Om Gam Ganapataye Namah

STUDY OF THE PERFORMANCE ENVELOPE OF A VARIABLE

SWEEP WING
Minor Project Report

B.Tech. (ASE) Semester VI

By

Vinayak Vadlamani
R340308040
Shikhar Purohit
R180208035
Abhishree Bani
R180208047

Under the guidance of

Prof. Dr. Ugur GUVEN

Professor of Aerospace Engineering

Department of Aerospace Engineering,

University of Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun

FOREWORD

The students undertaking this minor project are sincerely grateful to Prof. Dr. Ugur GUVEN,
Professor of Aerospace Engineering for consenting to take this minor project under his purview
and would like to acknowledge his expert guidance and advice as the mentor/advisor for this
minor project, without whom our ventures into the vast and diverse field of Computational Fluid
Dynamics would have been unfruitful.

April 2011

Vinayak Vadlamani, B.Tech(ASE), VI Semester

Shikhar Purohit B.Tech(ASE),VI Semester
Abhishree Bani B.Tech(ASE),VI Semester

Certificate
It is hereby certified that this minor project report titled Study of the Performance Envelope of a
Variable Sweep Wing by Vinayak Vadlamani, Shikhar Purohit and AbhishreeBani is the
original work of the authors and is thus approved for final submission.

Date: 27thApril 2011

Prof. Dr. Ugur GUVEN

Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................4
Nomenclature...................................................................................................................................6
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................9
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................8
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................10
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................13
1. Introduction & Literature Review..............................................................................................14
1.1 Introduction to Variable Sweep.........................................................................................14
1.2 Purpose and Objectives......................................................................................................15
1.3 Literature Review...............................................................................................................15
2. Sweep Theory............................................................................................................................18
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................18
3. Fundamentals of Performance Envelopes.................................................................................19
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................19
3.2 Performance Curves...........................................................................................................22
4. Compressibility & its effects on aerodynamic coefficients.......................................................31
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................31
4.2 Compressibility Corrections..............................................................................................32
4.3 Lift Slope...........................................................................................................................35
4.4 Variation of wave drag and lift slope with sweep angle...................................................39
5. Airfoil Selection & Wing Design............................................................................................42
5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................42
5.2 Initial Sizing & Weight Estimation..................................................................................42
5.3 Wing Design....................................................................................................................47
5.4 Airfoil Selection Criteria..................................................................................................50
5.5 Final Airfoil Selection......................................................................................................61
6. Performance curves..................................................................................................................65
6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................65
6.2 2D lift Curve: Sectional Lift Coefficient, Cl vs. angle of attack, ..................................66
6.3 3D Lift Curve : Wing Lift Coefficient, CL vs. Angle of attack, ....................................66
6.4 Drag Polar: Total Drag coefficient, CD vs Lift Coefficient, CL........................................67
6.5 Subsonic and Supersonic Lift Curve Slope,
 vs Mach number, M............................70
6.6 Taper Ratio, vs. Sweep Angle, .................................................................................72
6.7 Aspect Ratio, AR versus Sweep Angle, .....................................................................73
7. Effects of Variable Sweep........................................................................................................74
7.1 Mission objectives demanding variable sweep................................................................74
7.2 Efficient subsonic cruise and loiter..................................................................................74
7.3 Cruise efficiency..............................................................................................................75
7.4 Supersonic Efficiency......................................................................................................76
7.5 Take-off and landing performance...................................................................................78
7.6 Excessive Longitudinal Stability......................................................................................78
8. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis.................................................................................81
8.1 Introduction to CFD..........................................................................................................83
8.2 Purpose..............................................................................................................................83
8.3 Approach............................................................................................................................84

3.3.1 Modeling.................................................................................................................84
3.3.2 Meshing...................................................................................................................85
3.3.3 Solving.....................................................................................................................90
8.4 Postprocessing/Results.............................................................................................................96
8.4.1 Lift Coefficient, Cl...................................................................................................97
8.4.2. Drag coefficient, Cd................................................................................................98
8.4.3 Static pressure contours.........................................................................................100
8.4.4 Dynamic pressure contours...................................................................................101
8.4.5 Total Pressure Contours......................................................................................102
8.4.6 Wall shear stress contours.....................................................................................103
8.4.7 Turbulent Kinetic Energy(k).................................................................................104
8.4.8 Symmetry Plane Mach number contours..............................................................105
8.5 Result Comparison & Conclusions..................................................................................106
8.5.1. Lift Coefficient, Cl................................................................................................106
8.5.2. Drag Coefficient, Cd.............................................................................................106
8.5.3 Static Pressure Contours........................................................................................106
8.5.4 Dynamic Pressure Contours..................................................................................107
8.5.5 Total Pressure Contours........................................................................................107
8.5.6 Wall shear stress contours.....................................................................................107
8.5.7 Turbulent kinetic energy (k) contours...................................................................108
8.5.8 Mach number contours..........................................................................................108
9 Wind Tunnel Tests....................................................................................................................109
9.1 UPES Wind Tunnel Setup...............................................................................................109
9.2 Wind tunnel model..........................................................................................................109
9.3 Wind Tunnel Test Parameters & Results........................................................................110
9.3.1 Test Readings & Observations..............................................................................110
9.4 Results & Conclusions.....................................................................................................112
10 Recommendations...................................................................................................................113
11 Working Mechanism...............................................................................................................114
11.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................114
11.2 Working.........................................................................................................................115
11.3 Initial Design & Construction.......................................................................................115
11.4 SolidWorks Simulation.................................................................................................116
11.5 Total Cost Estimate........................................................................................................117
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................118
Appendix.....................................................................................................................................119

Nomenclature
NACA National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics
USAF United States Air Force
USN United States navy
TFX Tactical Fighter Experimental
a0Lift slope for an infinite wing
a0,comp Lift slope for an infinite wing in a subsonic compressible flow
a Lift slope for a finite wing
acompLift slope for a finite wing in a subsonic compressible flow
aFreestream speed of sound
A Statistical constant for Eqn. 4.3
AR (=b2/S) Aspect Ratio
C statistical constants for Eqn. 4.3
Cd,i =kCL2 induced drag coefficient
CD,e total parasite drag coefficient
CD,w wave drag coefficient
CD,0 zero-lift (parasite) drag coefficient
ClSection Lift Coefficient
CLWing Lift Coefficient
Cl,des Design Lift Coefficient
CL,maxMaximum value of CL
CL,min Minimum value of CL
Cp Pressure Coefficient (Compressible case)
Cp,o Pressure Coefficient (Incompressible case)

Cl,o Lift Coefficient (Incompressible case)

e Ostwalds Span Efficiency factor
KvsVariable sweep constant for Eqn. 4.3
L/D Lift-to Drag Ratio
McrCritical Mach number
MDrag DivergenceDrag Divergence Mach number
M,nComponent of M perpendicular to the half-chord line of the swept wing
MFreestream Mach number
SReference Area (of wing)
(t/c)max Maximum Thickness-to-Chord ratio
VFreestream/Flight Velocity
Vstall Stalling Speed
Vmax Maximum Speed
W Weight
W0Design take-off weight
WcrewWeight of the crew
WpayloadMaximum payload weight
WfuelWeight of the fuel
WemptyEmpty or structural weight
W/S Wing Loading
i Induced angle of attack
Angle of Attack
stallStall Angle
L=0 Zero-lift Angle of Attack
Freestream Absolute Viscosity

Free stream density

 Taper Ratio
Sweep angle

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 5.1:Maximum Critical Mach numbers for NACA 64-XXX series .................. 53
Table 5.1:Stalling angle for various NACA 641-XXX airfoils. .................................. 56
Table 5.2:Stalling angle for various NACA 64AXXX airfoils ................................... 57
Table 8.1:Boundary Conditions ............................................................................... 96
Table 9.1:Test Run1 Data ...................................................................................... 106
Table 9.2:Test Run2 Data ...................................................................................... 107
Table 5.1:Test Run 3 Data ..................................................................................... 107
Table 5.1:Test Run 4 Data ..................................................................................... 107
Table 11.1:Final Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 113
Table A.1 :Wo Iteration Counter. ........................................................................... 115

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Fig. 1.1: The USAF F-14 - a variable sweep aircraft - cruising at a high sweep angle.................10
Fig. 2.1: Straight wing of airfoil section with Mcr=0.7..................................................................14
Fig. 2.2:Swept-wing of same airfoil section with Mcr=0.7...........................................................15
Fig. 3.1: Schematic of CL and CD versus angle of attack...............................................................19
Fig. 3.2: Schematic of variation of lift coefficient with flight velocity ( in level flight)...............20
Fig. 3.3: Schematic of variation of drag coefficient with flight velocity for level flight...............21
Fig. 3.4: Schematic of variation of L/D ratio with flight velocity for level flight.........................22
Fig. 3.5: Schematic of variation of L/D ratio with angle of attack................................................22
Fig. 3.6: Schematic of the components of a drag polar.................................................................24
Fig. 3.7: Slope of the drag polar at various points........................................................................25
Fig. 3.8: Illustration of minimum drag and drag at zero-lift.........................................................26
Fig. 4.1: Variation of profile drag with Mach number, illustrating drag divergence....................27
Fig. 4.2: Flat plate in supersonic flow inclined at an angle , illustrating wave drag...................31
Fig 4.3: Lift slope for infinite and finite wing...............................................................................32
Fig. 4.4: Variation of supersonic wave drag with AR...................................................................35
Fig. 4.5: Variation of minimum total drag coefficient with sweep angle......................................36
Fig. 5.1: Wing Design Flowchart...................................................................................................38
Fig. 5.2: Airfoil Nomenclature......................................................................................................47
Fig. 5.3: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 0006, 0009 and
0012(left) and for NACA 1408, 1410 and 1412(right).................................................50
Fig 5.4: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 2412, 2415, 2418,
2421 and 2224(left) and for NACA 4412, 4415, 4418, 4421 and 4424(right)......................50
Fig 5.5:Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 23012, 23015, 23018,
23021 and 23024(left) and for NACA 63-XXX series(right)........................................................51
Fig 5.6:Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 64-006, 64-009, 64l012, 642-015, 643-018 and 644-021 and for NACA 64-108, 64-110 and 641-112(right)..............52
Fig 5.7: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 64-XXX series......53
Fig 5.8: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 0006(left) and NACA 0009(right)..............54
Fig 5.9: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 1410 and NACA 1412.................................55
Fig 5.10: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 64A210 and NACA 64A410....................56
Fig. 5.11: NACA 64A210 airfoil profile.......................................................................................58
Fig. 5.12: NACA 64A410 airfoil profile.......................................................................................58
Fig. 5.13: Interpolated airfoils modeled on SolidWorks CAD software.......................................59
Fig. 5.14: Side view of wing (from tip).........................................................................................60
Fig. 5.15: Lofted wing model rendered on SolidWorks CAD software (unswept configuration).60
Fig 6.1: Plot of sectional lift coefficient versus angle of attack....................................................62
Fig 6.2: Plot of wing lift coefficient versus angle of attack for different sweep angles..............63
Fig. 6.3: Variation of Oswald Efficiency factor with sweep angle...............................................65
Fig. 6.4: Drag Polar : Plot of CD vs. CL for different angles of attack...........................................66
Fig. 6.5: Subsonic and Supersonic Lift Curve Slope Cl versus Mach number............................67
Fig. 6.6: Variation of Taper Ratio with Sweep Angle...................................................................68
Fig. 6.7: Variation of Aspect Ratio with Sweep Angle................................................................69

Fig. 7.1: Variation of (L/D)max with Mach number ; variation of span loading(W/b2) with leading
edge sweep for F-14........................................................................................................70
Fig 7.2: Variation of zero-lift parasite drag with Mach number for different sweep angles for the
F-14..................................................................................................................................71
Fig. 7.3: Variation of range parameter (ML/D) versus Mach number for different sweep
configurations ................................................................................................................71
Fig. 7.4 : Wing thickness comparison for various aircraft.............................................................72
Fig. 7.5 : Plot of drag/weight(D/W), thrust/weight(T/W) ratio against Mach number for the F-14
and F-15.........................................................................................................................73
Fig. 7.6: Influence of sweep and speed on ride quality.................................................................74
Fig. 7.7: Effect of pivot position on aerodynamic loading about the longitudinal axis (X)........75
Fig. 7.8: Pivot and apex influence on longitudinal stability (Source: Design for Air Combat,
Whitford).........................................................................................................................76
Fig. 7.9: Influence of pivot position on wing span and area (Source: Design for Air Combat,
Whitford).........................................................................................................................76
Fig 8.1: The complete Navier-Stokes equations for a 3-D unsteady incompressible flow (Source:
NASA Glenn Research Center)......................................................................................77
Fig. 8.2: CFD simulation showing surface pressure coefficient distribution over the lower surface
of the space shuttle at Mach 15 (Source: NASA Ames Research Center)....................78
Fig. 8.3(a) Minimum sweep configuration model.........................................................................80
Fig. 8.3(b) Cruise sweep configuration model...............................................................................80
Fig. 8.4 : A 3-view drawing of the geometric model along with dimensions................................81
Fig. 8.5: Tri-Pave face meshing scheme example mesh..............................................................83
Fig. 8.6: Aircraft Surface Mesh.....................................................................................................83
Fig. 8.7: Symmetry plane mesh.....................................................................................................84
Fig. 8.8: Complete Mesh including flow volume..........................................................................85
Fig. 8.9: Boundary conditions applied to mesh/geometry.............................................................85
Fig. 8.10: Residuals showing divergence in the solver.................................................................87
Fig. 8.11: Scaled residuals for 200+ iterations..............................................................................89
Fig. 8.12: Scaled residuals for 1000 iterations..............................................................................89
Fig. 8.13: Scaled residuals for 2000 iterations (minimum sweep configuration)........................90
Fig. 8.14: Scaled residuals for 1000 iterations (cruise sweep configuration)..............................91
Fig. 8.15: Scaled residuals for 2000 iterations (cruise sweep configuration)..............................92
Fig. 8.16(a): Cl convergence history of minimum sweep configuration model..........................93
Fig. 8.16(b): Cl convergence history of cruise sweep configuration model................................94
Fig. 8.17: Cd convergence history of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration..95
Fig. 8.18: Static pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration.96
Fig. 8.19: Dynamic pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep
configuration.................................................................................................................97
Fig. 8.20: Total pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration..98
Fig. 8.21: Wall shear stress contours for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep
configuration.................................................................................................................99
Fig. 8.22: Turbulent kinetic energy contours for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep
configuration..............................................................................................................100
Fig. 8.23: Mach number contours at the symmetry plane for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom)
sweep configuration....................................................................................................101

Fig. 9.1: Front view of model in wind tunnel .............................................................................106

Fig. 9.2: Top view of model setup in wind tunnel.......................................................................106
Fig. 11.1: Schematic diagram of initially proposed mechanism..................................................110
Fig. 11.2: Construction drawing of curve profile for working mechanism.................................112
Fig. 11.3: Screenshot of the animation showing the simulation of the working mechanism....113

STUDY OF THE PERFORMANCE ENVELOPE OF A VARIABLE SWEEP WING

ABSTRACT
Aircraft designers are faced with a daunting challenge while drafting the dimensions of a multirole aircraft with regard to wing design particularly and the phenomenon of drag divergence does
not make things easier for designers. Variable sweep offers a compromised solution that presents
variable-geometry wing as a means for incorporating a dynamic wing area and wing sweep
characteristics which permit the wing geometry to be optimally customized for each mission
segment. This minor project has sought to understand and study the characteristics of a variablesweep wing, particularly the performance envelope. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has
been used as a tool to investigate the effects of variable sweep and to determine aerodynamic
coefficients mainly. A wind tunnel investigation was also carried out for basic aerodynamic
investigations to corroborate the CFD study. Also, an original working mechanism for changing
the sweep angle of wings was devised and constructed to aid in better understanding of
mechanical aspects of variable sweep. This report presents the findings of the three dimensional
CFD analysis carried out for two sweep configurations (takeoff and cruise sweep
configurations), a comparison between the theoretical and experimental studies and also
discusses a few aspects related to the physical sweep changing mechanism.

Keywords : variable sweep, computational fluid dynamics

1. Introduction& Literature Review

1.1 Introduction to Variable sweep& its background

The concept of variable sweep wings has its roots in the development & emergence of multi-role
aircraft, in the late 1950s and early 60s. With huge advancements in propulsion and airframe
technology in the late 1950s, aircraft capable of performing multiple mission types were being
conceived. When aircraft designers were faced with challenges in the design of multi-role
aircraft, particularly wing design, variable sweep emerged as a possible solution. Variable sweep
offers an alternative in a variable-geometry wing as opposed to a common fixed-geometry wing
that can be varied in flight or on ground for optimum performance for a given mission segment.
But, there is a condition that the aerodynamic gains of variable sweep must offset its weight and
volume penalties. Figure 1 shows the most successful fighter aircraft in terms of production that
incorporates variable sweep, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat.

Fig. 1.1: The USAF F-14 - a variable sweep aircraft - cruising at a high sweep angle

1.2 Purpose and Objectives

The following thesis/report is the result of the culmination of the minor project performed in the
academic year 2010-11, semesters V and VI, as part of the curriculum for a four year B.Tech
degree in Aerospace Engineering. The primary purpose of this minor project thesis is to
investigate and summarize the effects of variable sweep, particularly the performance envelope.
The minor project focused on both theoretical and practical aspects of aerospace engineering
through division of work on three main fronts:

3-D computational fluid dynamics analysis,

Wind tunnel investigation of a scale model

Fabrication of an original working mechanism for changing the sweep angle of

wings

A 3-D CFD analysis was chosen over a 2-D CFD analysis for an obvious reason that the sweep
theory is after all a completely three dimensional phenomenon and a 2D study would have lead
to limited results and incomplete understanding of the effects of variable sweep. The overall
objective of this minor project was to establish conclusions on the effects of variable sweep and
to demonstrate the capabilities of a working mechanism and its future potential.

1.3 Literature Review

In the course of investigation of various literature and text on the subject of variable sweep and
the sweep theory, many resources and text were found, both online and as physical text or books.
Adolf Busemann (1935) at the 5th Volta Conference first put forward the idea of the swept wing
concept. Later, Robert Jones (1945) from NACA gave a simple yet elegant mathematical
formulation for the explanation of the sweep theory. General text series in aerospace engineering
like titles on aerodynamics by Anderson and Clancy stress on the fact that the drag divergence
can be delayed by utilizing swept wings for high-speed aircraft.

Ray Whitfords Design for Air Combat discusses the origins of the development of variable
sweep experimental aircraft in the late 1950s and early 60s and the requirement for that
prompted their development. Further, J.D. Andersons title Aircraft Performance & Design was
consulted for understanding the fundamentals of performance curves related to aerodynamic
coefficients. Compressibility and its effects have been well explained in the standard text on
aerodynamics by J.D.Anderson Fundamentals of Aerodynamics.

For matters pertaining to airfoil selection and wing design, technical papers from the NASA
Technical Reports Server (NTRS) were extensively used. NACA Report No. 824 by Abbott, von
Doenhoff and Stivers (1945) served as the primary reference for airfoil data required in pursuit
for the correct airfoil. This report is an excellent and comprehensive presentation of NACA fourdigit, five-digit, 6- and 7-series airfoils in development up to 1945 and also supplements with
additional data for predicted critical Mach number and aerodynamic characteristics of various
airfoil sections that have been extremely helpful during airfoil selection.

In the matters of wing design, Daniel P. Raymers Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach
which is regarded as the standard text on aircraft design by many was referred extensively and
the complete wing design for this project is based on empirical data and formulae from this book.
J.D. Andersons Aircraft Performance & Design served as a supplementary text here. For
understanding the effects of variable sweep, Ray Whitfords Design for Air Combat was heavily
relied upon and extensively employed.

Further, technical reports describing studies performed by Loftin(1947) and Harper and
Maki(1964) also shed some light on aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 6A-series airfoils and
the stall characteristics of swept wings respectively. The former text discusses the aerodynamic
characteristics of the modified NACA 6A-series as compared to the original NACA 6-series. The
latter report is a fair guide that can aid in determining the actions necessary empirically to

achieve a given set of wing characteristics with reference to stalling nature of swept wings that
was fairly unknown at the time of publication of this text.

During the CFD analysis of the two configuration models, the GAMBIT 2.2 Tutorial and
GAMBIT 2.2 Modeling Guide were extremely handy to address issues related with meshing.
And while working with FLUENT, the FLUENT User Guide and Documentation were overly
resourceful during the case setup and monitor setup. Also, Cornell Universitys FLUENT tutorial
and resources like Introduction to CFD Basics by Rajesh Bhaskaran and Lance Collins were a
good quick read to understand the underlying principles of Computational Fluid Dynamics as a
supplement to Andersons text on CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics:The Basic Approach
with Application.

2. Introduction to Sweep Theory & Variable Sweep

2.1 Introduction to Sweep Theory
The introduction of swept-wings into aerodynamics was prompted due to the ever increasing
speed of aircraft. Faster planes meant more drag but supersonic flight was the real player in
bringing swept wings into the fray. In the 1930s, when supersonic flight was considered
impossible by some aeronautical engineers and the speed of sound was looked upon as some sort
of natural barrier which could not be broken, leading aerodynamicists from all over the world
including the likes of Theodore Von Karman, Ludwig Prandtl and Adolf Busemann gathered at
the 5th Volta Conference to discuss flight at Mach numbers greater than unity. Busemann who
invented the swept-wing concept, explained why they were to play a major role in aircraft going
supersonic, most of his efforts were associated with the implications of compressibility.
Although Busemann and others tried to establish a mathematical framework for the sweep theory
but it was the mathematical genius of Robert T. Jones from NACA in 1945 who gave a simple
and comprehensive analysis of swept wing performance. This project will intend to look into
those same performance parameters which these aerodynamicists established so well.
Busemann originated the concept on the basis of the theory that swept-wings would have less
drag at high speeds than conventional straight wings. In supersonic flight, the main spoilsport is
the abrupt increase in drag due to shock waves for the freestream Mach number Mgreater than
the critical Mach number Mcr1. Hence it is desirable to increase Mcr as muchas possible in highspeed airplane design. The following explanation simply compares a straight wing and a swept
wing.
V

Airfoil section with Mcr=0.7

Fig. 2.1 : Straight wing of airfoil section with Mcr=0.7

Mcr: Mach number at which flow over some part of the airfoil first becomes sonic

For a straight wing (refer Fig. 1) with an airfoil section with Mcr= 0.7, the airfoil experiences the
incident freestream velocity and Mach number at the leading edge which is same everywhere as
there is a zero angle of sweep. Hence, Mcr for the whole wing is itself 0.7. Now, if the wing is
swept by 30o(refer Fig. 2), then the same airfoil section on the new swept-wing will experience
only the component of flow normal to the leading edge of the wing. Hence all aerodynamic
properties including Mach number at this locality will be governed by the normal component of
flow.
Hence, the effective Mach number will be Mcos 30o and the critical Mach number for the
swept-wing 0.7/cos 30o = 0.808. This means that the freestream Mach number can be further
increased. Hence, by sweeping the wings of subsonic aircraft, drag divergence is delayed to
higher mach numbers.

30o

Mcr for swept wing=0.7/cos 30o

Component parallel to section

Airfoil section with Mcr=0.7

Fig. 2.2 : Swept-wing of same airfoil section with Mcr=0.7

But in real scenario of 3-D flow over a wing the actual Mcr for swept wing, if is the sweep
angle, then the following relation persists.
Mcr for airfoil < Actual Mcr for swept-wing <


 

 

Another explanation of how Mcr is increased by sweeping the wing is that the thickness-to-chord
ration (t/c) for a swept-wing wing is less than a straight wing or that the airfoil section is

effectively thinner which in effect increases the critical mach number or Mcr. But a downside for
increasing the wing sweep is that the lift is essentially reduced for the same velocity and angle of
attack.
Also for supersonic flight, swept wings make the leading edge of the wings fall inside the Mach
cone rather than outside it, thereby avoiding the component of M normal to the leading edge
which would have been supersonic.

3. Fundamentals of Performance Envelopes

3.1. Introduction
Pushing the envelope has become such a popular remark in commonplace usage that it has taken
on the tag of a clich. It is generally used to denote an act of exploring unchartered territories or
a new frontier by venturing beyond the limits. It is phrase that originated in the corridors of the
aerospace research industry, used by aerospace design engineers whose prototypes while being
tested were often pushed to the edge of their operational capabilities. The performance
envelope of any flight vehicle in aerospace terminology is the set of curves defining the
maximum permissible values of crucial parameters such as velocity, lift etc. under which the
aircraft is expected to perform safely. The basic custom is as follows: based upon the design
specifications and their knowledge and experience, the engineers express their probable
expectations within which safe behavior and control is anticipated, in form of a projected
performance envelope. Then, it is up to the test pilots to get behind the controls of the prototype
to judge its actual performance and to fly it to the absolute limit of its operational capability as a
calculated risk, in order to sketch out the actual performance envelope.
Performance Envelopes in aerodynamics deal with the most fundamental parameters in the
subject: the non-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients. These quantities are of greater
importance than the aerodynamic forces and moments themselves. The reason for this being that
the aerodynamic coefficients are dependent on less factors than the aerodynamic force itself.
The three aerodynamic coefficients are defined as follows:
1 Lift coefficient,
 

(3.1)


   
 

2 Drag coefficient,
 


   
 

3 Moment Coefficient,
 


   
 

(3.2)

(3.3)

Hence, they are also much easier and accurately determinable than their dimensional
counterparts. In the words of Dr. J.D Anderson, author of Fundamentals of Aerodynamics,
they are fundamental quantities, which make the difference between intelligent engineering and
simply groping in the dark. The evidence is in the form of the following equations:
Dimensional Analysis leads us to the following conclusions in form of Eqns. (3.4) and (3.5).

   , " , #, $, % , & 

(3.4)

  $, '(, ) 

(3.5)

  $, '(, ) 

(3.6)

Looking at Eqn. 3.4, we see that lift is a function of freestream density, freestream velocity,
reference area, angle of attack, viscosity of fluid and speed of sound in the fluid respectively, that
is a total of 6 parameters whereas from eqns. (3.5) and (3.6), CL and CD depend only upon three
namely angle of attack, Reynolds Number and the freestream Mach number respectively, the last
two being similarity parameters which help us in scaling the flow. 2

Moreover, it can be inferred that since aerodynamic coefficients are independent of the reference
area S, which means that CL and CD allow for comparison between planes with different
reference area or simply different aircraft.

3.2. Performance Curves

The various performance envelopes are as follows:

3.2.1. CL, Lift Coefficient versus , Angle of Attack and CD, Drag Coefficient versus , Angle
of Attack
The generic variations of CL and CD, versus angle of attack are shown in figure 1.

To be noted, these relations are for an airplane of a given shape only.

Fig. 3.1 : Schematic of CL and CD versus angle of attack

CLincreases linearly with the angle of attack until a maximum angle is reached at which the
aircraft wing stalls and CL peaks and then drops when angle of attack is increased further. From
this we arrive at a relation, the lowest possible velocity at which the aircraft can maintain steady,
level flight is dictated by the value of CL,max.

"*+  ,

-.

 /0,123

(3.7)

Hence, from this performance curve, without any aid of extra data, CL,max is determinable from
the physical laws of aerodynamics of flow over wings.

3.2.2. CL, Lift Coefficient versus V, Flight Velocity

Another performance curve, is used to find the maximum possible velocity in flight, Vmax. From
eqn. (3.1), it can be seen that for each value of V there is a specific value of CL. The curve in
fig. 3.2 shows the variation of CL whole range of velocity from Vmax to Vstall.

Fig. 3.2: Schematic of variation of lift coefficient with flight velocity ( in level flight)

In other words, the values of CL in the curve are the ones needed to maintain level flight over the
whole range of velocity. Thus designers must design the airplane to enable the aircraft to achieve
such values of CL.
3.2.3. CD, Drag Coefficient versus V, Flight Velocity
Performance Curves 1 and 2 give designers an estimate of the lift which the aircraft needs to
achieve. But this has to be done keeping in mind the degree of drag produced. For an efficient
design we need necessary lift with low drag. For this we have a curve of the drag coefficient
versus the flight velocity.

Fig. 3.3: Schematic of variation of drag coefficient with flight velocity for level flight

A poor aerodynamic design with necessary values of CL but high values of CD will generate a
plot denoted by the dashed curve. On the other hand, a design with lower values of drag would
lead to a curve like the one denoted by the solid curve. An observation will show that the latter
plot leads to higher value of Vmax as compared to the former.

3.2.4. (L/D), Lift-to Drag Ratio versus V, flight velocity

A correct predictor of aerodynamic efficiency is the lift-to-drag ratio which is nothing but the
ratio of the lift coefficient to the drag coefficient. For a good aerodynamic design, the L/D ratio
should be high enough for the aircraft to climb smoothly, hence the maximum value of the ratio
gives the best climb rate for the aircraft.

Fig. 3.4: Schematic of variation of L/D ratio with flight velocity for level flight.

3.2.5. (L/D), Lift-to Drag Ratio versus , angle of attack

Another performance curve is between the L/D ratio and the angle of attack, because strictly
speaking CL and CD are functions of from eqns. (3.5) and (3.6). Hence, this variation gives the
relation for the best angle of attack for maximum L/D ratio for a given velocity.

Fig. 3.5:Schematic of variation of L/D ratio with angle of attack

3.2.6CD, Drag Coefficient versus CL, Lift Coefficient (Drag Polar)

By far, the most important plot in applied aerodynamics is the Drag Polar. It is a performance
curve which covers all aerodynamic aspects in one single plot of the drag coefficient CD versus
the lift coefficient CL. The drag polar is a complete and concise plot of the overall aerodynamics
of an aircraft. Basically, the drag polar is a relation between CD and CL in which CD is expressed
as a function of CL. Both the equation and the plot are designated as Drag Polar.
The total drag on an airplane can be written as

 
,4 5
,6 5 7
-

(3.8)

where CD,e is the total parasite drag, CD,w is the wave drag and the term kCL2 is the
induced drag. Eqn. (3.8) can also be rewritten as

 
,8 5 7
-

(3.9)

where CD,0 = CD,e + CD,w is called the zero-lift (parasite) drag coefficient
Eqn. (3.9) is called the drag polar of the airplane. It is valid for both subsonic and
supersonic flight. The plot can also be viewed as that of the resultant aerodynamic force
in polar coordinates, hence the label drag polar. Figure 3.6 is the plot of eqn. (3.9) and
hence the curve is also called the drag polar.

F
Fig. 3.6 : Schematic of the components of a drag polar

Since eqn. (3.9) contains a squared-term of CL, hence the profile of the drag polar curve is
parabolic. The tangent of the curve would give a ration of CL/CD which is nothing but the L/D
ratio. The intercept of the curve on the x-axis is the zero-lift drag coefficient CD,0. As we go up
the curve, the slope increases at first, reaching a maximum value and then decreases again.
Figure 3.7 illustrates this observation.

Fig. 3.7: Slope of the drag polar at various points

Interestingly, the tangent from the origin locates the point (2) on the curve of maximum L/D
ratio for the airplane. This point is called the design point for the airplane and the corresponding
value of CL is called the design-lift coefficient, CL,des.
For symmetric airfoils and in the case of zero incidence between the wing chord and axis of
symmetry of the fuselage, the zero-lift drag is equal to the minimum drag. But in the case of real
airplanes, when the plane is pitched at zero-lift angle of attack, parasite drag may be slightly
higher than the minimum drag. In this case the curve gets vertically shifted upwards as shown in
figure 3.8. The equation for the drag polar in that case would be

 
,8 5 7
 9
,:; -

Fig. 3.8: Illustration of minimum drag and drag at zero-lift.

(3.10)

4. Compressibility and its effect on aerodynamic coefficients

4.1 Introduction
When Adolf Busemann first conceived about swept wings, it was primarily an outcome of an
endeavor to reduce a new kind of drag encountered at supersonic speeds. Frank Whittle, another
mastermind, inventor of the jet engine, came tantalizingly close to designing the first plane to
break the so-called Sound barrier when a prototype of his design, broke up when it came close
to Mach 1. This problem of ever increasing drag near Mach 1 started myths of an unbreakable
sound barrier, a wall which no plane could ever cross. But aerospace engineers soon found a
reason to this in the form of the explanation of the phenomena of drag divergence.

Fig. 4.1: Variation of profile drag with Mach number, illustrating drag divergence

We will describe the concept of drag divergence which was introduced in the first chapter, here
in full detail. Figure 1 is a plot of drag coefficient, Cd versus the freestream Mach number M,
which vividly describes the concept of drag divergence. To follow drag divergence, it is
necessary to know what critical Mach number is.

It is known that the flow over an airfoil expands around the top surface near the leading edge,
hence the velocity and thus the Mach number increase. This fact directly suggests that on the
airfoil surface a particular velocity is reached before the free stream flow reaches that particular
value.
Therefore, it is very realistic for a flow to be locally sonic on some point on the upper surface of
the airfoil even though the freestream flow is subsonic. Hence, by definition the freestream Mach
number at which sonic flow is first achieved locally somewhere on the airfoil is called the
Critical Mach number, Mcr of the airfoil.
Now, refer figure 1, we can clearly observe that cd remains fairly constant till the critical Mach
number is encountered. If the freestream Mach number is increased the local point of minimum
pressure at which the flow first achieved sonic speed is surrounded by a small bubble of
supersonic flow. Even now cd remains rationally low.
However, after this point if M is further increased, the plot reveals a dramatic and abrupt rise in
cd. This corresponds to the first instance of shock waves appearing in the flow which in turn
cause an adverse pressure gradient leading to flow separation which explains the massive
increase in drag. This phenomenon is called Drag Divergence. And the freestream Mach number
at which cd begins to increase rapidly is called the Drag Divergence Mach number.

) < )=> =?4>4;4 < 1.0

(4.1)

The discovery of drag divergence gave aerospace designers an upper hand in their battle against
breaking the voodoo of the sound barrier. Designers soon realized that they could not reduce or
limit drag divergence but could possibly delay it. Experiments showed that it was possible to
increase the critical Mach number for a particular wing/airfoil section by sweeping the wings
either backwards or forwards. The mathematical genius of Robert T. Jones of NACA gave a
simple sweep theory which has already been discussed in chapter 1, which we restate here in
brief.
The reason for the increase in critical Mach number by the effect of sweep can be explained by
any one or both of the following reasons:

i. By sweeping the wing, the airfoil effectively sees only the normal component of the Mach
number to the leading edge
ii. By sweeping the wings, the thickness-to-chord ratio is effectively lower i.e. the airfoil is
thinner
Recalling that this topic of drag divergence is nothing but a consequence of shock waves and
their effects which are in turn an effect of compressibility, we state that drag divergence is an end
result of variable density encountered at M> 0.3, if we may use this reference.

4.2 Compressibility Corrections

4.2.1. Subsonic

The thin airfoil theory was an initial aerodynamic theory evolved during the early days of flight
when aircraft speeds were limited to subsonic maxima from 1900s to 1940s. But with the advent
of the high-powered reciprocating engines and eventually with the introduction of the jet engine,
speeds of fighter aircraft began to increase to 500 mph and faster. Since at high subsonic speeds
of the order M=0.3 itself, compressibility effects come into picture, the incompressible flow
theory in which density was assumed practically as constant, failed outright in such scenarios.
But aerodynamicists who painstakingly collected data in low-speed aerodynamics did not want
to totally discard such data, called for relatively simple corrections rather than resorting to abinitio methods. Such methods called compressibility corrections.
The first and most popular of these corrections is the Prandtl-Glauert compressibility correction,
which is based on the linearized perturbation velocity potential function. This theory is limited to
thin airfoils at small angles of attack. Also to be noted is that it is a purely subsonic theory and
gives consistent results only upto M=0.7.

C 

/D,E


,FG

(4.2)

Eqn. (3.2) is called the Prandtl-Glauert rule and states that if the pressure distribution over an
airfoil for incompressible case is known then the compressible pressure distribution over the
same airfoil can be obtained from the above equation. Since this equation relates compressible
and incompressible pressure coefficients, the same must be true for the lift coefficient. Hence,
the corrected relation for Cl is



/H,E


,FG

(4.3)

Since the Prandtl-Glauert corrections are based on potential flow theory, DAlemberts paradox
prevails here too in that drag is zero for inviscid, subsonic, compressible flow. However if the
Mach number is high enough to produce local supersonic flow then with the presence of shock
waves, a positive wave drag is produced an dAlemberts paradox no longer prevails. (Anderson,
2010)

3.2.2.Supersonic

Wave Drag
For supersonic flows i.e. for M greater than unity, the aerodynamics experience a complete shift
in paradigm, courtesy of shock waves. Shock waves due to their presence in supersonic flow,
create a new type of drag called wave drag. Now, consider a thin supersonic airfoil by a flat
plate which is inclined at an angle to the supersonic free stream as shown in figure 4.2.

Fig. 4.2 : Flat plate in supersonic flow inclined at an angle , illustrating wave drag
On the top surface, due to the presence of an expansion wave at the leading edge, the flow field
is turned away from the free stream. At the trailing edge, the flow is turned back towards the free
stream.
The expansion and shock waves at the leading edge result in a surface pressure distribution in
which pressure at the top surface is less than the freestream pressure, while the pressure at the
bottom surface is greater than the freestream pressure. This results in an aerodynamic force
normal to the plate whose components parallel and perpendicular to the relative wind, the lift and
drag coefficients respectively.
Approximate relations for cl and cd are

I 
I= 

JK

(4.4)

JK

(4.5)

 GFM
,L

 GFM
,L

Eqns. (4.4) and (4.5) are approximate expressions useful for thin airfoils at small to moderate
angles of attack. It is interesting to note that cl and cd both decrease as M increases. This can be
seen in figure 1, where after Mach 1, cd begins to decrease. But surprisingly in any flight regime

including supersonic flight, lift and drag increase with velocity contrary to eqns. (4.4) and (4.5),
as the dynamic pressure increases.
4.3 Lift Slope
The lift slope is the slope of the linear portion of the lift curve i.e. the plot of lift coefficient CL
versus the angle of attack . For an airfoil and finite-wing the lift slope differs. We know that
finite wings generate less lift as compared to infinite wings due to induced drag and starting
vortex. But, at zero lift, there are no induced effects i.e. i=Cd,i=0 which means L=0 is the same
for both cases as shown from the graph.

Fig 4.3 : Lift slope for infinite and finite wing

The relation between a0, the lift slope for an infinite wing and a, the lift slope for a finite wing
can be related as follows:

=/0

= KGKN 

 &8

(4.6)

Integrating, we get

  &8 $ 9 $  5 const

(4.7)

We know that the induced angle of attack iis given by

0
$  O4PQ

(4.8)

Substituting this in eqn. (4.8), we get

  &8 R$ 9

/0

OPQ

S 5 const

(4.9)

Differentiating eqn. (4.9) with respect to , and solving we get,

=/0
=K

&

2E
UVWX

FT

(4.10)

Now, from eqn. (4.10) to find the lift slope for a swept wing in a compressible flow, we have the
following derivation.
Let a0 be the lift slope for an infinite wing for incompressible flow and a0,comp be the lift slope
for an infinite wing in a subsonic compressible flow. Hence from the Prandtl-Glauert rule, we
have

&8,
:C 


,FG

(4.11)

Assuming that eqn. (4.11) holds good for subsonic compressible flow as well and supposing the
lift slope for a finite wing for compressible flow as acomp, the compressible counterpart of eqn.
(4.10) is
.

&
:C 

E,YZ1D

FT

2E,YZ1D
UVWX

(4.12)

Substituting eqn. (3.11) in eqn. (3.12) and simplifying, we get,

&
:C 

 T 2E
,FG
UVWX

(4.13)

Eqn. (3.13) is for estimating the lift slope for high-AR straight wing in compressible flow.
Helmholds eqn. for low-aspect ratio straight wings for incompressible flow modified by the
Prandtl-Glauert rule is,

&
:C 


 T[ 2E \ T 2E
,FG
UVWX
UWX

(4.14)

Eqn.(3.14) is for estimating the lift slope for a low aspect ratio straight wing in a compressible
flow with subsonic M.
Finally, for a swept wing, applying the Prandtl-Glauerts rule where M is replaced by M,n
which is the component of M perpendicular to the half-chord line of the swept wing. If the halfchord line is swept by the angle , then M,n=Mcos. The resulting equation is

&
:C 

E 
*


 
*  T[2E YZ]^\ T2EYZ]^
,FG
UVWX
UWX

(4.15)

3.4 Variation of wave drag and lift slope with sweep angle
Now consider the variation of wave drag coefficient CD,w with aspect ratio AR. Consider a lowaspect ratio straight wing at supersonic speeds, the wave drag coefficient for a flat plate is given
by

_,`
K

(4.16)

 GFM
,L

For a finite aspect ratio plate, the wave drag coefficient will be

_,`
K

 GFM
,L

R1 9 -QS

Where R is given by a  bacde 9 f

Fig. 4.4: Variation of supersonic wave drag with AR

(4.17)

Figure 4 shows the graph of equation (4.17). It is clearly visible that for low-aspect ratios the
wave drag coefficient drops significantly. This shows the advantage of low-aspect ratio wings for
supersonic flight.
Now for swept wings, we have already discussed that supersonic wave drag can be reduced by
sweeping the wings inside the Mach cone i.e. to have a subsonic leading edge. From the
pioneering supersonic wind tunnel work performed by Walter Vicenti of NACA in 1947, in
figure 5, the minimum total drag coefficient is plotted versus wing sweep angle for M=1.53.
This data includes both positive sweep angles representing swept back wings and negative sweep
angles representing swept-forward wings.

Fig. 4.5 : Variation of minimum total drag coefficient with sweep angle
It is interesting to note that the curve is near symmetrical with regard to the positive and negative
sweep angles. It is also noted that the wave drag is same in magnitude for the same degree of
sweep irrespective of the sweep direction.

Also, just after sweep angle of 49o on both side, CD,min begins to drop considerably. This is due to
the fact that at M=1.53 the mach angle is given by =sin-1 (1/M) = sin-1 (1/1.53) = 41o. Hence,
the wings are totally inside the Mach cone after 49o which indicates the obvious decrease in total
drag.
Refer figure 4.5, which shows the variation of the lift slope as a function of aspect ratio for
tapered swings at M=1.53. The dashed lines represent the Mach cones. These were obtained
from the experimental data obtained by Walter Vicenti in a ground-breaking experiment at
NACA Ames labs in 1947 on the effect of aspect ratio on the lift curve for straight wings at
supersonic speeds.

5. Airfoil Selection & Wing Design

5.1 Introduction
The design of an airplane wing is a unique design process for each aircraft, that requires crafted
precision and decision-making
making skills on the account of the designer. The design of a wing is an
exhaustive process which involves selection of various parameters,
parameters, as illustrated in the flowchart
below:

Wing
Design
Initial Sizing &
Weight
Estimation
Airfoil
Selection

Wing
Loading

Max. thickness-tochord ratio

Wing
Dihedral

Wing Vertical
Location

Aspect
Ratio

Taper
Ratio

Wing sweep

Fig. 5.1: Wing Design Flowchart

5.2
.2 Initial Sizing & Weight Estimation
Before preliminary wing design can be undertaken, it is necessary to have a rough estimation for
the design take-off
off weight, W0, so that wingg loading and related aspects can be ascertained for
complete wing design & analysis. The aircraft whose wing design is under consideration is a
basic fighter jet comparable to the specifications of the F
F-14
14 Tomcat whose data will be used as a
reference forr initial approximations.

From reference 1, we have a basic formula for the design take-off weight, which is:

g8  g46 5 gCh
= 5 g i4 5 g4:C+h

(5.1)

where W0 is the design take-off weight, Wcrew is the weight of the crew, Wpayload is the maximum
payload weight that the aircraft can carry, Wfuelis the weight of the fuel the aircraft carries and
Wempty is the empty or structural weight of the aircraft.
Wcrewand Wpayload are based on the mission/design requirements, whereas Wfueland Wempty are
expressed as fractions of W0, which are in turn functions of W0.The equation 5.1 after
rearranging becomes,

g8 
4.2.1

op

oq

.YjV` T.D2kHZ2l
FG

mn
mE

mV
mE

(5.2)

, Empty Weight Fraction Estimation

From reference 1, table 3.1 shows the data for a statistical curve-fit equation, given as follows,
for the general trend observed for empty weight fractions seen in aircraft.

.V
 r g
0 stu
.E

(5.3)

where A and C are statistical constants available for different types of aircraft
Kvs is the variable sweep constant (1.04, if variable sweep3 / 1.00 if fixed sweep)
Hence from the table, the constants for jet fighter aircraft were A=2.34, C=-0.13 and since we
are incorporating variable sweep, Kvs=1.04, therefore we have,
3

A variable sweep wing is heavier than a fixed sweep wing due to the extra weight of the mechanism involved in
changing the sweep angle.

.V
 2.4336 g90.13
0
.E
4.2.2

oz

oq

(5.4)

, Fuel Weight Fraction Estimation

To estimate fuel fraction, we have to take into account the mission profile of the aircraft and
hence the various mission segment weight fractions. From references 1 and 2, we have different
standard values and formulae for calculation of mission segment weight fractions as follows:

1 Warmup& takeoff (From ref. 1, table 3.2, typical historical values for initial sizing)

.
.E

 0.97

(5.5)

2 Climb& Accelerate to Cruise (From ref. 1, table 3.2, typical historical values for initial
sizing)

.
.

 0.985

3 Cruise to Destination
Assuming data for initial sizing based upon F-14 specifications,
Cruise Range, R=500 Nautical miles=926 km=926000 m
Cruise velocity, Vcruise= Mach 0.72= 218.33 m/s
Specific Fuel Consumption, C=0.5 hr-1= 0.0001389 s-1
L/D ratio=0.866(L/D)max=0.866 X 15=12.99

(5.6)

.
.

(

G 0

 ( G8.8J  0.955

(5.7)

4 Acceleration to High speed/ Interception (From ref.2 , fig. 2.3, value plotted from graph for
Mcruise=0.72)

.
.

 0.98

(5.8)

5 Cruise back (From ref. 1, table 3.2, typical historical values for initial sizing)

.
.

 0.955

(5.9)

6 Loiter (from ref.1,eqn. 3.8 for loiter weight fraction)

Assuming the data for loiter before landing for a fighter jet operating on and off an aircraft
carrier,
Endurance, E=0.5 hr= 3600 s
Specific Fuel Consumption, C=0.4 hr-1 =.000111 s-1
L/D ratio = (L/D)max=15

.
.

(

0/_

 ( G8.8F-  0.987

(5.10)

7 Landing(From ref. 1, table 3.2, typical historical values for initial sizing)

.
.

 0.955

(5.11)

The final formula for the estimation of fuel weight fraction stands as,

.n
.E

Where

 1.06 R1 9 .3 S

(5.12)

.3
.E

. . . . . . .
.E . . . . . .

=0.83865

g
g0  1.06 R1 9 0.83865S  0.1710

(5.13)

Now, assuming the weight of the crew supposing 2 pilots are required to fly the aircraft and that
the aircraft can carry a maximum payload of upto 8000kg, we have

g46  150 7

(5.14)

gCh
=  8000 7

(5.15)

Substituting values into eqn. 4.2, we have

F8 T888

g8  F 8.FF8 -.J. E.Kg

E

(5.16)

Taking an initial approximation of design take-off weight W0= 35000 kg, we calculate till the
equation converges. After 22 iterations4 the equation successfully converged to a value of,

g8  38311.93761 7

Refer Appendix for iterations/calculations

5.3 Wing Design

5.3.1 Wing Loading, W/S
Wing Loading, defined as ratio of the weight of the aircraft to the reference area of the wing, is
an important parameter in wing design which affects various flight characteristics like stall
speed, climb rate, takeoff and landing distances and turn performance. But aerodynamically,
wing loading determines the design lift coefficient as seen above due to its effect upon wetted
area and wing span. The wing loading has a strong interdependence with maximum takeoff
weight. As the wing loading is decreased, it implies that the reference area has been increased for
the same weight. This in turn implies that for the extra wing surface, the structural (empty)
weight increases. Moreover, additional drag is generated, to overcome which more fuel will be
required. All these consequences result in an overall increase in maximum takeoff weight itself,
thus the selection of an optimal wing loading is imperative for good aircraft performance.

For the interim selection of the wing loading of our aircraft, wing loading is chosen a fixed value
from table 5.5 (Typical values from historical trends) for wing loading from Ref. 1,

g
 342 7/#
5.3.2 Maximum Thickness-to-Chord ratio, (t/c)max
The airfoil thickness ratio, t/c, is a measure of the thickness of an airfoil and serves as a
parameter which affects aerodynamic performance through maximum lift and stall
characteristics. Drag directly increases with increase in thickness as a result of a favorable
tendency for flow separation. Thickness also relates statistically to weight of the wing structure,
approximately inversely.

For initial selection of the t/c ratio, fig. 4.14 from Ref.1 which shows the historical trend for
airfoil thickness by comparison with the design Mach number. For the aircraft to be designed,

the operational envelope would stretch from subsonic to supersonic speed, hence for subsonic
cruise speed of Mach 0.8, the graph corresponds to a t/c ratio of 14% which proves to be too
thick according to modern standards on comparison. But, according to the NACA Report TN-824,
the critical Mach number decreases with increasing thickness, hence the optimum thickness shall
be chosen as 10% as wing sweep reduces the effective t/c ratio.

 10 %
I :

5.3.3 Aspect Ratio, AR (=b2/S)

Aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the square of span to the reference area which
characterizies the finiteness of a real wing as supposed to an infinite wing for which the aspect
ratio is infinite. The aspect ratio directly affects the induced drag, the stalling angle and also the
maximum subsonic L/D among other aerodynamic factors. A higher aspect ratio indicates
reduced induced drag. But the decision between high aspect ratio and low aspect ratio lies in the
tradeoff between aerodynamic advantages and increased structural weight.

For selection of aspect ratio, from table 4.1 of ref. 1, we have a table from statistical data for
determining aspect ratio, for the unswept configuration, from which we have (refer Appendix for
calculation):

r'  3.5
5.3.4 Taper Ratio, 
Taper Ratio is defined as the ratio of the tip chord to the centerline root chord. Taper directly
affects the lift distribution over the span. Taper was defined in order to approximate the ideal
elliptical wing shape which according to Prandtls Lifting Line theory is the optimum lift

distribution. An unswept wing with taper of about 0.45 eliminates unwanted effects of constant
chord rectangular wing. But a swept wing increases the spanwise component of air towards the
tip creating more lift outboard creating an undesired lift distribution. Hence, it becomes
necessary to incorporate taper for swept wings.

From figure 4.23 from ref. 1, we choose the taper ratio for the wing for the unswept
configuration,

 0.4
5.3.5 Wing Twist
Wing twist is normally incorporated into wings to prevent tip stall and to alter the lift distribution
to more of an elliptical distribution. Twist may be either in the form of geometric twist i.e. the
actual variation in the incidence of the airfoils with respect to the root airfoil; or aerodynamic
twist which is the angle between the zero-lift angle of attack of an airfoil and the zero-lift angle
of attack of the root airfoil. No geometric twist shall be incorporated but aerodynamic twist will
be included to prevent tip stall.

((I u
r(&I u

5.3.6 Wing Vertical Position

The wings vertical position with respect to the fuselage is an important parameter with respect
to the functional/operational capabilities of an aircraft. The vertical wing position can be either
low, mid or high. Here, due to the visibility factor, superior aerobatic maneuverability and for the
aircraft to carry bombs under the wings, the mid-wing configuration is chosen.

g "(I& u ) 9 g

5.3.7 Wing Dihedral

The wing dihedral is the angle of the wing with respect to the horizontal when seen from the
front. A finite wing dihedral tends to roll an aircraft during banking due to a rolling moment
produced by sideslip. A swept wing produces an effective dihedral due to the rolling moment
produced. A swept back wing of 10 degrees sweep produces an equivalent dihedral of 1 degree.
From table 4.2 which shows dihedral guidelines for initial estimation, from ref. 1, the dihedral
angle is chosen as 0ofrom a common range for mid-wing, subsonic or supersonic swept wing
aircraft as

(& &(  0

5.4 Airfoil Selection Criteria

Since Ludwig Prandtl and his colleagues at University of Gottingen took the giant leap in the
analysis of airplane wings by introducing the concept of study of the section of a wing an
airfoil, aerodynamics has never looked back since then. The study of airfoils has been the
fundamental key in the genesis of general theories of lift. The classical (thin airfoil) theory and
modern (vortex panel method) theory have relied heavily upon aerodynamic characteristics of
airfoils. The birth of powered flight, the successful flight of the Wright Brothers` airplane, was
also the result of the development of early wing sections based upon extensive wind tunnel
testing. From 1884, when Horatio F. Phillips developed the first patented airfoil shapes, to the

late 1920`s, airfoils were mostly customized. The pioneer in the development of generic airfoils
was NACA, headed by talented aerodynamicists such as Eastman Jacobs, began on the quest of
meticulous testing of airfoils and assimilation of aerodynamic data through extensive wind
tunnel tests. The result was four NACA series of airfoils: the 4-digit, 5-digit, 6-digit and 7-digit
series of airfoils.

Fig. 5.2: Airfoil Nomenclature

The NACA series of airfoils are defined by two basic parameters, in addition to other features as
shown in fig. 5.1:
i.Mean camber line, the locus of the midpoints between the upper and lower surfaces measured
perpendicular to the mean camber line itself
ii.Thickness distribution,the thickness along the chord, which is the distance between the upper
and lower surface measured perpendicular to the chord line
Combining both of which, any airfoil profile, cambered or symmetric, is derived. The systematic
modification of these two parameters to obtain the desired pressure distribution resulted in the
NACA series of airfoils, which exist today.

NACA designated the series of airfoils with a logical numbering system on the basis of the
airfoil geometry. Here, we shall discuss about the numbering system of the NACA 6-digit series
airfoil, as we have chosen this particular series for airfoil selection later. The NACA 6-digit

series airfoils are designated by six-digit number usually and sometimes followed by a statement
showing the type of mean camber line used. For example, the following airfoil NACA 653-218
denotes that the first digit,"6", stands for the series designation; the 2nd digit,"5", indicates the
point of minimum pressure in tenths of chord from the leading edge; the 3rd digit as subscript,
"3", gives the extent of the lift coefficient in tenths above and below the design lift coefficient5,
where favorable pressure gradients exist on both surfaces; the 4th digit trailing the dash, "2",
gives the design lift coefficient in tenths; the 5th and 6th digits together, "18", express the
maximum thickness as percentage of chord.

5.4.1 Design Lift Coefficient, Cl,des

For the airfoil selection, the design lift coefficient is fundamental to airfoil selection as it makes
the task of an aircraft designer easier by supplying a figure that decides the optimum lift
coefficient of the airfoil for which the lift-to-drag ratio is maximum. Here, we choose the design
lift coefficient by considering conditions at cruise.

From reference, we assume data as follows

L=Wcruise= 36500 kgf = 358065 N (Refer the Appendix for calculations)
Vcruise= Vcos = 218.33 cos 20=205.16 m/s (Choosing =20o as subsonic cruise sweep angle)
Assuming wing loading , W/S = 342 kg/m2 from ref. 1, we have
Reference Area, S= W/(W/S)= 36500/342 =106.725 m2
We know, that CL is given by the formula,

 

(5.17)


  


Now, the 3D design lift coefficient, can be calculated as,

 
5


8.JF-8.F F8.-


= 0.3458

Design Lift Coefficient is the lift coefficient at the point in the drag polar of an airfoil where the L/D ratio is
maximum or alternatively it is also described as the theoretical lift coefficient for an airfoil such that the angle of
attack is such that the slope of the camber line at the leading edge is parallel to the freestream velocity.(Ref. 2)

And the 2D design lift coefficient is calculated by the formula,

8.J

 
*0 = 
* -8

,=4*  0.4
Hence, an airfoil with a design lift coefficient of 0.4 from NACA 6-digit airfoil series shall be
chosen. The NACA 64-XXX/64AXXX series of airfoils were specially designed for producing
laminar boundary layer over a larger stretch of the airfoil. From the 2nd digit, it is evident that
laminar flow is preserved till 40% chord from the leading edge.

5.3.2 Critical Mach Number, Mcr

As discussed thoroughly in the initial chapters, the concept of swept wings was an outcome of
the effort to increase the critical Mach number, Mcr of the wing section. The NACA Report TN824 presents a exhaustive compilation of airfoil data, including plots of Critical Mach number,
Mcr versus the low-speed section lift coefficient. The analysis of various plots (refer fig. 4.3)
revealed that the NACA 6-series airfoil sections showed considerably high critical Mach number
than the NACA 24-, 44- and 230-series airfoil sections.

Fig. 5.3: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 0006, 0009 and
0012(left) and for NACA 1408, 1410 and 1412(right)

Fig 5.4: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 2412, 2415, 2418,
2421 and 2224(left) and for NACA 4412, 4415, 4418, 4421 and 4424(right)

Fig 5.5:Critical Mach number,Mcrvs. section lift coefficient, clfor NACA 23012, 23015, 23018, 23021 and
23024(left) and for NACA 63-XXX series(right)

It was also noted that the Critical Mach number peaked near the design lift coefficient. It can also
be noticed that the Mcrdecreases with increasing thickness. Hence, we infer low-thickness airfoils
provide the maximum Mcr. This also reveals that the design lift coefficient needs to be in the
favorable range i.e. where Mcr is sufficiently high.

Fig 5.6:Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 64-006, 64-009, 64l012, 642-015, 643-018 and 644-021 and for NACA 64-108, 64-110 and 641-112(right)

Fig 5.7: Critical Mach number, Mcr vs. section lift coefficient, cl for NACA 64-XXX series
A study of the Critical Mach number characteristics of NACA 64-XXX series airfoils reveals
that this series of airfoils shows a considerably higher Mcr than other NACA airfoils.
Interestingly the NACA 64-2XX shows higher Mcr range as compared to the NACA 64-4XX.
Also to be noted is that with increasing design lift coefficient/camber the Mcr decreases. We also
see that in the case of NACA 64-XXX series airfoils, the maximum critical mach numbers were:

Table 5.1: Maximum Critical Mach numbers for NACA 64-XXX series

Airfoil

Mcr,max

64-0XX

0.82

64-2XX

0.79

64-4XX

0.70

5.4.3 Stalling Angle, stall

Due to excessive sweep, the spanwise component of flow over the wing increases the tip loading.
Moreover, for a wing using the same airfoil throughout, at high angles of attack, the tip stalls
first before the root, the pilot loses control and the wing control surfaces such as ailerons become
ineffective. This problem of tip stall can be averted by choosing different airfoils at the root
and tip such that the root stalls first and the stall is much gradual.
In this case, the control surfaces are still effective and the wake from the stalled root induces
vibrations in the horizontal tail indicating the pilot that stall is imminent. Hence, another prime
consideration during airfoil selection is the prevention of tip stall by incorporating aerodynamic
twist. Using different airfoils at root and tip, it can be assured that the root of the wing stalls first
as compared to the tip.Again, we refer to the NACA Report TN-824 which contains aerodynamic
characteristics like lift curve and drag polar.

Fig 5.8: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 0006(left) and NACA 0009(right)

Analyzing the graphs for the NACA 0006 and NACA 0009 airfoils, we observe that the stalling
angle increases. The NACA 0006 airfoil stalls at near about 9 degrees while the NACA 0009
airfoils stalls near about 11 degrees.6

Fig 5.9: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 1410 and NACA 1412

Similarly comparing the NACA 1410 and 1412 airfoils, we see that the former stalls at 14 deg
and the latter at 15 deg. This brings us to the conclusion that the general trend is that stalling
angle increases with thickness.

Comparing the variation of stalling angle with thickness for the NACA 641-XXX series, we have

For Reynolds Number, Re= 6 x 106

Table 5.2 : Stalling angle for various NACA 641-XXX airfoils

Airfoil

stall(deg)

641-012

10

641-112

10

641-212

11

641-412

12

Here, we notice that the general trend is that the stalling angle increases with camber or design
lift coefficient.

Fig 4.10: Lift and moment characteristics of NACA 64A210 and NACA 64A410

Now, comparing the stalling angles for the NACA 64A- series, this is the modified version of the
64- series, without a cusp having a flatter trailing edge.

Table 5.3 : Stalling angle for various NACA 64AXXX airfoils

Airfoil

stall(deg)

64A210

10

64A410

11

5.5 Final Airfoil Selection

5.5.1 NACA 64-XXX series vs NACA 64A-XXX series

The NACA 64-A series airfoils are preferred here over the traditional NACA 64-XXX series
although the latter has less average thickness which translates to a greater Mcr. The 64- series are
very thin near the trailing edge which is a major problem in structural design and fabrication.
With the trailing edge cusp removed, the NACA 64A- series have more straight sides from
roughly 80% chord to the trailing edge and with a mean camber line of 0.8, it has superior
aerodynamics as compared to the other mean lines used. Hence, the NACA 64A-XXX is the
airfoil series chosen.

5.5.2Airfoil (at root)

The 64A series is an extremely popular airfoil used in modern fighter jets since its
development for favorable laminar flow up to 40% chord. The character A indicates a
modification where the back slope of the airfoil is straight and the trailing edge is thick, this
delays separation further backward. We have chosen the NACA 64A210 airfoil at the root which
has a the point of minimum pressure at 40% chord from the leading edge with a design lift
coefficient of 0.4 which was calculated and a thickness of 10% chord. Having a stalling angle of
about 10 degrees, the root will stall first in case the wing stalls. Hence, allowing for greater
control and stability of the aircraft.

NACA 64A210

Fig. 5.11: NACA 64A210 airfoil profile

5.5.3Airfoil at tip
We have chosen the NACA 64A410 airfoil for the tip. The design lift coefficient of 0.4 means
increased camber and a higher angle of attack at 11 degrees which is our main objective to
prevent tip stall. The same thickness of 10% of chord shall be maintained
maintained to obtain a high critical
Mach number. As mentioned, airfoils of different thickness at root and tip have been
incorporated to prevent tip stall.

NACA 64A410

Fig. 5.12: NACA 64A410 airfoil profile

5.6 Complete Wing Design

For complete wing design, interpolation is carried out at different locations along the span. The
airfoil/spline interpolation7 was done using the airfoil design software XFLR5 based on the
XFoil open-source code project.

Fig. 5.13: Interpolated airfoils modeled on SolidWorks CAD software

All the interpolated foils are given in the Appendix for further references

Fig. 5.14: Side view of wing (from tip)

The final wing design was created on the SolidWorks 2010 CAD software using theLofted
Boss/Basefeature.

Fig. 5.15: Lofted wing model rendered on SolidWorks CAD software (unswept configuration)

6. Performance Curves

6.1 Introduction
The aerodynamics of aircraft can be vividly described using a set of performance curves that are
essential for studying the performance and design of any aircraft. The various performance
curves that are plotted are as follows:
But since the objective of this minor project is the study of the performance envelope of a
variable sweep wing, we will also study the variation of different parameters with respect to the
sweep angle, .
1. 2D lift Curve: Sectional Lift Coefficient, Clvs angle of attack,
2. 3D Lift Curve: Wing Lift Coefficient CLvs. angle of attack,

3. Drag Polar: Total Drag coefficient CDvs. Lift Coefficient CL

4. Oswald Efficiency factor, e with sweep angle,

5. Drag Polar: Drag coefficient, CDvs. Lift Coefficient, CL

6. Subsonic and Supersonic Lift Curve Slope, Cl vs Mach number, M
7. Taper Ratio, vs. Sweep Angle,
8. Aspect Ratio, AR versus Sweep Angle,

6.2 2D lift Curve: Sectional Lift Coefficient, Cl vs. angle of attack,

2D Lift Curve
1.2
NACA 64A210(root)
NACA 64A410(tip)

2D/Section Lift Coefficient, Cl

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
-5

5
Angle of attack,

10

tip stall

15

Fig 6.1: Plot of sectional lift coefficient versus angle of attack

This performance curve is the primary indicator of the variation of sectional lift with respect to
the angle of attack. Here, the properties of the root and tip airfoils are plotted from which the
difference in stall due to incorporation of aerodynamic twist is clearly indicated.

6.3 3D Lift Curve : Wing Lift Coefficient, CL vs. Angle of attack,

The 3D lift coefficient was obtained by the transformation :

CL=CL.cos2

(6.1)

Here, we observe that with sweep angle, the 3D lift coefficient reduces gradually. It can be seen
that at =70o, the value of lift coefficient is almost zero, which highlights the disadvantage of
sweep, reduction in lift.

3D Lift Curve
1.6
1.4
1.2

Wing Lift Coefficient, CL

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

=0
=5
=10
=15
=20
=25
=30
=35
=40
=45
=50
=55
=60
=65
=70

0
-0.2
-0.4
-5

10

15

20

Angle of attack,

Fig 6.2: Plot of wing lift coefficient versus angle of attack for different sweep angles

6.4. Drag Polar: Total Drag coefficient, CD vs Lift Coefficient, CL

For estimating total drag, we have the formula

 
=,
5 7
-

(6.2)

where Cd,o is the zero-lift parasite drag

kCL2is the induced drag

i. Parasite Drag Estimation

According to ref. 1, parasite drag can be estimated from the formula

=,

4 `V

(6.3)

jVn

where Cfe is the Equivalent Skin friction number

From ref.1 , table 12.3, Cfe=0.040 for a Navy fighter aircraft
Hence, we have

=,

97.125
 0.040
106.725

=,
 0.0364
ii. Induced drag estimation

From Prandtls Lifting Line Theory, we know that

7  O4PQ
where AR is the aspect ratio
e is Oswald efficiency factor

(6.4)

From ref. 1, eqn. 12.5, for swept-wing aircraft, we have the equation for theoretical Oswald
efficiency factor as

e = 4.61(1 - 0.045A0.68) (Cos )0.15- 3.1

(6.5)

Variation of 'e' with different sweep angles

1

0.9

Ostwald's Efficiency Factor

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

10

20

30
40
Sweep Angle,

50

60

70

Fig. 6.3: Variation of Oswald Efficiency factor with sweep angle

It can be clearly seen that the span efficiency factor, which decreases with increasing sweep
angle. Now, for different values of sweep, the drag polar is plotted for different sweep angles as
follows:

Drag Polar
0.35

=0
=5
=10
=15
=20
=25
=30
=35
=40
=45
=50
=55
=60
=65
=70

0.3

0.25

0.2
CD
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2
0
0.2
Lift Coefficient, CL

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 6.4: Drag Polar : Plot of CD vs. CL for different angles of attack
Figure 6.4 shows the variation of CD versus CLi.e.thedrag polar is plotted as a function for
different sweep angles in degrees, which shows that that sweep angle, the total drag increases
first gradually and then suddenly, i.e. the phenomenon of drag divergence is seen.

6.5 Subsonic and Supersonic Lift Curve Slope, vs Mach number, M

The subsonic lift curve is given by the formula,

K,*i*
; 

-O

FG

(6.6)

The supersonic lift curve is dictated by the equation,

K,*iC4*
; 

(6.7)

 GF

Cl vs M
9

Cl

0.5

1.5

2.5
3
Mach Number, M

3.5

4.5

Fig. 6.5: Subsonic and Supersonic Lift Curve Slope Cl versus Mach number

6.6 Taper Ratio, vs. Sweep Angle,

The variation of the taper ratio with respect to the sweep angle was calculated using the
formula,

8.J

 

(6.6)

Figure 6.6 shows the plot of equation (6.6), which shows that the effective taper ratio that the
freestream sees at the tip increases with sweep angle effectively, rising to 1.17 at full sweep of
70o from the leading edge.

Taper Ratio, vs. Sweep Angle,

1.3

1.2

1.1

Effective taper Ratio,

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

10

20

30
40
Leading Edge Sweep Angle,

50

Fig. 6.6: Variation of Taper Ratio with Sweep Angle

60

70

6.7 Aspect Ratio, AR versus Sweep Angle,

r'   3.74795 u- 90 9 9 16.7

(6.7)

The aspect ratio of the swept wing is governed by the equation (6.7), which has been plotted in
figure 6.7. It is clear from the plot that aspect ratio clearly decreases rapidly with increasing
sweep angle.
Aspect Ratio, AR vs Sweep Angle,
3.5

Aspect Ratio, AR

2.5

1.5

0.5

10

20

30
40
Sweep Angle,

50

60

Fig. 6.7: Variation of Aspect Ratio with Sweep Angle

*Note: All the above performance curves have been plotted using the MATLAB 7 software

70

7. Effects of Variable Sweep

7.1 Mission objectives demanding variable sweep

In the 1960s, a blend of 3 major mission objectives generated a lot of interest in the variable
sweep concept:
1. Long-range subsonic cruise or long-endurance loiter on station
2. High-supersonic interception and transonic low-altitude strike
3. Operation from limited-length runways or aircraft carriers

7.2 Efficient subsonic cruise and loiter

Fig. 7.1: Variation of (L/D)max with Mach number ; variation of span loading(W/b2) with leading
edge sweep for F-14

A characteristic of variable sweep is efficient subsonic cruise and loiter. A good subsonic
performance requires minimum sweep as can be seen from figure 7.1 that the maximum ratio
(L/D) decreases with sweep angle and also with progressing Mach number. Thus for good
subsonic performance, a high-aspect ratio wing of relatively thick section along with a low span
loading which results in low vortex drag. Also from figure 7.2, zero-lift parasite drag increases

with decreasing sweep (line indicating drag rise). But such a configuration cannot be considered
as supersonic or even transonic. Hence, variable sweep provides an answer in the form of
maximum wing span and thus aspect ratio at low angles of sweep.(Whitford, 1987)

Fig 7.2: Variation of zero-lift parasite drag with Mach number for different sweep angles for the
F-14

7.3 Cruise efficiency

Fig. 7.3: Variation of range parameter (ML/D) versus Mach number for different sweep
configurations

The cruise efficiency can be best represented by the range parameter that is the product of the
Mach number and L/D ratio. Figure 7.3 shows the plot of range parameter versus the Mach
number for sweep configurations. It is evident that minimum sweep provides the best cruising
efficiency at subsonic speeds as ML/D reaches a maximum value near 0.7 and then decreases.
While maximum sweep increases the point of maximum L/D to higher Mach numbers
(M=2.0).This suggests another advantage of variable sweep in that minimum sweep can be used
for subsonic cruise/flight while increasing sweep angle beyond subsonic speeds increases cruise
efficiency substantially. We see an application of this in the F-111 which 26o sweep for subsonic
cruise and 45o sweep for supersonic cruise.Given the fact that cruise range is long enough, the
improved aerodynamic efficiency can offset the structural weight penalty, reduced fuel volume
and higher cost. Thus, variable sweep can be vindicated on this argument itself.

7.4 Supersonic Efficiency

Fig 7.4 : Wing thickness comparison for various aircraft

At supersonic cruise, the wings are fully swept back at 70o, so that the leading edge of the wings
can remain inside the mach cone to reduce wave drag. Thus, the lift is spread over a wider chord
which reduces lift-dependent drag. Figure 7.4 shows the comparison of thickness of the wing
sections at the extremes of wing sweep for F-14 with those of the F-4 and Mig-21.

Fig. 7.5 : Plot of drag/weight(D/W), thrust/weight(T/W) ratio against Mach number for the F-14
and F-15
Figure 7.5 clearly asserts the advantage of variable sweep. The F-14 (swept at 68o) because of its
greater sweepback has a substantially lower drag/weight ratio than that of the F-15, which is
fixed at 45o sweep. This enables the F-14 to match the top speed of the F-15 inspite of having a
25% lower thrust/weight ratio.

7.5 Take-off and landing performance

Fig. 7.6: Influence of sweep and speed on ride quality

Figure 7.6 shows the variation of maximum lift with sweep angle. For thin unflapped wings,
maximum lift coefficient increases slightly with sweep. While for thin wings with flaps and slats,
CLmax reduces slightly. For thick wings with flaps and slats, CLmax decreases with quarter-chord
sweep. Flap effectiveness decreases with sweepback, since the hinge line also sweeps. Variable
sweep benefits from the use of thicker sections, which allows for very effective flaps and slats.

Also, with its reduced landing speed due to variable sweep, there is a valuable safety margin as
the stopping distance and chances of accident decrease. The F-14 at 20o sweep has a carrier
approach speed of 213 km/h as compared with the 239 km/h of the F-4.(Whitford, 1987)

7.6 Excessive Longitudinal Stability

In the 1950s, work on Bell X-5 revealed that when wings are rotated aft about a fixed pivot point
located inside the fuselage the aerodynamic centre moved significantly aft in relation to the
centre of gravity. In this case, the wing`s CG also moves aft but since the wing`s contribution to

weight is small, its effect on whole-aircraft CG is minimal. The result is an excess of longitudinal
stability which increases the static margin that increases the downwards force at the tail for
balancing. This thereby increases lift-dependent drag and interference.

Fig. 7.7: Effect of pivot position on aerodynamic loading about the longitudinal axis (X)
Also a further aft movement of the aerodynamic centre occurs when accelerating through the
transonic regime. This causes an additional increase in longitudinal stability which must be
handled if a variable-sweep wing is to have adequate supersonic maneuverability. But variable
sweep does ease the problem since the sweep can be controlled. Thus the major obstacle in
variable sweep design was that adequate stability at low-sweep meant excessive stability at
increased sweep. To solve this issue, in 1952, NACA came up with a practical solution to the
variable sweep problem an outboard wing pivot. This solution suggested that instead of the
whole wing being translated only a portion of it could be moved such that the travel of center of
lift caused due to sweep did not present excessive stability issues.

Figure 7.8 and 7.9 show the comparison of the inboard and outboard pivot. Also shown is the
distribution of aerodynamic loading along the length of the aircraft.(Whitford, 1987)

Fig. 7.8: Pivot and apex influence on longitudinal stability (Source: Design for Air Combat,
Whitford)

Fig. 7.9: Influence of pivot position on wing span and area (Source: Design for Air Combat,
Whitford)

8. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis

8.1 Introduction to CFD
Computational Fluid Dynamics, popularly abbreviated as CFD, is a well-established and proven
method or tool for simulating and studying fluid flows in the subjects involving fluid, heat and
mass transfer in different conditions. CFD basically works by solving the governing equations of
fluid dynamics, the Navier-Stokes equations, a coupled system of nonlinear partial differential
equations, numerically as they are very difficult to solve analytically, with the help of specific
boundary conditions. Hence, CFD helps engineers find an approximate and nearly accurate
solution to the governing equation for a range of fluid flow problems.

Fig 8.1: The complete Navier-Stokes equations for a 3-D unsteady incompressible flow (Source:
NASA Glenn Research Center)

There are several CFD codes existing in the market which use different numerical techniques for
solving the governing equations. Numerical methods used in CFD include
i. Finite-Difference Method
ii. Finite-Volume Method
iii. Finite Element Method
Commercially available CFD codes use finite-volume method or finite-element method.
CFD is quite popular as an analysis tool in the industry due to its cost-effectiveness over physical
testing methods such as wind tunnel tests. Also, in the specific case of wind tunnels, CFD score
far better in terms of simulating the correct environment which is difficult to replicate in a wind
tunnel and are also better in terms of accuracy as compared to wind tunnel test results. Hence,
CFD analysis is an important part of this minor project and its results shall serve as the primary
yardstick. An example of the application of CFD is shown in figure 8.2 which shows the surface
pressure distribution over the lower surface of the space shuttle at Mach 15.

Fig. 8.2: CFD simulation showing surface pressure coefficient distribution over the lower surface
of the space shuttle at Mach 15 (Source: NASA Ames Research Center)

8.2 Purpose
The purpose of this CFD analysis is to determine the effects of variable sweep by analyzing the
flow around a basic hypothetical fighter aircraft model at different sweep configurations to
establish the advantages and disadvantages of this feature. As the flow around swept wing is a 3D phenomenon in itself, a 3-D analysis was deemed necessary for this purpose. A 3-D analysis
will ideally throw light on many other parameters as compared to a 2-D analysis but would
require more computing time and resources. Also, this CFD study would provide a strong
background support for the ensuing wind tunnel tests that shall corroborate the results from this
study.

8.3 Approach
Since the main aim of this CFD study was to analyze the flow around the aircraft at various
sweep configurations, the basic approach towards it was to perform a 3-D CFD analysis on a
half-symmetric model of the aircraft at two distinct sweep configurations minimum (takeoff)
sweep configuration and cruise sweep configuration.

To model a problem in CFD, the basic procedural steps to be followed were followed:
1. Define the modeling goals and create a model
2. Create a mesh for the model
3. Setup the solver and physical models (define boundary conditions)
4. Compute and monitor the solution
5. Examine and save the results
6. Consider revisions to the numerical or physical parameters, if necessary

The complete geometry was for this study was defined & modeled in SolidWorks 2010. The
mesh was generated using GAMBIT 2.4 and FLUENT 6.3 was the solver employed in this CFD
study
8.3.1 Modeling
From the work carried out during the previous semester on airfoil selection & wing design, a
hypothetical fighter aircraft was conceptualized as the base case model/prototype for the ensuing
study. The model was completely created using SolidWorks 2010 (a 3D CAD software from
Dassault Systemes) to require as simple geometry definitions as possible so as to reduce the
amount of geometry cleanup required in GAMBIT without compromising on the wing design.
The geometry could have alternatively been defined in GAMBIT as well but SolidWorks as
preference was assigned to modeling the geometry in a 3D CAD environment with which the
author is well versed. As mentioned earlier that two sweep configurations were to be tested and
therefore two different aircraft models were created.

The aircraft design consists of a basic cylindrical fuselage that tapers to form a conical nose
section. It has a mid-wing configuration with an empennage with a symmetric airfoil section.
The two sweep configurations employed were:
-Minimum (takeoff) sweep configuration (LE=16.7o)
-Cruise sweep configuration (LE=45o)

Fig. 8.3(a) Minimum sweep configuration model Fig. 8.3(b) Cruise sweep configuration model

Figure 8.33 (a) & (b) show the CAD models created for this analysis using SolidWorks. The
geometric model that underwent CFD analysis is a 1:200 scale model
model of the original prototype
whose dimensions (minimum sweep configuration model) are shown in figure 8.4 in a 3-view
projection also created using SolidWorks 2010. It is essential to note here that only the leading
edge sweep has been varied between the m
models
odels and the rest of the geometry is unchanged.

Fig. 8.4 : A 3-view

view drawing of the geometric model along with dimensions

8.3.2 Meshing
GAMBIT is a preprocessing program developed by FLUENT Inc. primarily for generating a
mesh structure for different kinds of geometries and can also be used for geometric modeling as
an alternate to importing CAD models. In this study, GAMBIT 2.4 was used for only mesh
generation as the model was already created in SolidWorks as mentioned earlier.

GAMBIT can be used to mesh lines/edges, surfaces/faces and volumes separately using various
meshing algorithms depending upon the solid modeling approach (top-down
(top down or bottom-top).
bottom
The meshing criteria also depend on whether the geometry is defined in GAMBIT or has been

imported as a CAD model. GAMBIT allows importing and cleaning up external geometry,
amending the model to suppress features that might pose a problem during meshing and
controlling mesh quality. In some cases, like for complicated geometries, the model has to be
decomposed manually into underlying entities before it can be meshed.

In this study, the half-symmetric model was imported into GAMBIT as a STEP file and cleaned
up using the Heal Geometry option during the import itself. To improve geometric
connectivity and duplicate-face issues, the geometry was cleaned up and patched using Clean
Up Tools.

After cleanup, a brick was created around the aircraft as a part of defining a flow volume,
aligned such that the symmetry plane of the aircraft and the symmetry plane of the brick
coincided and are stitched together to form a single virtual face. The bricks high-level geometry
(volume) is deleted leaving behind its low-level geometry (faces) and subsequently stitched to
form a virtual flow volume.

If the mesh characteristics and growth are not controlled, then highly skewed elements might be
formed that can adversely affect numerical computations for the resultant mesh. Hence to tackle
such problems, GAMBIT features an option called Size Functions that can be used to specify
the rate at which volume mesh elements change in size in proximity to a specified boundary.
For this reason, two types of size functions were created and attached to control the mesh sizes in
the regions adjacent to the airplane geometry surfaces. These size functions were defined as
follows:

1.sfunc1: Type : Fixed | Parameters: Start size:0.3 | Growth size:1.3 | Max. size:5
applied to all edges (not part of the symmetry face)
2. sfunc2: Type : Curvature | Parameters: Angle : 20 | Growth size:1.3 | Max. size:5 |
Min. size : 0.001
applied to all faces of the aircraft

The aircraft surface mesh was created with the following sheme:
Type: Face Mesh | Element : Tri | Type : Pave | Interval size : 1
When using the Tri-Pave meshing scheme, GAMBIT creates a face mesh consisting of irregular
triangular mesh elements with no restrictions on vertex types and edge mesh intervals as shown
in figure 8.5. (GAMBIT 2.2 Modeling Guide, 2004)

Fig. 8.5: Tri-Pave face meshing scheme example mesh

The resultant mesh that was formed on the aircraft surface is shown in figure 8.6.

Fig. 8.6: Aircraft Surface Mesh

The mesh quality was found to be favorable with maximum number of bars on the left side of the
histogram. For meshing the symmetry face, another size function was applied as follows:
sfunc3: Type : Meshed | Source: Edges | Attachment : Faces | Growth rate:1.3 | Size
limit:75
For source, all the edges bounding the aircraft symmetry face were selected and the flowsymmetry face was selected as the attachment. Subsequently, the Tri-Pave scheme was used
again to mesh the symmetry face as shown in figure 8.7.
Type: Face Mesh | Element : Tri | Type : Pave | Interval size : 1

Fig. 8.7: Symmetry plane mesh

Finally, the flow volume was meshed using the following volume mesh scheme:
Type: Volume Mesh | Element : Tet/Hybrid | Type : TGrid | Interval size : 1
In case of the TGrid volume meshing scheme, GAMBIT creates a mesh that consists primarily of
tetrahedral mesh elements but which may also contain elements that possess other shapes. The
complete mesh along with the resultant volume mesh from the last step is shown in figure 8.8.

Fig. 8.8: Complete Mesh including flow volume

As the next step, boundary conditions were imposed on the geometry in GAMBIT as shown in
figure 8.9 below and as given in table 8.1.

Fig. 8.9: Boundary conditions applied to mesh/geometry

Table 8.1: Boundary Conditions

Face
Front
Back
Top
Bottom
Side (right)
Side(left)
Aircraft Surface

Boundary Condition
Velocity Inlet
Pressure Outlet
Pressure Far Field
Pressure Far Field
Pressure Far Field
Symmetry
Wall(by default)

8.3.3 Solving
8.3.3.1 Introduction to FLUENT
The commercial FLUENT 6.3 solver code was used for solving the cases. FLUENT solves the
integral form of the governing equations for conservation of mass and momentum and
sometimes energy and other scalars such as turbulence and chemical species when required using
a finite-volume discretization process. FLUENT allows for either a 2D or 3D CFD analysis,
which is to be specified at startup.
Also, FLUENT has 2 types of inbuilt solvers: pressure-based solver and density-based solver.
The pressure-based solver was developed for low-speed incompressible flows whereas the
density-based solver was meant for high-speed compressible flows.
In both cases, the velocity field is obtained by solving the momentum equations. In density-based
approach, the continuity equation is used to acquire the density field and the pressure field is
resolved from the equation of state. While in the pressure-based approach, the pressure field is
acquired by solving a pressure or pressure-correction equation which is obtained by manipulating
continuity and momentum equations.
8.3.3.2 Case Setup & Solving
Initially, the case was read and solved using the following analysis scheme:
Version: 3d (single-precision three-dimensional)
Solver: Pressure Based

Formulation: Implicit
Time: Steady
Viscous/Turbulence Model: Standard k-epsilon
Material definition: air | Density: ideal-gas
Inlet velocity: 204 m/s
Flow direction: +z-axis
Solution Controls: Discretization: Pressure:Standard | Density: First Order Upwind
|Momentum: First Order Upwind | Turbulent KE: First Order Upwind | Turbulent Dissipation
Rate: First Order Upwind | Energy: First Order Upwind
Residual Monitors: Convergence Criteria: continuity:1e-6 | x-velocity:1e-6 | y-velocity:1e-6 | zvelocity:1e-6 | energy:1e-6 | k:1e-6 | epsilon:1e-6
On running few iterations (after 23) iterations, a divergence was detected in the temperature
(energy) component in the solver as shown in figure 8.10.

Fig. 8.10: Residuals showing divergence in the solver

After the unsuccessful attempt using the pressure-based solver, the case was re-read and now
analyzed through a density-based solver/approach at a higher inlet velocity, revised to 250 m/s to
neutralize the compressibility warning.

The model was re-run under a new analysis scheme described as follows:
Version: 3d (single-precision three-dimensional)
Solver: Density Based
Formulation: Implicit
Time: Steady
Viscous/Turbulence Model: Standard k-epsilon
Material definition: air | Density: ideal-gas
Inlet velocity: 250 m/s
Flow direction: +z-axis
Solution Controls: Discretization: Pressure: Standard | Density: First Order Upwind
|Momentum: First Order Upwind | Turbulent KE: First Order Upwind | Turbulent Dissipation
Rate: First Order Upwind | Energy: First Order Upwind
Residual Monitors: Convergence Criteria: continuity: 1e-6 | x-velocity: 1e-6 | y-velocity: 1e-6 |
z-velocity: 1e-6 | energy: 1e-6 | k: 1e-6 | epsilon: 1e-6

The above analysis scheme was applied to each of the two models on two nodes/machines, one
at the CAD Lab and the other on Prof. Dr. Guvens personal node/machine dedicated to CFD
analysis. First, the minimum sweep configuration was analyzed in FLUENT 6.3.Initially, the
residuals were monitored for first 200+ iterations to ascertain the rate of convergence primarily
rather than convergence itself. The scaled residuals are shown in figure 8.11. The k and epsilon
residuals showed a favorable rate of convergence with a gradual decreasing slope while the
continuity, x-,y-,z- velocity residuals are seen to be oscillating indicating aspects of turbulence.

The iterations were continued up to 1000 and monitored continuously to ascertain the
convergence levels. Figure 8.12
8.12 shows the scaled residuals for 1000 iterations. After 1000
iterations, itt was clear that the mesh was stable and that the results were going to converge, from
the gradual slope of all 6 residual parameters.

Fig. 8.11: Scaled residuals for 200+ iterations

Fig. 8.12: Scaled residuals for 1000 iterations

After monitoring the residuals for 1000 iterations, the case was run for 2000 iterations before
finally extracting the results. Figure 8.13 shows the scaled residuals for the minimum sweep
configuration case for 2000 iterations.

Fig. 8.13: Scaled residuals for 2000 iterations (minimum sweep configuration)

From the residuals, it can be observed that although all the residuals did not converge for the
absolute criteria of 1e-6 but all the parameters did stabilize to a suitable residual level which was
acceptable for the extracting results. The small amplitude oscillation seen after 1400 iterations
could be attributed to flutter, arguably.

The cruise sweep configuration was also analyzed under the same density-based approach with
standard k-epsilon turbulence model on FLUENT 6.3. Figure 8.14 shows the scaled residuals for
1000 iterations.

Fig. 8.14: Scaled residuals for 1000 iterations (cruise sweep configuration)

The cruise sweep model after 1000 iterations also exhibited similar residual convergence
characteristics as the minimum sweep model with a much stable and uniform rate of convergence
for all 6 parameters till 1000 iterations as can be seen from figure 8.14.

Following a favorable picture of the rate of convergence after 1000 iterations, the model was
iterated for 1000 more iterations. Figure 8.15 shows the scaled residuals for 2000 iterations for
the cruise sweep configuration model. From the figure, it can be inferred that the all the 6
parameters have stabilized to a suitable residual level.

Only the k and epsilon residuals converged below 1e-6 while the continuity, x-velocity, yvelocity and z-velocity residuals converged between a range of 1e-3 and 1e-5, which was
deemed accurate enough to move ahead with postprocessing. Again visible over here, the
extremely small amplitude oscillations suggest evidence of some sort of flutter.

Fig. 8.15: Scaled residuals for 2000 iterations (cruise sweep configuration)

8.4 Postprocessing/Results
The most crucial phase of a CFD analysis is the postprocessing phase which represents the art of
presenting results in an intelligible and meaningful manner. The FLUENT Getting Started Guide
defines postprocessing as the act of analyzing the numerical results of a CFD simulation using
reports, integrals and graphical analysis tools such as contour plots, animations etc. In this minor
project, results have been primarily displayed using contour plots.

8.4.1 Lift Coefficient, Cl

The lift coefficient is the dimensionless measure of the amount of lift, the pressure force
generated by the flow around the body in the direction normal to the flow direction, generally
upwards. It is a function of the bodys angle of attack and Reynolds number. The Force Reports
option in Monitors in FLUENT allows computation of forces along a specified vector for
selected wall zones.

Fig. 8.16(a): Cl convergence history of minimum sweep configuration model

Figure 8.16(a) and (b) shows a combination of images showing the Cl convergence history of the
minimum sweep configuration (top) and cruise sweep configuration (bottom).

Fig. 8.16(b): Cl convergence history of cruise sweep configuration model

8.4.2. Drag coefficient, Cd

The drag coefficient is also a dimensionless quantity that indicates the degree of drag, the
pressure & viscous force that acts in the direction opposite to the motion of the body through the
flow, opposing its forward motion. The drag coefficient is also a function of the angle of attack
and Reynolds number of the flow. Figure 8.17(a) and (b) shows a combination of images
showing the Cdconvergence history of the minimum sweep configuration (top) and cruise sweep
configuration (bottom).

Fig. 8.17: Cd convergence history of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration

8.4.3 Static pressure contours

Static pressure is defined as that pressure which is experienced by an object in flow only due to
the random motion of the gas molecules hitting the surface of the body. The static pressure of a
flow decreases with velocity and altitude as well. Figure 8.18 shows a combination of the static
pressure contours over the wall i.e. aircraft surface for each case.

Fig. 8.18: Static pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration

8.4.4 Dynamic pressure contours

Dynamic pressure is the pressure of the flow associated with the velocity of the flow or by virtue
of velocity. Hence, by definition, the dynamic pressure will be high in the flow field where
velocity is high and vice versa. Figure 8.19 shows a combination of the dynamic pressure
contours over the wall i.e. aircraft surface for each case.

Fig. 8.19: Dynamic pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration

8.4.5 Total Pressure Contours

Total pressure is the sum of static and dynamic pressure at any point in the flow. Total pressure
can also roughly describe the total pressure energy of the flow which can be used to ascertain
pressure losses if any in the flow field due to various possible reasons.Figure 8.20 shows a
combination of the total pressure contours over the wall i.e. aircraft surface for each case.

Fig. 8.20: Total pressure contours of minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration

8.4.6 Wall shear stress contours

Wall shear stress represented by tau is defined by the normal velocity gradient at the wall in
accordance with Newtons law of viscosity. In FLUENT, for the k-epsilon viscous model, wall
shear stress is calculated using standard wall functions as suggested by Launders and Spalding.
Figure 8.21 shows a combination of wall shear stress contours over the surface for each case.

Fig. 8.21: Wall shear stress contours for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep configuration

8.4.7 Turbulent Kinetic Energy(k)

Turbulent Kinetic Energy, represented by k (the k in k-epsilon turbulence model) in FLUENT
defined as the turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass. It is a field variable that allows the user to
gauge the degree of turbulence at selected wall zones. Figure 8.22 shows a combination of
turbulent kinetic energy contours over the surface for each case.

Fig. 8.22: Turbulent kinetic energy contours for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom) sweep
configuration

8.4.8 Symmetry Plane Mach number contours

The flow field in the symmetry plane is a vivid description of the flow around the body as it
describes the velocity field around the body in the plane parallel to the flow direction where the
pressure forces such lift and drag are dominant. Hence, the symmetry plane flow field provides
an apt visualization for the overall flow around the aircraft. Figure 8.23 shows a combination of
Mach number contours over the symmetry plane for each case.

Fig. 8.23: Mach number contours at the symmetry plane for minimum (top) and cruise (bottom)
sweep configuration

8.5 Result Comparison & Conclusions

8.5.1. Lift Coefficient, Cl
From figures 8.16(a) and (b), it is clear that the lift coefficient decreases with increase in sweep
angle in accordance with the theoretical data. From the force monitors, we come to know that the
exact Cl values are 10.441917 and 8.8122301 respectively for the minimum sweep configuration
and the cruise sweep configuration respectively that registers a 15.60% decrease in Cl for a
sweep angle variation of 28.3o.

Decrement in lift is one of the drawbacks of sweep back as investigated which has now been
verified using CFD simulation absolutely.

8.5.2. Drag Coefficient, Cd

From figure 8.17 that compares Cd convergence history, it is clear that the drag coefficient also
decreases with increase in sweep angle in agreement with the theoretical data. From the force
monitors, we come to know that the exact Cd values are 0.93477567 and 0.78591169 for the
minimum sweep configuration and the cruise sweep configuration respectively that establishes a
15.92% decrease in Cd for a sweep angle variation of 28.3o.
Sweep back was originally devised for reduction in drag only and this result only reaffirms this
advantage of variable sweep reduction in drag with increase in sweep angle.

8.5.3 Static Pressure Contours

From the static pressure contours from figure 8.18, the flow stagnation at the leading edge is
fairly obvious. As stated, the static pressure decreases with increased velocity, this is evident
over the wing where a low static pressure region formed over the top surface which is lower in
case of the higher sweep back possibly indicating minor lift generation as compared to the
minimum sweep configuration.

This result fairly validates the reduction in lift corroborating the reduction in lift coefficient.

8.5.4 Dynamic Pressure Contours

The dynamic pressure contours in figure 8.19 again exhibit the flow stagnation at the leading
edge, an insignificant issue. As mentioned earlier, dynamic pressure increases with velocity
which is apparent from the contours over the top wing surface where the flow accelerates. But, it
can be observed that the incident region is smaller in case of the cruise sweep configuration i.e.
at increased sweep angles lift produced is less.

This reiterates the significant finding of reduced lift generation at higher sweep back angles for
the same speed and angle of attack.

8.5.5 Total Pressure Contours

The total pressure contours from figure 8.20 indicates an almost uniform total pressure over the
whole aircraft surface except at the trailing edges of the wings

and the tail plane and engine

exhaust where the total pressure decreases slightly. This might be due to viscous losses or
possibly due to flow separation near the trailing edges. Also visible is a small region of low total
pressure on the wing tip which is perhaps an indicator of a wing tip vortex.

Total pressure decrease near the trailing edges is almost same in magnitude/colour from both the
cases inducing no such major conclusion.

8.5.6 Wall shear stress contours

The wall shear stress contours from figure 8.21 explicitly indicates the reduced shear stress
magnitude at the leading edge in case of higher sweep configuration.

This is a strong indicator of the advantage of variable sweep that at higher sweep angles shear
stress experienced by the leading edge is less in comparison to that experienced by the wing
leading edge in case of lower sweep.

8.5.7 Turbulent kinetic energy (k) contours

The turbulent kinetic energy contours from figure 8.22 unambiguously indicates lower level of
turbulence at and near the leading edge at higher sweep angles as compared to lower sweep
configuration.

This is again an indicator of the advantage of variable sweep at higher sweep angles. Lower
turbulence levels lead to a smoother and more stable flight.

8.5.8 Mach number contours

The Mach number contours at the symmetry plane from figure 8.23 shows a lower pressure
envelope at higher sweep indicating reduced lift. Also, the pressure drag created behind the
fuselage is reduced.

This result endorses the fact that at higher sweep angles both lift and drag reduce for aircraft
flying at the same velocity and angle of attack.

9. Wind Tunnel Tests

Wind Tunnel tests have been the benchmark for conducting aerodynamic research from the
outset. Recently, computational fluid dynamics analysis has started to displace wind tunnel from
the research scenario but hasnt completely done so yet. Wind tunnel tests are still used to
validate CFD studies and form results and conclusions on the basis of this corroboration.

9.1 UPES Wind Tunnel Setup

The wind tunnel test was performed in the UPES 50 cm X 50 cm low-speed subsonic wind
tunnel at the Aerodynamics lab facility in the university.The wind tunnel has a maximum speed
of 50 m/s and is a suction type, open-circuit wind tunnel that is powered by a medium-sized fan
run by a variable frequency drive. The wind tunnel is equipped with a test section 1metre long
which has a electronic strain gauge setup connected to a computer controlled display panel for
monitoring lift and drag measurements. It also includes a physical setup consisting of pressure
probes and a pitot-tube connected to a series of differential manometers for pressure
measurements. The aerodynamics lab is also equipped with a smoke generator for flow
visualization purposes.

9.2 Wind tunnel model

For wind tunnel testing, a 1:50 scale model was prepared in the aero-modeling & fabrication lab
facility as per the restrictions imposed by the width of the test section and not in accordance with
dynamic similarity as per the Reynolds number. The model is a half-symmetric scale model that
consists of a root and tip airfoil made of hardwood of scaled dimensions of 10 cm and 4cm chord
length respectively. These have been connected by a single spar and 2 supporting spars at the
leading and trailing edges to provide the exact profile and shape. To provide a mechanism for
changing the sweep angle, a sleeve was constructed with screw holes for two different sweep
configurations that can be secured by a nut and screw assembly. Figures 9.1 and 9.2 show actual
images of the scale model during the setup in the wind tunnel.

Fig. 9.1: Front view of model in wind tunnel Fig. 9.2: Top view of model setup in wind tunnel

9.3 Wind Tunnel Test Parameters & Results

For the wind tunnel test, the model was decided to be tested at two different sweep
configurations: minimum sweep and cruise sweep configurations at two angles of attack, one at
zero degrees and the other at 15 degrees. The tests were conducted at three different velocities:
10 m/s, 15 m/s and 20 m/s. The velocities were restricted to low speeds due to the presence of
high intensity vibrations at elevated speeds.

9.3.1 Test Readings & Observations

Table 9.1:Test Run1 Data

o

Sweep Angle, = 16.7 (minimum sweep configuration)

Angle of Attack, = 0o
Velocity, V(m/s)

Lift, L (kgf)

Drag, D (kgf)

Lift Coefficient, Cl

Drag Coefficient,Cd

10

0.04

0.03

0.2255

0.1691

15

0.08

0.08

0.2005

0.2005

20

0.15

0.15

0.2114

0.2114

Table 9.2: Test Run 2 Data

o

Sweep Angle, = 16.7 (minimum sweep configuration)

Angle of Attack, = 15o
Velocity, V(m/s)

Lift, L (kgf)

Drag, D (kgf)

Lift Coefficient, Cl

Drag Coefficient,Cd

10

0.09

0.05

0.5075

0.2819

15

0.19

0.10

0.4762

0.2506

20

0.32

0.18

0.4511

0.2537

Table 9.3: Test Run 3 Data

Sweep Angle, = 45o (cruise sweep configuration)
Angle of Attack, = 0o
Velocity, V(m/s)

Lift, L (kgf)

Drag, D (kgf)

Lift Coefficient, Cl

Drag Coefficient,Cd

10

0.02

0.04

0.11279

0.2255

15

0.04

0.07

0.10026

0.1754

20

0.10

0.15

0.1409

0.2115

Table 9.4: Test Run 4 Data

o

Sweep Angle, = 45 (minimum sweep configuration)

Angle of Attack, = 15o

Velocity, V(m/s)

Lift, L (kgf)

Drag, D (kgf)

Lift Coefficient, Cl

Drag Coefficient,Cd

10

0.07

0.04

0.3947

0.2255

15

0.16

0.09

0.4010

0.2256

20

0.30

0.18

0.4229

0.2537

A smoke visualization test was also conducted using fog fluid released from a smoke generator
which was useful in determining the flow visualization around the wing.

9.4 Results & Conclusions

From the above test data, it is very clear that with increase in sweep angle,
-there is a decrease in the lift generated and so is the case with the lift coefficient.
-decrease in drag produced as well which is also apparently the same trend shown by the
drag coefficient.
This clearly validates the findings from the CFD analysis which have been corroborated hence.

10. Recommendations
The following recommendations can be made from the pursued CFD analysis of a hypothetical
fighter aircraft model at two different sweep configurations (minimum and cruise):

For phases of flight that require high lift viz. take-off and climb the minimum sweep
configuration is recommended for maximum lift generation.

For phases of flight that require lesser lift in comparison like cruise or loiter a higher
sweep angle configuration is recommended.

In all cases, for experiencing less shear stress on the leading edge greater sweepback is
recommended always.

In all cases of flight, any velocity or angle of attack, greater sweep back will provide less
drag and hence is recommended for reducing drag specifically at high speeds to delay
drag divergence.

Due to lack of adequate resources in terms of wind tunnel facilities and computational
resources, this study could not be further verified with the required degree of accuracy.
Hence, it is hereby recommended that this study be further pursued with greater quality
resources to validate the results.

11. Working Mechanism

11.1 Introduction
The working mechanism for this minor project is the highlight of this minor project which
articulates engineering aptitude and caliber involved in designing an original working
mechanism that can change the sweep angle of the wings of an aircraft symmetric
symmetrically. As
decided last semester, the working mechanism constructed is a slider-linkage-rail
slider
based
mechanism that incorporates linear reciprocating sliding motion and a reciprocating curvilinear
motion through an original-design,
design, as shown in figure 11.1.

.1: Schematic diagram of initially proposed mechanism

Fig. 11.1:

11.2 Working
With the ultimate objective of the mechanism being to change the sweep angle of a wing, a
mechanism was sketched that would somehow try to rotate or translate the wing over a guided
curve or about an axis. This mechanism does exactly that by converting linear reciprocating
motion of the slider to a curvilinear reciprocating motion of a pair of roller mounted on the ends
of two link rods sitting on two curves on either side. The other end of the link rods are connected
to a slider that is connected to the slider on a central axis. At the bottom dead centre, the position
of the slider is at the lowermost point on the central axis and the rollers are on the ends of the
curves on the inside. When the slider moves upwards, the link rods connected to the roller guided
by the curves will slide upward and the link rods also translate along the curve. If a wing is
mounted on this link rod, then the translation of the link rod upward shall bring about a change in
sweep backwards. Conversely, if the slider moves downwards, the link rods connected to the
roller guided by the curves will slide down and the link rods become straight as they travel
decreasing the sweep angle.

11.3 Initial Design & Construction

To ascertain the exact profile of the curve that the rollers ought to be guided by, a complex
drawing was constructed using SolidWorks CAD software as shown in figure 11.2.
Starting with an initial angular deflection of 5o, for every 2 cm of linear deflection along the
central line (slider path), an angular deflection of 7o was decided upon. Hence, a maximum
angular deflection of 75o from the central axis, a stroke length of 20 cm (10 divisions of 2cm
each) was calculated and the profile as shown in figure 11.2 was arrived at.This profile ensures
that the rollers guide along the profile exactly as they ought to and not end up getting stuck
anywhere on the curve.

Fig. 11.2: Construction drawing of curve profile for working mechanism

The proposed mechanism was to be powered by some sort of a power-actuating unit, either
hydraulic/electrical). After much consideration, it was decided that an AC electric motor coupled
to a crank that would in turn be linked to a connecting rod would be used to power the sliders
reciprocating motion.

11.4. SolidWorks Simulation

The whole mechanism was constructed as an assembly in SolidWorks CAD software and its
motion simulated to check the working and consistency of the design. Figure 11.3 shows the
screen capture of the animation video of the simulated mechanism design . here, the motor is
replaced by an option called Linear Actuator in SolidWorks that simulates linear reciprocating
motion at the stipulated speed/RPM.

Figure 11.3: Screenshot of the animation showing the simulation of the working mechanism

11.5 Total Cost Estimate

Table 11.1: Final Cost Estimate
Item

Specification
AC Motor

200 RPM

Cost (INR)
1000.00

Screws & Nuts

M5,M6 1.5 & 2 inch long

30.00

Guiding Curve

Hardwood/Carpentry

200.00

Grand Total

1230.00

Bibliography

1. Abbott, Ira H., Albert E. von Doenhoff and Loius S. Stivers,Summary of Airfoil Data, NACA
report TN-824, 1945
2. Anderson J.D Jr., Aircraft Performance and Design, WCB McGraw Hill, Boston, 1999.
3. Anderson, John David. Computational Fluid Dynamics:The Basics With Application,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1995.
4. Anderson J.D Jr., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, 2010.
5. Anderson J.D, Introduction To Flight, 6th ed., Chap. 5, pp 329-333, Tata McGraw Hill, New
Delhi, 2010.
6. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Getting Started Guide, ANSYS Inc., 2009.
7. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Theory Guide, ANSYS Inc., 2009.
8. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Users Guide, ANSYS Inc., 2009.
9. Corke, Thomas C.,Design of Aircraft, Pearson Education, New Delhi, 2003
10. FLUENT 6.3 Getting Started Guide, FLUENT Inc., 2006.
11. FLUENT 6.3 Theory Guide, FLUENT Inc., 2006.
12. FLUENT 6.3 Users Guide, FLUENT Inc., 2006.
13. Loftin, Laurence K. Jr.,Theoretical and Experimental Data for a number of NACA 6A- Series
Airfoil sections, NACA Report No. 903/TN-1368, July 1947.
14. Livchak, Andrew and Zeqiang Sun, Final CFD Analysis and Documentation Report:
Improving Indoor Environmental Quality and Energy Performance of California K-12
Schools, California Energy Commission, June 2004
15. Nielsen, Paul. 3D CFD-Analysis of conceptual bow wings, KTH Center for naval
Architecture report, February 2011
16. Raymer, Daniel P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed., American Institute of
Aeronautics & Astronautics, Reston, 2006.
17. Whitford, Ray,Design for Air Combat, 1st ed., Janes Publishing, London, 1987.
18. Harper, Charles W. and Ralph L. Maki,A Review of the Stall Characteristics of Swept
Wings,NASA Report TN D-2373, July 1964

Appendix
Iterations for calculation of design take-off weight, Wo from Equation 5.2

g8 
g8 

g46 5 gCh
=
1 9

.n
.E

.V

.E

150 5 8000
1 0.1710 2.43g8G8.F

Initial Approximation, W0=35000 kg

Table A.1 : Wo Iteration Counter
Iteration W0(Design take-off
Weight)
1
39670.72
2
37816.69
3
38500.75
4
38241.15
5
38338.64
6
38301.88
7
38315.72
8
38310.51
9
38312.47
10
38311.73
11
38312.01
12
38311.91
13
38311.94
14
38311.93355
15
38311.93355
16
38311.93915
17
38311.93704
18
38311.93783
19
38311.93783
20
38311.93753
21
38311.93764
22
38311.93760
23
38311.93762
24
38311.93761
25
38311.93761(converged)