(c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

A9946057

AIAA 99-0118
Applied Aerodynamics at the
Douglas Aircraft Company -
A Historical Perspective

Roger D. Schaufele
Douglas Aircraft Company (Retired)

37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences

Meeting and Exhibit
January ii-14,1999 / Reno, NV
FOPpermission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Applied Aerodynamics at
the Douglas Aircraft Company -
A Historical Perspective

Roger D. Schaufele ’
Douglas Aircraft Company (Retired)

Abstract The application of the fundamental principles of detailed knowledge of the parameters was gained. As an

aerodynamics in the design and development of the Douglas example, thrust horsepower (THP) is determlned ,from

Commercial ( DC ) series of aircraft and other related (BHP) from the familiar equation
designs is reviewed. The aerodynamic design methods and THP=BHPx 7
procedures utilized in the early years are outlined. along with The value of T] was estimated from a propeller chart that
some of the more notable aerodynamic design features of gave ?‘Jas a function of advance ratio, J, and power
the aircraft. Later developments in aircraft design with more coefficient, C, . This was then multiplied by fq to account for
sophisticated aerodynamics led to more detailed methods. the fact that the propeller blade geometry was different than
which found application on later transports in the series. The the propellers used to experimentally determine the propeller
efficiency. Then there was another factor k ,., which
arrival of the jet transport era brought new challenges for the
accounted for the compressibility effects on the propeller
aerodynamicists, who again had to come up with the new
efficiency. And finally there was another factor k, which was
methods to cope with the requirements of the new speed
called the engine manufacturers “honesty” factor, the
regime. The use of basic aerodynamic concepts in the
performance engineers audit of actual versus published BHP
solution of some interesting and unique problems that arose output of the engine. For takeoff performance, THP was
in the design and development of the jet transport models is further multiplied by a factor F, to match flight test. This factor
also discussed. was eliminated when NACA published improved experimental
Introduction Before getting into the history,it is important to results on compressibility effects on propeller efficiency, and
define “applied aerodynamics” as it will be used throughout the BHP factor went away when torquemeters became
available to measure engine BHP.
this paper. The term “applied aerodynamics” describes the
use of methods and procedures based on fundamental Applied aerodynamicsas practiced in industry, really
aerodynamic theory or principles in the design of a specific focused on several aspects of the aerodynamics discipline.
aircraftTheoretical aerodynamics serves as a marvelous First there is the aerodynamic analysis associated with
basis for calculating any number of important quantities aircraft performance. The basis for aircraft performance
needed in aircraft design. However, the assumptions made analysis is found in the flight mechanics equations that
in order to develop the theory often result in differences govern the various regimes of flight, namely takeoff, climb,
between the calculated values and those obtained from cruise, descent, and landing. In order to calculate aircraft
experimental data. These differences were accounted for performance,detailed information on a number of
insofar as possible with methods and procedures that were aerodynamic and propulsion parameters must be available.
based on the fundamental principles of aerodynamic Of prime importance is the drag determination for all
theory,corrected where needed by factors derived from a regimes of flight, followed by the determination of the
correlation of measured data with available theory. These maximum lift coefficient in cruise, takeoff. and landing
correction factors, also known as “fudge” factors, embodied configurations, In addition there are aerodynamic analyses
a certain amount of risk if applied without some to determine the lift curve slope, zero lift angle.and flap
understanding of the basis of the correction, and quite often effectiveness. Also important in the performance area are
the need for the correction factors was eliminated as more the aerodynamic aspects of the propulsion installation. In the

’ Fellow, AMA
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

early days, this had to do with the design of the engine

nacelle and cowling, the engine cooling drag, propeller
efficiency, exhaust recovery, and the drag associated with
carburetor and oil cooler air scoops, and in later years the
placement of the jet engine nacelle for minimum interference
drag, the design of the inlet, the assessment of the inlet and
exhaust nozzle losses, and the determination of engine
thrust reverser characteristics The aerodynamics associated
with performance prediction has always received a great
deal of attention, since the performance of a new design is
calculated two to three years prior to first flight and usually
Fig. 1 The Douglas C-l
guaranteed with very tight tolerances in the contractual
purchase agreements. Any undue optimism or pessimism in aircooled engines (Ref.2) constant speed propellers,
the predicted performance can have dire consequences to retractable, but not fully enclosed, main landing gear. a large
the program. In addition, there are the aerodynamic span trailing edge split flap, and a very generous wing-to-
analyses associated with the stability and controllability of fuselage fillet. The DC-l was also remarkably free of

the aircraft. Here the emphasis is on determining the static external protuberances such as flap and control surface

longitudinal, directional, and lateral stability characteristics of mechanism fairings. While many of these features were new

the aircraft, and the related control surface effectiveness and to commercial transports, they had been developed and

hinge moments needed to meet the specific design documented by wind tunnel testing by both the NACA in their
requirements for the flight control system Following the Langley wind tunnels and by Douglas in the GALCIT’ IO -
control system design, analyses must be made of the critical foot wind tunnel at Caltech Not much is known about the
control conditions in pitch, yaw and roll And finally, there are method used to predict the aerodynamic drag characteristics
the aerodynamic analyses associated with aerodynamic of the DC-I, but the method certainly involved estimating the
loads, needed to design the structure Another very airplane parasite drag coefficient by summing up the
important aspect of applied aerodynamics is in the contributions of each of the various elements of the aircraft
“troubleshooting” and fixing of aerodynamic problems which using turbulent skin friction coefficients at the appropriate
show up in detailed wind tunnel and flight testing. Here a Aeynold’s number, adjusted for the surface condition
good understanding of the fundamentals plus a great deal of (brazier head rivets, skin lap joints, etc.), form factors to
imagination are required to resolve some very difiicult account for the zero lift pressure drag of the major elements,
problems well beyond available theory as well as estimates of the engine cooling drag, oil cooler
drag, carburetor intake drag, and miscellaneous drag items
The DC-1 and DC-2 The history of applied aerodynamics at such as radio antennas, non-retracting tail wheel, and
the Douglas Aircraft Company really began with the design engine exhaust pipes. The induced drag was certainly ~~
of the DC-1 transport in 1932. Prior to this time, estimaled using the classical Prandtl wing theory, corrected
aerodynamics was not really a major part of the design by the empirical “e” ior non-elliptic span loading and the
effort, as shown by some of the earlier Douglas designs, for increase in parasite drag with lift. The maximum lift
example the Douglas C-l, the U.S. Army’s first cargo coefiicient flaps up was probably estimated from the
airplane, Fig. 1, The DC-1 had a number of aerodynamic available NACA section data, adjusted for three- dimensional
design features new to Douglas airplanes, including NACA effects and downward horizontal tail loads for trim. Wind
4-digit series airfoil sections (Ref.1) fully cowled radial tunnel data was undoubtedly useful in checking the

‘Guggonhoim Aoronautlcal laboratory,

California institda of Technology
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

estimates, especially for the flaps down configuration. These

relatively simple procedures, now explained in detail in
nearly every text on aerodynamic performance, were
adequate to allow the aircraft to meet all of the performance
requirements with some margin to spare.The aerodynamic
stability and control methods must have been quite minimal,
although legend has it that the distinctive wing planform of
the DC-l, with the straight trailing edge and swept leading
edge on the outer panel came about in order to maintain the
center of gravity forward of the aerodynamic center under all
loading conditions, thus achieving the condition for static
longitudinal stability. Adequate directional control for takeoff
with one engine inoperative was also achieved, undoubtedly
with the help of the wind tunnel tests, and a modest
aerodynamic horn balance was used on the rudder to reduce
pilot forces. Some believe that Jack Northrop had a hand in
the aerodynamic design of the DC-l, since he and Donald
Douglas had joined forces in early 1932 to establish the
Northrop Corporation with Douglas owning 51% of the stock.
Indeed, many of the advanced features of the DC-1 were
also found on Northrop’s earlier “Alpha”, “Beta”, and
“Gamma” shown in Fig 2 The application of these advanced

Fig. 4 The DC-2

PhD. from Caltech in 1932. and had conducted some of the

wind tunnel tests on the DC-l. In his doctoral dissertation on
a systematic approach to the calculation of aircraft
performance, he made a significant contribution to the
application of the Prandtl three-dimensional wing theory. His

Fig. 2 The Northrop Gamma concept of the aircraft efficiency factor,“e”. was used to
empirically correct the theoretical induced drag to account

(for that time) features to the prototype DC-l, Fig 3. and the for increases in the parasite drag with lift coefficient,

nearly identical production DC-2, Fig. 4. resulted in an

aircraft with greatly improved performance and economics The DC-3 The next of the DC series, the DC-3, Fig. 5, did

over the other commercial transports of that era. not really incorporate any really new aerodynamic
In the later stages of the DC-l development, Donald applications, although there were some minor changes in the
Douglas hired William Bailey Oswald as the first full time aerodynamic balance on the rudder and elevator to reduce
aerodynamicist for the Douglas Aircraft Company. “Ozzie”. pilot forces, and the addition of a small dorsal to the vertical
as he was known throughout the company, had received his fin to avoid rudder lock at high sideslip angles. However, the
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

well developed overall design, combined with an increase in

passenger capacity of 50% brought a new level of efficiency
and passenger acceptance. Features carried over from the
DC-2. such as the cabin interior with true stand up height
and a floor uninterrupted by steps to climb over the wing
spars, and the use of stressed skin construction where the
wing skin carried much of the wing airloads to reduce the
wing weight. and the partially retracted landing gear to
reduced cruise drag, combined with the increased
passenger capacity resulted in outstanding direct operating
Fig. 6 The DC-4E
costs and made the DC-3 a great step forward in air
transportation.
required based on correlation of both wind tunnel and flight
test data with the theory.
It should be noted that in 1938. Jack Northrop
severed his business relationship with Donald Douglas and
formed a new Northrop Corporation. The assets of the
former Northrop corporation became the El Segundo division
of the Douglas Aircraft Company, The El Segundo division
was a complete design and production organization and as
such had it’s own Aerodynamics group. This organization
designed and produced some notable military aircraft in the
Fig. 5 The DC-3 following 25 years that they were a separate division of the
Douglas Company. including the SBD scout bomber, the
DB-7 I A20 , A26 , AD, A3D, and A4D attack aircraft, the
F3D and F4D navy fighters. but the aerodynamic design
Under Dr. Oswald, the Aerodynamics group at the features and the design methods were similar to those used
Douglas plant in Santa Monica participated in the at Santa Monica.
development of a number of new aircraft in the 1930’s. The
B-18 was a medium bomber based on the use of DC-2 The DC-4 In-1939 the. Santa
~- Monica division undertook the 3

wings and engines, and the DC-3~empennage fitted to a new development of the production DC-4 four-engine commercial
bomber fuselage. The B-19, a one-of-a-kind experimental transport Fig. 7. It’s aerodynamic design features included
long range bomber, the B-23, a 300 mph medium bomber, the use of newer NACA 5-digit series airfoils (Ref. 3) and
and the first attempt at the DC-4. later called DC-4E for large chord single-slotted flaps(Ref 4) for increased
experimental, Fig. 6, another one-of-a-kind aircraft. a four maximum lift capability. a fully enclosed retractable landing
engine commercial transport whose development was gear, and an aerodynamic boost, linked tab flight control
financially supported by American, Eastern. Pan American, system. While not exactly an aerodynamic design feature,
TWA, and United. The aerodynamic design features of all of the DC-4 also incorporated a constant cross-section
these aircraft were very similar to the DC-3. However, much fuselage in the passenger cabin, which allowed easy
progress was being made in developing aerodynamic design incorporation of additional fuselage “stretch” on later models
methods based on fundamental thoery. but modified as with increased passenger capacity. The wing design was
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

deflection and control forces.Similar approaches were used

to develop suitable directional stability and control
characteristics That is. calculation of the contributions of the
various elements of the configuration to stabilily,
documentation of the calculations by wind tunnel lest data.
and verification of the calculated critical control requirements
by the wind tunnel test data All production aircraft, over

StraghtWng,4 Engine,PropDrrvenTransporlModel
c.g at 25%m.a.c

ANU +12 T I I I I I I I

Fig. 7 The DC-4

straightforward. defined by two airfoil sections, an NACA

t.04
23018 at the root, and an NACA 23010 at the tip, arranged Airplane
Pitchmg
with 3 degrees of twist The design of the single-slotted flap Momenl 0
Coehcrenl
was based entirely on available NACA wind tunnel data, C,
-0-I
since a siuitable theoretical multi-element airfoiranalysis was
not yet available For the design of the aerodynamic boost
-08
linked tab flight control system, there were several
documents which laid the foundations for the design and AND -12
0 2 4 6 .B I.0 1.2 I-:
analysis (Refs 5,6,7.6) However, correlation of the theory
with experiment was not very far advanced, and practical
AlrplaneLIHCoelQclenl-C,
design methods were just being developed. As an example,
symbol conllgurallun nolallo”
the approach utilized to determine the static longitudinal
- wmg alone i’,
stability characteristics of the DC-4 involved the calculation - Wmg t Fuselage w F
-r- Wmg I Fuselage + Nac~ll& #FY
Of contribution of the various elements of the configuration to -D- Wmg . Fuselage + Nacelles r H 1 . ” 7 W=Nn;:

the aerodynamic center location for the complete aircraft

Config p m curve slope a c location effect 01 elemem
from available data,such as (Ref. 9, 10, 11, 12). Then wrnd dC,ldCL % m ac on a c localion
lunnel tests were conducted
r in the GALCIT 10-R wind lunnel W +024 22 6
to measure the individual contributions, thus providing a
WF CO87 163 t-6 W~,,se~.~c
direct check on the calculation procedure. Fig 8 shows the
WFN + 140 110 t.5 3°bL,,i,:
wind tunnel data for the aerodynamic center buildup, and the
effect of each element on the overall configuration WFNHV 177 427 I+3 1 74.hK ,a,,
aerodynamic center. The testing also included the effect of
Fig 8 DC-4 Aerodynamic Center Buildup
operating propellers at takeoff, climb, and cruise power,
which provided data on Ihe loss in longitudinal stability, 1300 in total, were diverted to the USAAF as C-54 military
especially al high power settings. Additional data was transports. The flight test program again provided significant
obtained on elevator effectiveness and hinge moments at flight test data which allowed further correlation and

various elevator deflectionsin the cruise, takeoff, and refinement of the aerodynamic design and performance
landing configurations for the calculation of control tab methods then being used.
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

The DC-5 Also In 1939, the Douglas El Segundo division

undertook the design of a small, short range commercial

transport, the DC-5 Fig.9. Aerodynamically, the design of the
DC-5 was roughly similar to the DB-7 / A20 light bomber.
The aerodynamic design and performance methods utilized
were the same as those used at thesanta Monica division,
and the projected performance was quite attractive.
However, the wind tunnel testing failed to reveal rather
Fig. 10 The X8-42
severe tail buffet in certain configurations, which required the
addition of dihedral to the horizontal tail during the flight test
bomber, the XBi43, Fig Il. with a maximum speed of well
program. That change, plus additional structural
over 500 miles per hour or nearly 0.7 Mach number, which
modifications and the start of WW II limited the production to
began to create additional challenges for practicing
just 12 aircraft.
aerodynamicists. Another notable design initiated at Santa

Fig. 9 The DC-5 Fig. 11 The XB-43

During the war years, the Douglas Santa Monica Monica was the C-74 military transport, Fig.12. The C-74
division deslgned, built, and flight tested a noteworthy new was a very large, long range aircraft with very conventional
aircraft for the military, the XB-42 bomber, Fig. 1O.The XB-42 aerodynamic features; NACA 6 series airfoils, single slotted
was unique aerodynamically in that it had a clean straight flaps, aerodynamically boosted linked tab flight controls, and
wing unaffected by engine nacelles or propeller slipstream. neatly cowled air cooled radial engines. One notable design
since the two engines were housed inside the fuselage and concept was the use of full span trailing edge flaps, with the
drove two counter-rotating propellers located at the aft end outer sections of flap operated differentially as ailerons.
of the fuselage. The wing design featured NACA 6 series During flight tests, it was concluded that the gain in
-
“laminar flow” airfoils and single-slotted flaps. Although only maximum lift capability due to this feature was nol worth the
three of these aircraft were built, the combination of high additional mechanical complexity, and the idea was dropped
installed power and very clean lines resulted in a maximum from production aircraft. It should be noted that the detailed
speed capability of over 400 miles per hour or nearly 0.6 design of the C-74 was done at the Douglas Long Beach
Mach number. With the development of jet engines during Division, which, like the El Segundo Division, became a

the war, the XB-42 design was convened to a twin engine jet complete engineering design and manufacturing facility,
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

the flaps down configurations, the aerodynamic

characteristics were not much affected. Minor cleanup of the
engine nacelles, including neater exhaust stack treatment
and redesigned carburetor air intakes, plus a reduction in the
number of radio masts and antennas resulted in a lower
overall drag level compared to the DC-4. The new double
slotted flaps resulted in a modest increase in the maximum
lift capability which helped keep takeoff and landing
distances in line at the higher weights of the E-6. The
aerodynamic boost linked tab flight control system was
Fig. 12 The C-74
simple and reliable and provided comfortable control forces
without the complication of hydraulic operation. The
designing and producing the C-124, C-133, and B-66 aircraft development of the aerodynamic boost concept and its
for the U.S. Air Force. The design of these aircraft, each with application to the DC-6 is outlined in Rei, 9 The
some unique aerodynamic features, further stimulated the aerodynamic wind tunnel and flight test programs on the
development of aerodynamic prediction methods for DC-6 went very smoothly, and the airplane met all of its
performance and stability and control. The flight lest data performance objectives easily The DC-6. but more notably
from these aircraft further enhanced the ability to correlate the slightly stretched DC-GB, set the standard for transport
predictions with actual results, allowing additional performance and operating cost in the early 1950’s.
refinements to be made to the methods.
The DC-7 The next model, the DC-7, Fig. 14, was
The,DC-6 The next in the series, the DC-6, Fig. 13. was an conceived as a re-engined version of the DC-GB, designed
extension of the DC-4, featuring more powerful engines. to fly LAX- to- JFK non-stop in just under eight hours. The
cabin pressurization, NACA double-slotted flaps, and an aerodynamic changes were confined to the engine
improved aerodynamic boost linked tab flight control SyStem. installation, with different nacelle lines to accomodate the
The aerodynamic methods were refinements of those used more powerful turbo-compound piston engines. One new
on the DC-4, and except for the maximum lift coefficients in feature was the use of the main gear as a speed brake to
slow down to the rough air speed or to descend more rapidly
from cruise altitude. The last of the piston engine Douglas
airliners was the DC-7C. Fig. 15, designed in the mid 1950’s

Fig. 13 The DC-6 Fig. 14 The DC-7

 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Thirdly, the use of systematic wind tunnel testing of a new

model to confirm insofar as possible the predicted
characteristics prior to flight test And finally, the progressive
improvement of a basic design, (DC-l, DC-2, DC-3). and
(DC-4, DC-6. DC-7, and DC-7C) through the application of
new piston engine technology and refinements in the
aerodynamic design features.

The Cominq of the Jet Transports In the late 1940’s and

early 1950’s the commercial transport industry was
transitioning from the pre-World War II piston engine designs
Fig. 15 The DC-7c to the post war turbine engine configurations. Jet transport
studies were conducted by several manufacturers in the U.S.
as a long range version of the DC-7. In order to meet the
and Great Britain By mid 1949, the DeHavilland Comet I
longer range requirements, the fuel capacity, the maximum
had made its first flight, followed almost immediately by the
takeoff gross weight and the wing area had to be increased.
first flight of Avro of Canada’s Jetliner However, because of
This was accomplished by increasing the wing span through
the limited thrust output and poor specific fuel consumption
the addition of a ten foot section to the wing at the centerline.
of the available centrifugal flow jet engines, these aircraft
This change moved the engines further away from the
had payload-range performance and operating economics
fuselage, resulting in less noise in the passenger cabin. The
that were inferior to the best of the piston engine designs, so
landing gear also moved further from the centerline, giving
that they had a very limited market But jet engine
the airplane improved ground handling characteristics,
technology was advancing rapidly and by the early 1950’s
especially in crosswinds. The added section increased the
larger, more fuel efficient axial flow jet engines that made
wing aspect ratio for improved cruise L/D, and the additional
possible larger capacity jet transports with competitive
wing area with trailing edge flaps installed increased the
payload-range performance and operating
maximum lift capability significantly. The DC-7C was the
economicsBoeing was sufficiently interested in the potential
ultimate piston engined transport, with a full passengers and
jet transport market that the company invested a large
bags range of over 5000 statute miles, and a high speed
amount of it’s own funds to design, build. and flight test a jet
cruise of 350 miles per hour. The aerodynamic performance
transport prototype, the Model 367-80 to gain experience
was better than predicted in all areas, lending further
with this new type. Douglas continued to do design studies
credence to the methods developed at Douglas to calculate
and conducted some preliminary wind tunnel tests. Finally,
all of the elements of piston engine aircraft performance.
by early 1955, the major world airlines were convinced, on
In retrospect, the applied aerodynamics of the piston
the basis of the demonstrated performance of the Boeing
engine Douglas commercial transports focused on these
367-80 prototype and the design studies by Douglas, thal a
main elements. First, the use of the best available
fast, efficient, economically competitive jet transport could be
aerodynamic technology, usually the result of NACA
built, and they urged the manufacturers to offer specific
research, well documented by experimental data. Secondly,
designs for their consideration,
the development of detailed methods to predict the
aerodynamic performance, stability and control The DC-6 The DC-E. Fig. 16, incorporated a number of new
characteristics, based on the best available theory, aerodynamic features associated with the expanded speed-
correlated with appropriate wind tunnel and flight test data. altitude envelope. A new swept wing, using Douglas
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

,_ -.” .“~I.._ _” ...-_.~.-“..“.~ ,111 ..”

flow with local supersonic zones and shock waves, the

situation at cruise conditions. In addition to the cruise
requirement, there was the challenge of achieving good
maximum lift capability in the takeoff and landing
configurations, as well as good stall characteristics. The
wing design was a major aerodynamics group task for which
there were only very approximate methods for establishing the
geometry needed to meet the program performance
objectives. Nevertheless, there was an empirical method,
Ref.1 1, developed at Douglas in the late 1940’s. based
almost entirely on small scale wind tunnel model tests, that
Fig. 16 The DC-6
provided an estimate of the wing Morv as a function of airfoil

designed airfoils was needed to meet the high Mach number thickness ratio, sweep, and lift coefficient for wings using
cruise requirements. An improved double slotted flap was different types of NACA airfoils. The first swept wings
added for good low speed pet-formance.The jet engine designed by Douglas were used on the D 558-11 research
nacelles were suspended from pylons below the wing. aircraft and the A3D attack bomber. These wing designs
Aerodynamic boost control was retained for the elevator in were done at the El Segundo Division in the late 1940’s but
conjunction with the hydraulically trimmable stabilizer,but produced little flight test data to verify their behavior at

increased control surface deflection and low control force transonic cruise conditions. Further study of the Morv

levels required the ailerons and rudder to be hydraulically characteristics of airfoils, Ref. 12. led to the conclusion that
operated through fully powered irreversible actuators with a certain airfoils had higher values of M orV than others, for a
unique feature that reverted control to an aerodynamic boost given thickness ratio and lift coefficient. An explanation for
system of reduced capability in the event of loss of hydraulic this behavior was found in Ref. 13, which was the basis for
power. Small upper surface spoilers on the wing were used the “crest line” concept used by Douglas in transonic wing
on the ground to increase the load on the landing gear for design for the DC-8~ Briefly stated, the “crest line” concept
landing and rejected takeoff (RTO) braking. Anti-skid braking relates the Morv for any airfoil section of the wing to the
was also used for the first time to further improve stopping condition where the pressure coefficient at the airfoil “crest”,
pet-formance.ln-flight thrust reversing was used for slowdown the point on the airfoil that is tangent to the free stream
and rapid descent, as well as for additional stopping velocity, first indicates sonic velocity normal to the sweep
capability, especially with adverse runway conditions. The angle. Airfoils that carried a lot of negative pressure (lift) on
design and development of these features of the DC-8 the upper surface forward of the crest had the the highest
proved to be a formidable challenge. Morv for a given thickness ratio and lift coefficient. With this
Interest in compressible flow phenomena by experimental evidence in hand, a method was devised to
practicing aerodynamicists began to grow in the early years design the wing with the highest possible Morv while taking
of World War II, and the fundamental aerodynamic into account the loss in aerodynamic sweep in the root and
relationships were set forth in Ref. 10. By the late 1940’s tip areas. The procedure involved the construction of curves,
the concepts of an additional element in the drag equation, based on wind tunnel model chordwise pressure data for
the compressibility drag, AC,, and drag divergence Mach swept wings that related the measured pressures at
number, Morv, were well established, but there was no conditions just prior to Morv to those calculated by Ref. 14 for
available theory which could be used lo calculate transonic the 2- dimensional airfoil section in incompressible flow
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

01 I I I
0 20 40 60
PERCEM CHORD

Fig. 17 Wlng Airfoil Pressure Growth Curve

(M=O). These “growth curves”, Fig.17. were constructed for

the root, midspan, and tip areas of the wing and were used
to tailor the 2-dimensional airfoil incompressible pressure
Fig. 18 Wing Span Load and Maxlmum Llft
distributions to achieve the desired 3-dimensional pressure
distributions near MI-J”, Using this design approach, it was
reasoned that the desired Molv of 0.82 could be achieved achieved by the use of airfoils with high section maximum lift
with a wing sweep angle of 30 degrees and an average coefficients.
thickness ratio of just under 11%. The wing sweep was less The wing spanwise lift distribution was estimated
than the 35 degrees used on nearly all of the production using the method of Ref.16. The airfoil section maximum lift
military swept wing aircraft of that time, and the competing coefficient for the three defining airfoil sections was
Boeing 707. but the lesser sweep resulted in higher estimated using the method outlined in Ref. 17, which is
maximum lift capability, more conventional stall based on a correlation of measured airfoil section maximum
characteristics, and more favorable lateral-directional “Dutch lift coefficients with the theoretical pressure difference
Roll” characteristics in cruise. between the peak pressure near the airfoil nose, and the
The wing design approach to achieve high maximum pressure at 90% of the airfoil chord. The theoretical
lift capability, CL,,,~~, and good stall characteristics was pressures were calculated by the method of Ref. 14.ln fact,
based on a concept that was outlined in Ref. 15. The key the method of Ref. 17 was further developed at Douglas to
ideas are that the CL,-,,~ for the basic wing can be estimated relate the peak pressure near the airfoil nose to the

by determining the wing CL where the span loading, Fig.1 8, geometry of the airfoil nose shape between 0.15 % chord
and 6.0% chord points. The change in height of the upper
expressed in terms of local lift coefficient, becomes tangent
to the curve of airfoil section maximum lift coefficients across surface coordinate between these two stations,A y is
correlated with measured airfoil c~,,,,~ data, Fig. 19, and
the span, and that the initial stall would be expected to occur
on the portion of the wing where the span loading becomes shows surprisingly good agreement.This so-called Ay
method of estimating airfoil section c Imax has become a
tangent to the curve of airfoil section maximum lift
coefficients across the span. The initial stall point should be standard method described in numerous texts on

located such that there is some margin between the outer aerodynamics_ Fortunately, the airfoil section shapes

panel airfoil clmax values and the span loading of c,at the required for the cruise conditions and the nose shapes
required to achieve high values of section cL max were
initial stall point. The maximum airplane lift coefficient is
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Tern dam from NACA TR 924. RN = 9.OW.MlO aerodynamicists for a variety of research, development, and
AirfoIl thickness 12% or less
production applications.
During the wind tunnel model test phase of the DC-8
0.15% C from L.E program, it was apparent that the wing design method had
failed to account for the detrimental effect of the engine
2.0 nacelle pylons on both the low speed and high speed
aerodynamic characteristics of the wing. Concurrent wind
tunnel tests had indicated that the nacelle position for
16 minimum interference drag at cruise was below and forward
of the wing, resulting in a pylon that fitted over the wing
leading edge and extended forward of the wing. At low
-: 12
u speeds, the pylons interfered with the outward spanwise flow
near the leading edge stagnation point, causing exlremely
high suction peaks on the wing upper surface just inboard of
09
the pylons at high angles of attack, This situation resulted in
premature stalling of the wing just inboard of the pylons, and
consequently lower than predicted &,ax values. A solution
04
for this unanticipated problem was developed in the wind
tunnel and consisted of a short span leading edge slot,
-located just inboard of each pylon, which opened as the
0 4
flaps were extended, Fig. 21. These slots relieved the
interference caused by the pylons, and allowed the wing to
achieve it’s design Cu.,,ax capability, At high speed, the wind
Fig. 19 Alrfoil Section Maximum Lift Correlatlon tunnel gave mixed indications regarding the behavior of the
compressibility drag rise in the presence of the nacelle
compatible, so the wing design was based on three specially pylons, depending on model scale, transonic tunnel facility,
designed airfoil sections, located at 25%, 55%. and 95% test Reynolds number, and type of boundary layer transition
semispan, Fig.20. Incidentally, over the years, there were fixing used. After many wind tunnel tests and a number of
well over 1000 special airfoils designed by Douglas flight tests, it was concluded that although the design value

-. .-

- Slots Closed
i
- Flnps UP

xFlg. 20 DC-8 Wing

VP

Planform
(
---

and Alrfolls Fig. 21 DC-8 Wing Leading Edge Slots

 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

of Motv was achieved, the interaction between the pylon and .0060
the wing airfoil nose shape produced a significant
compressibility drag increment prior to Motv. The wing
Original
airfoils forward of the front spar were extended by 4% of the .0040
wing chord, and the nose shapes sharpened, Fig.ZZ.which 4% Leading Edgo
G,
eliminated about half of the undesireable compressibility
drag rise prior to Mow Finally the pylon was redesigned to .0020 4% Leading Edge

.5 .6 .7 .I3 ‘9

Mach number
Original Mldspan Airfoil
Fig. 24 Compressibility Drag Rise Comparison

interference between the pylon and the airfoil nose in cruise,

4% Extended Mtdspan Airfoil
Fig. 22 DC-8 Origlnai and Modified Airfoils
intersect the wing lower surface aft of the cruise stagnation
point, rather than fitting around the wing leading edge, Fig.
23.This “cutback” pylon essentially eliminating
Original Pylon
Cutback Pylon
Fig. 23 Origlnal and Cutback Pylon
and allowing the wing to achieve it’s design compressibility
drag, Fig. 24.
Another new aerodynamic design issue that came
with jet transports was the definition of the buffet boundary,
described by a single curve of lift coefficient for the start of
buffet, or buffet onset. versus Mach number. Inside the
buffet boundary, the airplane can operate smoothly over a
range of speeds and altitudes. Outside the buffet boundary,
the airplane is subjected to significant separated unsteady
the airflow over the wing, which results in noticeable shaking or
“buffetting” of the structure and flight controls. This buffetting
can be severe enough to cause minor structural damage to
control surfaces, and can be associated with longitudinal
pitch-up, or lateral wing drop. For the DC-B, early estimates
of the buffet boundary were made using a method based on
the physical phenomenon involved in the flow separation. At
low Mach numbers the lift coefficient for buffet onset was
related to the approach to the airplane maximum lift
coefficient. At higher Mach numbers, the lift coefficient
for buffet onset was related to a margin beyond the Motv for
that lift coefficient. This method gave a reasonable
preliminary definition of the buffet boundary, until wind tunnel
model wing pressure data could be obtained to define the lift
coefficient and Mach number where trailing edge separation
occurred. The wind tunnel model data was also used to
assess the longitudinal and lateral stability beyond buffet
onset with respect to pitch-up and roll off.
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

The aerodynamic boost control system for the ~when introduced was the right concept in terms of payload,
elevator worked out well, with control surface and and tab range, speed, and economics It easily adapted to improved
showing well behaved characteristics, Ref 18. up to a Mach engines, was stretched for greater payload and improved
number of 0.96. the design dive Mach number. In fact, the economics, and was in production for 13 years. These
aerodynamic boost elevator system functioned well during a virtues, plus the outstanding structure, have made the later
supersonic demonstration dive to a Mach number of 1 ,012. models quite popular, with about 300 of the total production
The hydraulically powered ailerons and rudder also worked of 556 still in operation.
out well, although the sideslip angles developed in the
landing configuration with full rudder deflection produced The DC-9 In the early 1960’s the separate aircraft divisions
higher than expected rolling moments, which required the of the Douglas Aircraft Company were consolidated at the
use of the ground spoilers for lateral control in the landing Long Beach facility, and design studies were focused on a
configuration. short range jet transport to supplement the long range, high
The effect of in-flight thrust reverser operation capacity DC-B By mid 1963. the DC-9 configuration had
on the aerodynamic characteristics of the DC-8 was been defined, Fig. 25The aerodynamic features included a
investigated in a low speed wind tunnel test of a large scale moderately swept clean wing, with a large chord, long span
model. Since model turbine thrust simulators had not yet double slotted flaps deflected about a simple external hinge
been developed, properly scaled exhaust mass flow ratios point, rear mounted turbofan engines, and a T-tail.
-- -
were obtained using a unique non-metric ejector system
which fed high pressure air from and outside air source
directly into the inlet of the model flow through nacelles. At
maximum values of reverse thrust, the aerodynamic
characteristics showed some change, but none that
seriously affected the aircraft stability or controllability.
However, asymmetric reverse thrust in the landing
configuration. representing a failure in the thrust reverser
system, resulted in uncontrollable rolling moments with the
flaps down, causing the in-flight thrust-reverser system to
be locked out In this configuration. The flight test program
essentially confirmed the wind tunnel results, and in-flight Fig. 25 The DC-9

thrust reverse became a standard operational procedure.

The DC-6 program initially offered four models, Series Aerodynamic boost flight controls were used for the elevator
IO and 20 suited for U.S. transcontinental routes, and and ailerons, although hydraulically operated wing upper
Series 30 and 40 for international overwater operations. Low surface spoilers were used to augment lateral control. The
bypass turbofan engine development led to the higher gross rudder was hydraulically operated with a reversion to
weight, longer range Series 50. while fuselage stretches, aerodynamic boost in the event of hydraulic system failure.
aerodynamic refinements, and still higher gross weights led In the absence of the wing mounted nacelle pylons,
to the Series 60. The final version the Series 70, came about the design and performance prediction methods used on the
through the re-engineing of nearly all of the Series 60 DC-8 were carried over with high confidence to the DC-g.
models with higher thrust, high bypass ratio turbofans. When questioned about the lack of experience with the clean
Further discussion of the DC-8 aerodynamic development wing, aft engine, T-tail configuration, the response was.“If
can be found in Refs.19, 20, and 21. In retrospect, the DC-8 they could do it at Boeing with the 727, and do it at BAC with
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

the 111, we can do it here at Douglas”. This proved to be the ANU .I

case, but not without solving some really difficult 0

configuration-related problems.
The wing sweep of 24 degrees was selected , with an
average thickness ratio of just over 1 I%, providing an Morv
of about 0.80 at high speed cruise CL,The wing was defined
by three Douglas airfoil sections similar to the DC-8,with
-.4
slight modifications to the inner panel airfoils to promote an
inboard stall prior to Cu,,ax The trailing edge flap design -.b

was a straightforward application of the experience gained

AND ..6
from previous programs The aft engine nacelle and pylon 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A,,c,,o .I Allack (DEG)
design was studied extensively in the wind tunnel, Ref. 22. A
relatively simple short inlet configuration that was developed Fig. 26 Deep Stall Pitching Moments
showed good presure recovery and only a few counts of
drag rise at cruise conditions. The T-tail arrangement was beyond the normal stall are such that these typescan enter
the subject of both analytical and wind tunnel studies. No this deep stall region. Furthermore,as was the case of the
anomalies surfaced and the design proceeded without BAG1 11, there may be a point at 40 degrees to 50 degrees
difficulty. angle of attack where there is insufficient elevator control
The initial high Reynolds number tests of maximum lift power to pitch the aircraft down to an angle of attack below -
and stall characteristics showed that the model Chax values the normal stall point. This latter situation is known as a
exceeded the predicted full scale numbers at all flap “locked in” deep stall. Considerable effort was expended in
settings. However, the stall characteristics, judged by an the wind tunnel to understand the nature and cause of the
abrupt drop in CL immediately after the stall, combined wtih deep stall and to develop a configuration that would not be
fairly large rolling moment excursions and a slight pitchup subject to a “locked in” deep stall situation. In order to meet

right after Chav were deemed unsatisfactory, and additional the requirement for normal recovery capability at any angle

tests of several modifications were made. These of attack. the DC-9 horizontal tail was modified to have a

modifications included variations in airfoil nose shapes larger span, approximately 20% larger than the original, and

across the span, fences on upper and lower wing surfaces at a hydraulic power augmentation system was developed to

several spanwise locations, leading edge stall strips, and provide full down elevator control only under the most

several vortex generator configurations. adverse high angle of attack conditions, where the

Part way through the wind tunnel tests to improve the aerodynamic boost elevator control loses effectiveness.
normal stall characteristics, a serious situation associated A comparison of the original and modified horizontal tails is
with conditions at very high angles of attack well beyond the shown in Fig. 27.
normal stall, called the “deep stall”, was highlighted by the For the normal stall, the wind tunnel program focused
unfortunate crash of the BAG1 11, a short range jet transport on acheiving a strong nose down pitching moment just
with aft mounted engines and a T-tail similar to the DC-9 The beyond the stall, while maintaining as high a CLmax as
“deep stall”, discussed in detail in Ref.22, is defined as a possible. During this testing, a special type of underwing
stalled condition at angles of attack ranging from 25 degrees fencecalled a vortilon for vortex generating pylon, was
to 50 degreesfig. 26. For aircraft designs that employ aft developed. This underwing device, Fig 28, does not create
engines and a T-tail, the nature of the pitching moments a vortex except at angles of attack very near stall. As the
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Fig. 27 Original and Modlfied Horizontal Tail

Fig. 29 DC-9 -10 stall Control Configuration
stall angle is approached, the wing lower surface stagnation
point moves aft of the intersection of the leading edge of the Early flight test data on the spoiler-aileron lateral
vortilon and the wing, and the interference of the vortilon with control system indicated that pilots had a tendency to
the leading edge crossflow creates a strong vortex that goes overcontrol and had difficulty in maintainlng bank angle in
over the top surface of the wing. This vortex appeared to gusty landing approaches. Intensive effort to redesign the
have two beneficial effects without impacting C~ex. First, it spoiler-aileron mixer, lateral control spring forces, and
energizes the wing spanwise boundary layer flow, reducing reduced friction levels resulted in an improved system with
the detrimental effect of this boundary layer on the outer light forces, low friction, and near optimum response.
panel section maximum lift coefficients Second, the vortilon Before the initial model of the DC-g, the Series 10.
creates an upwash field inboard of the vortilon which acts on had been certified, a higher capacity, higher gross weight
the horizontal tail to produce an increment of nose down version, the Series 30 was in development. In order to
pitching moment just prior to and immediately after the stall. maintain the extremely short takeoff and landing distances of
the Series 10 at the higher takeoff and landing weights, full
span leading edge slats, Fig.30, were incorporated on the
Series 30 and all subsequent models.Fortunately, Douglas

Fig. 28 DC-9 Vortilon

In addition to the vortilon. wing leading edge stall strips were

also tested in the wind tunnel, and as expected, improved Flg. 30 DC-980 L.E. Slats
the nose down pitching moments at the stall, but with a
significant loss in CLmaK ,During the flight development had earlier conducted wind tunnel model tests of full span
program, a shot-l chord leading edge fence at 43% leading edge slats and had an solid data base for the Series
semispan, combined with the vortilon and a very small, short 30 slat design. In order to provide adequate slat chord ,
span leading edge stall strip, Fig:29, produced good stall airfoil chords were extended by 6% of the original chord, all
characteristics with only a small adverse effect on Chax. forward of the front spar,Ref.23, and new airfoil nose shapes
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

with improved Motv characteristics were designed. Wind medium range, twin engine widebody jet transport capable of
tunnel and flight test data on the Series 30 showed no carrying 250 passengers from Chicago to Los Angeles, but
aerodynamic problems, and FAA certification was received also capable of operating from New York LaGuardia
quickly. tochicago with full passengers. By mid 1967, Douglas had
Two higher capacity, higher gross weight models, the merged with McDonnell Aircraft, and the design studies had
Series 40 and Series 50 were developed in the late 1960% progressed to a well defined three engine aircraft capable of
using essentially the same design methods and the the LaGuardia-Chicago mission, but with
incorporating the same features as the earlier models. One transcontinental US. range
exception was the addition of fuselage nose strakes to the The DC-lo. Fig. 32, used aerodynamic design
Series 50. As the DC-9 fuselage was lengthened, the features carried over from the DC-8 and DC-9 with a few
vortices shed by the forward fuselage at high angles of exceptions. The engine nacelles for the high bypass ratio
attack had an increasingly detrimental effect on the vertical turbofan engines were much larger with respect to the other
tail, reducing the directional stability at moderate sideslip components of the airplane, Fig. 33, than their predecesors,
angles. A wind tunnel investigation provided an placing a great deal of attention on potential wing-nacelle-
understanding of the problem, and a solution was developed pylon interference for both cruise and maximum lift
in the form of small, low aspect ratio strakes mounted on the conditions. Also the aft center engine installation was
lower quadrant of the fuselage nose, Fig. 31. The strakes different from anything that Douglas had done previously.
generate their own vortices which alter the flow at the
vertical tail and eliminate the loss in directional stability at
high anoles ofatta& ;

Fig. 32 The DC-10

DC-9 Series 50 Nose Strakes

The aerodynamic boost flight controls, used so successfully

The DC-9 proved to be a very successful design, with on the DC-6 and DC-g. finally gave way to fully powered,
over 900 aircraft of various models being delivered over a triple redundant, hydraulically actuated flight controls.
-
span of 17 years. A detailed summary of all models is found The aerodynamic design procedures and
in Ref.24 performance prediction methods used for the DC-1 0 were
further refinements of those used on the DC-8 and DC-g,
The,DC-10 In late 1965, following an unsuccessful proposal since elegant transonic CFD methods were not yet available.
to the USAF for the C-5 military cargo program, Douglas The predicted performance and customer performance
began design studies on a number of large wide body guarantees were reviewed by Mr Mac himself in December
commercial transports. This activity was focused in early 1967, two months before the program was oficially launched
1966 by the appearance of a general specification for a by an order from American Airlines.
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

extended slat juncture was generating a flow disturbance

that caused premature stalling of the wing directly behind the
nacelle. All sorts of fixes were tried in the wind tunnel, but
the only devices that eliminated the premature stalling were
a pair of strakes mounted on the upper portion of the wing
engine nacelles, Fig. 34. These strakes were subjected to
Low Bypass Engine Nacelle
quite high local angles of attack due to the extreme
crossflow around the nacelles at airplane angles of attack
approaching maximum lift. The low aspect ratio planform of
the strake promoted a strong leading edge vortex from each
strake that went directly over the wing just behind the
nacelle.These twin vortices energized the wing airflow
sufficiently to eliminate the premature stalling and allow the
High Bypass Engine Nacelle
wing high lift system to achieve it’s full maximum lift
capability. The configuration developed in the wind tunnel
Flg. 33 Wing Nacelle Comparison served as the starting point for the flight development
program to achieve the lowest possible stall speeds with
acceptable stall characteristics. Several flights were made
The wing design was configured for a high speed
with various sizes of strakes. and with slight variations of
cruise Mach number of 0.85 and a long range cruise Mach
strake orientation, very quickly leading to the production
number of 0.82. Wing sweep was chosen as 35 degrees,
configuration. In later years, we at Douglas were pleased to
with an average thickness ratio of about 1 l%, with five
note that nacelle strakes became a standard feature of
specially designed airfoil sections defining the wing.
Boeing and Airbus transports.
Numerous modifications to the airfoils were required to
obtain the desired compressibility drag rise characteristics,
and the amount of aerodynamic twist was increased to
obtain satisfactory longitudinal pitching moment
characteristics beyond buffet onset. The wing nacelle pylon
installation, using cutback pylons, worked out well in the
wind tunnel, and the aft engine installation required very little
development in the wind tunnel to eliminate any premature
drag rise. The leading edge slat configurationwas similar to
that used on the DC-9 series 30, except that there were two
extended slat positions; full extension for the best possible
landing maximum lift coefficient, and an intermediate slat
extension for takeoff, which was selected for the best
possible takeoff climb (UD) over the range of takeoff flap
maximum lift valuesDuring the low speed wind tunnel model 4. 34 DC-10 Nacelle Strakes

testing, it was apparent that the close proximity of the large The only other aerodynamic item that required
englne nacelle to the wlng leading edge, and the very ugly attention during the flight development program was the
geometry of the nacelle, pylon, wing leading edge, and excessive amount of stall warning In the clean (flaps up.
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

slats retracted) configuration. The stall itself was acceptable

with a good pitch down and minimum roll off, but the initial
Stall warning occurred at around 12% above the stall speed,
The relatively simple fix involved automatic deployment of
the outboard leading edge slats at a fixed angle of attack,
which eliminated the separated flow causing the early stall
warning. Stall speeds were not affected, since the stall was
24dN. (61 cm,
determined by the inboard portion of the wing as before.

The remainder of the flight test program proceeded

smoothly, and the now designated DC-1 O-10 met or
exceeded all of the predicted performance.
Fig. 35 MD-NJ Root Plug
Early in the DC-10 program, higher gross weight,
longer range versions, the DC-10-20, DC-10-30. and DC-IO-
40 were developed. These models had the same specific fuel consumption. The design configuration was
aerodynamic features as the DC-l O-l 0 except for the wing, finally set in mid 1977 and was designated as K-9-80, an
which was redefined to increase the overall span by 10 feet. extension of the DC-9 product line. Eventually. in order to
This change was made primarily to reduce the induced drag acknowledge it’s corporate identity, it was redesignated as
in the critical one engine inoperative takeoff climb MD-80.
configuration, although it did improve the criuse (UD) as The basic aerodynamics of the MD-80 are those of
well. Modifications to the wing and aft engine inlet lines were the DC-g, with a few exceptions, the most obvious being the
made during the detailed design of the Series 20, (later wing modification. The additional area was obtained by the
called Series 40) to accommodate the engine selected for use of a wing root “plug” which extended the DC-9 wing
these models. lines into the side of the fuselage, and incorporated an
Of the 386 commercial DC-l O’s built, nearly 300 are inboard trailing edge extension fitted with a constant chord
still in active service, with many passenger models currently flap segment. A new inboard defining airfoil was designed,
being converted to cargo versions. using refinements of the methods used on the original DC-9
wing development, to maintain the aerodynamic sweep
THE MD-80 and MD-90 In the mid 1970’s the Douglas (isobars) inboard. The aerodynamic design and performance
Aircraft division of McDonnell Douglas undertook a series of prediction methods were those used successfully on the
studies aimed at extending the DC-9 product line beyond the derivative models of the DC-8. DC-g. and DC-lo. The wind
Series 50. The focus was on an aircraft with increased tunnel test program for the MD-80 showed no unexpected
passenger capacity, reduced seat mile operating costs, items, although the deep stall recovery margin was impacted
maximum commonality with previous DC-9 models, while by the larger engine nacelles of the MD-80. The addition of
maintaining or increasing range performance, and reducing strakes to the lower outboard quadrant of each nacelle,
airport noise signatures. In order to meet these objectives. produced a reduction in the blanketed area of the
the DC-9 fuselage was lengthened (again), the wing area horizontal tail at extreme angles of attack, and restored the
was increased by about 20%, Fig. 35. to accommodate the deep stall recovery margin to an appropriate level. Another
higher gross weights required. and a higher bypass version new aerodynamic design feature for the MD-80 was
of the standard JTBD engine was employed, providing higher incorporation of the DC-1 0 slat system concept of having two
thrust, lower airport noise levels, and improved cruise extended flap positions, full deflection for landing to achieve
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

minimum stall speeds, and partial deflection for takeoff to

optimize takeoff climb (UD)s. During the flight development
program, the stall characteristics with the takeoff slat
configuration were somewhat marginal, so an “autoslat”
extension mode was added. In the takeoff slat configuration,
when a predetermined aircraft angle of attack is reached, the
slat is automatically repositioned to the landing position,
providing the desired stall characteristics while maintaining
the desired (UD)s at the takeoff climb conditions. The only
other noticeable aerodynamic design difference came later
Fig. 36 The MD-11
in the MD-60 production program, when a CFD developed
shape for the aft fuselage tailcone closure was substituted
for the original DC-9 design as pan of a drag cleanup possible by the Incorporation of more sophisticated flight
program. control system with relaxed static stability in pitch, and the
The MD-90 (Ref. 25), first ordered in 1989. is modification of the outboard wing airfoil sections In the trailing
edge area to approximate “Divergent Traillng Edge’ alrfoil
essentially a slightly stretched MD-60 with a modern high
performance.While not an aerodynamic design feature per
bypass engine with greater thrust installed. Aside from the
se, the introduction of a fuel tank in the horizontal tail to
obvious nacelle changes, the aerodynamic design-features
maintain the aircraft center of gravity near the most aft llmit
are the same as those of the MD-60, with two minor for cruise also contributed to improved cruise efficiency.
exceptions. The aerodynamically boosted elevator was Although seemingly mlnor modifications. these changes
replaced with a hydraulically powered elevator to maintain resulted in an improvement in cruise (UD) of nearly 9%. In
pitch control responsiveness in the landing configuration. spite of this improvement, the predicted cruise drag level was
Increased airframe and engine weight in the rear of the not achieved, and this situation, combined with a higher than

aircraft and the slightly longer forward fuselage increased expected engine sfc in cruise, resulted in a reduction in
range. Later increases in fuel capacity and takeoff gross
the pitch inertia to a point where the rapid response of the
welght combined with further drag cleanup, essentially
powered system was required. Deep stall recovery was
brought the range capability back to the original level. As part
again impacted by the larger engine nacelles, but this time of a drag reduction program, a short splitter was added to the
the solution lay in the incorporation of a hydraulically wing trailing edge in the area of the modified airfoils.
operated flap on the pylon trailing edge. The flap is operated In retrospect, the applied aerodynamics effort at
when the control column is moved to a predetermined Douglas during the jet transport era was characterized by a
position near full forward travel. continuing drive to improve the design and prediction
The MD-80, and to a lesser extent the MD-90. has methods associated with operation at high subsonic Mach
numbers, and at low speed , high lift conditions. In the mid
enjoyed considerable success in the short to medium range
1950’s, transonic wind tunnel data provided much of the
market segment, with over 1200 in operation at this time.
information (often times wrong) that aerodynamic theory
could not provide.In the 60’s and 70’s. more empirical
The MD-1 1 In the late 1980’s the Douglas Aircraft division methods, combined with more sophisticated wind tunnel test
studies of a longer range, higher capacity, derivative of the techniques, sufficed. Finally In the late 70’S the rapid growth
DC-10 led to the definition of the MD-l I. The major of digital electronic computers and the development of a
aerodynamic deslgn features of the MD-1 1, Fig. 36. were number of more accurate CFD codes made life a blt more
carried over from the DC-lo. New features included wlnglets routine for the aerodynamics design engineers. Ironically, at
to improve cruise (L/D). a smaller horizontal tail made Douglas, modern computational methods were never
 (c)l999 American Institute
utlllzed In the design of an entirely new commercial jet
transport that reached production status, although serious
preliminary design studies using modern methods were
conducted and documented by wind tunnel tests in a
cooperative effort with NASA, Refs. 26 and 27.
Concludina Comments The long history of applied
aerodynamics at Douglas Aircraft , spanning some 66 years,
was highlighted by the application of the best aeodynamic
theory avallable,supplemented by specific wind tunnel and
flight test data, to develop reasonable aerodynamic design
and performance prediction methods. This approach was a
key element in the design of a long line of transport aircraft
that made a significant contribution to the progress of
commercial aviation. Mention should be made of the
individuals that inspired the work of the Douglas transport
aero group; Bailey Oswald, George Worley, Richard Shevell,
Orville Dunn, Harold Luskin, Harold Kleckner were all leaders
in the search for ways to “do it better” than the last time by
understanding advances in the state of the art and applying
them to the aerodynamic design and prediction methods.
They were also the stimulus for galning understanding of
aerodynamic problems which showed up in wind tunnel
model testing, and for developing the configuration changes
necessary to eliminate the problems. It should also be noted
that in addition to the applied aerodynamics work on specific
designs, significant contributions to the literature of
aerodynamic theory were made by members of the Douglas
Aerodynamics Research Group such as A.M.O. Smith,
Tuncer Cebecl, John Hess, Zig Bleviss. Ellis Lapin, Ed
Rutowski, Ernie Graham, Martha Graham, Beverly Beane,
Mllton Van Dyke. Joe Gieslng, and Preston Henne. just to
mention a few. For those of us who lived through it, it was a
marvelous experience, a great sense of accomplishment, and
we were happy to have been a part of It.
References
I. Jacobs, Eastman N., Ward, Kenneth E., and
Pinkerton, Robert M., “The Characteristics of
78 Related Airfoil Sections from Tests in
the Variable Density Wind Tunnel”, NACA
Rept. 460, 1932.
of Aeronautics & Astronautics
2. Weick, Fred E., ” Drag and Cooling with Various
Forms of Cowling for a “Whirlwind” Radial Air-
Cooled Engine”, Part I and Part II, NACA
Rept. 313 and 314, 1929.
3. Jacobs, Eastman N., and Pinkerton, Robert M.,
“Tests in the Variable Density Wind Tunnel of
Related Airfoils Having the Maximum Camber
Unusually Far Forward”, NACA Rept. 537,
1935.
4. Wenzinger, Carl J, and Harris, Thomas A., “Wind
Tunnel Investigation of an NACA 23012 Airfoil
With Various Arrangements of Slotted Flaps”
NACA Rept. 664, 1939.
5. Harris, Thomas A.. “Reduction of Hinge Moments
of Airplane Control Surfaces by Tabs”, NACA
Rept. 528, 1935.
6. Goett, Harry, and Reeder, John P., “Effect of
Elevator Nose Shape, Gap, Balance, and Tabs
on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a
Horizontal Tail Surface”, NACA Rept. 675.
1939.
7. Ames, Milton 6.. and Sears, Richard I.,
“Determination of Control Surface
Characteristics from NACA Plain Flap and Tab
Data”. NACA Rept. 721, 1941.
8. Gilruth. Robert R., and White, Maurice D..
“Analysis and Prediction of Longitudinal
Stability of Airplanes”, NACA Rept. 711, 1941.
9. Dunn, Orville R. “Aerodynamically Boosted
Surface Controls and their Application to the
DC-6 Transport”,lAS-RAeS International
Conference on Aerodynamics, 1949
10. Liepmann, Hans W.. and Puckett, Allen E..
“Aerodynamics of a Compressible Fluid”, John
Wiley and Sons, New York,1947.
11. Shevell. Richard S., et al. “Brief Methods of
Estimating Airplane Performance”, Douglas
Aircraft Co. Report No. SM-13515, 1949.
12. Thomas. Gerald 8.. “Maximum Lift and High
Mach Number Drag Characteristics of NACA
Modified Four-Digit Airfoil Sections”, Douglas
Aircraft Co. Report No. SM-14585, 1952.
 (c)l999 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

13. Nitzberg, G. E., and Crandall. S., “A Study of Flow 26. Steckel. Doris K.. Dahlin. John A., and Henne,
Changes Associated with Airfoil Section Drag Preston A. “Results of Design Studles and
Rise at Supercritical Speeds”, NACA TN 1813, Wind Tunnel Tests of High Aspect Ratio
1949. Supercritical Wings for an Energy Efficient
Transport”, NASA Contractor Report 159332,
14. Theodorsen. Theodore. and Garrick, I.E.,“General
October, 1980
Potential Theory of Arbitrary Wing Sections”,
27. Oliver, Wayne R., “Results of Design Studies and
NACA Rept. No. 452.1933. Wind Tunnel Tests of an Advanced High Lift
15. Soule, Hartley A. and Anderson, Raymond F., System for an Energy Efficient Transport”,
“Design Charts Relating to the Stalling of NASA Contractor Report 159389, December,
Tapered Wings”, NACA Rept. 703. 1940. 1980
16. Weissenger. John, “The Lift Distribution of Swept
-Back Wings “, NACA Technical Memorandum
No. 1120,1947.
17. Loftin. Laurence K., and von Doenhofl ,Albert E..
“Exploratory Investigation at High and Low
Subsonic Mach Numbers of Two Experimental
6% Thick Airfoil Sections Designed to Have
High Maximum Lift Coefficients”, NACA RM
L51 FO6,1951.
18. Dunn, Orville R. “Flight Characteristics of the DC- 8”,
SAE National Aeronautics Meeting,
October. 1960.

19. Shevell, Richard S., “Aerodynamic AnomaliesCan

CFD Prevent or Correct Them?“, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol.23, No. 8, August, 1986
20. Schaufele, Roger D..“Reflections on the
Development of the DC-8 Jet Transports”,
SAE-AIAA World Aviation Congress, October,
1996.
21. Waddington, Terry, “Douglas DC-8”, World
Transport Press, Miami, FL., 1996.
22. Shevell, Richard S., and Schaufele, Roger D..
“Aerodynamic Design Features of the DC-g,”
Journal of Aircraft, Vol.3. Nov.-Dec. 1966.
23. Schaufele. Roger D.. and Ebeling. Ann W.
“Aerodynamic Deslgn of the DC-9 Wing and
High Lift System”, SAE Paper 670846.
October, 1967
24. Waddington. Terry, “McDonnell Douglas DC-g”.
World Transport Press, Miami, FL , 1998
25. Kressly, Arthur E., and Parker, Anthony C..
‘Development of the McDonnell Douglas MD-
90”, SAE Paper 952092, September 1995.