i o n a i r 8 T-207 Turbo S t a t i o n a i r 8 4 210 Centurion T-210 Turbo Centurion P-210 Centurion T-303 Crusader 340-A 402-C Business L i n e r 402-C U t i l i n e r 414 Chancellor 421 Golden Eagle MAULE AIRCRAFT CORP. M5-180C M5-219TC M5-235C M6-235
MOONEY AIRCRAFT CORP.

6.88 6.93 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.44 7.73 7.73 7.73 8.03 7.93 a. 61 8.61 8.61 9.48

10.46 10.46 13.83 14.70 15.27 17.87 17.84 17.81 17.88 19.32 20.75 20.78 21.90 21.93 21.78 22.94 22.94 27.35 32.74 30.49 30.49 30.04 33.18

15.50 15.50 15.00 14.20 14.70 13.50 13.20 13.10 13.20 11.20 12.00

11.60
12.70 12.30 12.70 12.90 12.90 9.70 9.20 10.60 10.60 10.90 10.00

0.271 0.271 0.282 0.291 0.228 0.258 0.212 0.207 0.173 0.259 0.278 0.218 0.308 0.246 0.218 0.172 0.203 0.205 0.178 0.200 0.200 0.171 0.165

0.324 0.324 0.337 0.348 0.273 0.308 0.253 0.248

6.04 6.04 6.04 6.37

15.20 15.80 15.80 14.40

13.30 11.90

10.60
10.60

0.241 0.159 0.205 0.248

0.288 0.190 0.245 0.297

M20J201 M20K231

7.44 7.44

15.60 16.50

13.70 13.80

0.148 0.118

0.177 0.141

17

Designation PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP. PA-28-161 Warrior 2 PA-28-181 Archer 2 PA-28RT-201T Arrow 4 PA-28-236 Dakota PA-31-325 Navajo C/R PA-31-350 C h i e f t a i n PA-31P-350 Mojave PA- 32- 30 1 Sara toga PA-32R-301 Saratoga SP PA-32R-301T Saratoga SP PA-32-301T Turbo Saratoga PA-34-220T Seneca 3 PA-38-112 Tomahawk 2 PA-46-310P Malibu PA-60-602P A e r o s t a r PA-60-700P A e r o s t a r SPORT & HOME-BUILT T a y l o r Mini-Imp T a y l o r Bul l e t Swearingen SX-300 Fa1 co Windex 1100 Moni Moni Tri-Gear P r e s c o t t Pusher Whisper Star-Lite Si1 h o u e t t e L a n c a i r (Lancer) 200 G 1 a s a i r FT- 180 Sparrow Hawk MK I 1

Wing Aspect Ratio

Wing Loading PSF

Power Loading 1b/HP

Wing L i CL @ S.L. @ Max. Speed

Coeff.
CL @ 6000 f t

7.20 7.20 7.37 7.37 7.23 7.23 8.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.25 9.27 10.56 7.56 7.56

14.30 15.00 17.00 17.60 28.30 30.50 30.30 20.20 20.20 20.20 20.20 22.70 13.40 23.40 33.70 35.40

15.20 14.10 14.50 12.70 10.00 10.00 10.28 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 10.80 14.90 13.20 10.34 9.02

0.260 0.258 0.168 0.247 0.168 0.178 0.159 0.258 0.232 0.187 0.217 0.177 0.319 0.123 0.160 0.147

0.311 0.308 0.201 0.295 0.201 0.213 0.190 0.308 0.278

8.25 8.25 a. 32 6.40 16.20 10.00 10.00 7.60 7.10 8.10 12.90 7.27 6.65 8.25 7.12 9.00 9.00

10.75 11.78 33.60 16.81 6.34 6.66 7.46 21.60

22.20

8.77 9.33 16.80 20.90 7.14 15.60 6.78 8.93

13.30 23.50 8.00 11.30 23.00 22.70 25.45 13.30 11.25 12.00 15.90 12.75 9.44 20.00 13.60 14.60 12.50

0.185 0.200 0.168 0.143

0.301 0.170 0.166 0.270 0.208 0.127 0.125

.a/

18