Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A more practical form of the analytical solution for the effects of geometric and aerodynamic twist (washout) on
the low-Mach-number performance of a finite wing of arbitrary planform is presented. This infinite series solution
is based on Prandtls classical lifting-line theory and the Fourier coefficients are presented in a form that only
depends on wing geometry. The solution shows that geometric and aerodynamic washout do not affect the lift slope
for a wing of any planform shape. This solution also shows that any wing with washout always produces induced
drag at zero lift. Except for the special case of an elliptic planform, washout can be used to reduce the induced drag
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.262
for a wing producing finite lift. A relation describing the optimum spanwise distribution of washout for a wing of
arbitrary planform is presented. If this optimum washout distribution is used, a wing of any planform shape can
be designed for a given lift coefficient to produce induced drag at the same minimum level as an elliptic wing with
the same aspect ratio and no washout.
Nomenclature ticity generated on a finite wing. If the circulation about any section
An = coefficients in the infinite series solution to the of the wing is (z) and the strength of the shed vortex sheet per
lifting-line equation unit span is t (z), as shown in Fig. 1, then Helmholtzs vortex theo-
an = planform contribution to the coefficients in the infinite rem requires that the shed vorticity is related to the bound vorticity
series solution to the lifting-line equation according to
b = wingspan d
bn = washout contribution to the coefficients in the infinite t (z) = (1)
dz
series solution to the lifting-line equation
C Di = induced-drag coefficient For a finite wing with no sweep or dihedral, combining this relation
CL = lift coefficient with the circulation theory of lift produces the fundamental equation
C Ld = design lift coefficient that forms the foundation of Prandtls lifting-line theory:
C L , = wing lift slope b/2
2(z) C L , 1 d
C L , = airfoil section lift slope + d
c = wing section chord length V c(z) 4 V = b/2 z dz z =
RA = wing aspect ratio
RT = wing taper ratio = C L , [(z) L0 (z)] (2)
V = magnitude of the freestream velocity In Eq. (2) and L0 are allowed to vary with the spanwise coor-
z = spanwise coordinate dinate to account for geometric and aerodynamic twist, such as the
= geometric angle of attack relative to the freestream examples shown in Fig. 2. For a given wing design, at a given angle
L0 = airfoil section zero-lift angle of attack of attack and airspeed, the planform shape, airfoil section lift slope,
= spanwise section circulation distribution geometric angle of attack, and zero-lift angle of attack are all known
t = strength of shed vortex sheet per unit span functions of spanwise position. The only unknown in Eq. (2) is the
= washout effectiveness section circulation distribution (z).
= change of variables for the spanwise coordinate An analytical solution to Prandtls lifting-line equation can be
D = planform contribution to the induced-drag factor obtained in terms of a Fourier sine series. From this solution the
DL = lift-washout contribution to the induced-drag factor circulation distribution is given by
Do = optimum induced-drag factor
D = washout contribution to the induced-drag factor
128
PHILLIPS 129
The Fourier coefficients obtained from Eq. (9) are independent of the
angle of attack and only depend on the airfoil section lift slope and
wing planform. Using Eq. (8) in Eqs. (6) and (7), the lift and induced-
drag coefficients for a wing with no geometric or aerodynamic twist
can be written as follows:
C L , ( L0 )
CL = (10)
(1 + C L , / R A )(1 + L )
C L2 (1 + D )
C Di = (11)
RA
where
Fig. 1 Prandtls model for the bound vorticity and trailing vortex sheet
1 (1 + R A /C L , )a1
generated by a finite wing. L = (12)
(1 + R A /C L , )a1
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.262
2
an
D = n (13)
n=2
a1
( L0 )root ( L0 )max (15) This N N system is readily solved for the N Fourier coefficients
and ( ) is the washout distribution normalized with respect to the bn . It should be noted that the matrix obtained for the coefficients
maximum total washout: of bn on the left-hand side of Eq. (21) is exactly the same as that
obtained from Eq. (19) for determination of the Fourier coefficients
( ) L0 () ( L0 )root
( ) (16) an . Thus, this matrix needs to be inverted only once. To obtain the
( L0 )max ( L0 )root planform Fourier coefficients an , the N N inverted matrix is mul-
The normalized washout distribution function ( ) is independent tiplied by an N component column vector with all components set
of angle of attack and varies from 0.0 at the root to 1.0 at the point to 1. Multiplying the same N N inverted matrix by an N compo-
of maximum washout, commonly at the wingtips. nent column vector obtained from the washout distribution function
Using Eq. (14) in Eq. (15) gives yields the Fourier coefficients bn . If both the wing planform and
washout distribution function are spanwise symmetric, all of the
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.262
C L , c( ) even Fourier coefficients in both an and bn will be zero. However,
An 1+n sin(n ) carrying both the odd and even Fourier coefficients and distribut-
n=1
4b sin( )
ing the collocation points over both sides of the wing allows for
C L , c( ) the analysis of asymmetric twist, such as that produced by aileron
= [( L0 )root ()] (17) deflection. With modern tools, the added computational burden is
4b
insignificant.
The Fourier coefficients An in Eq. (17) can be conveniently written Other methods of evaluating the Fourier coefficients5,6 could also
as be used. As was shown by Bertin,9 the different methods give similar
An an ( L0 )root bn (18) accuracy for a given truncation level and produce identical results
when the number of terms carried from the infinite series becomes
where the Fourier coefficients an and bn are obtained from large. The results obtained from the present analysis do not depend
on the method used to evaluate the Fourier coefficients, provided that
4b n a sufficient number of terms are carried. With todays technology,
an + sin(n) = 1 (19)
C L , c() sin() 100 to 1000 terms in the infinite series can be evaluated as fast as
n=1
the result can be written to the screen. Thus, carrying more terms in
4b n the Fourier series is the easiest way to improve accuracy.
bn + sin(n ) = () (20) Using Eq. (18) in Eq. (7), the lift coefficient for a wing with
n=1 C L , c() sin()
washout can be expressed as
Comparing Eq. (19) with Eq. (9), we see that the Fourier coefficients C L = R A A1 = R A [a1 ( L0 )root b1 ] (22)
in Eq. (19) are those corresponding to the solution for a wing of the
same planform shape but without washout. The solution to Eq. (20) Using Eq. (18) in Eq. (7), the induced-drag coefficient is given by
can be obtained in a similar manner and is also independent of angle
of attack.
Truncating the series, the first N Fourier coefficients bn can be C Di = R A n A2n = R A [a1 ( L0 )root b1 ]2
obtained by enforcing Eq. (20) at N different spanwise cross sections n=1
of the wing. With the first and last sections located at the wingtips
and the intermediate sections spaced equally in , this gives the + RA n[an ( L0 )root bn ]2
following system of equations:
n=2
N
4b n or, in view of Eq. (22),
bn + sin(ni ) = (i )
n=1 C L , c(i ) sin(i ) C L2
C Di = + RA n an2 ( L0 )2root
(i 1) RA n=2
i = , i = 1, N
N 1
2an bn ( L0 )root + bn2 2 (23)
After applying the following relations at the wingtips, = 0 and
= , Equations (22) and (23) can be algebraically rearranged to yield
sin(n ) C L = C L , [( L0 )root ] (24)
=n
sin() 0 C L2 (1 + D ) DL C L C L , + D (C L , )2
C Di = (25)
sin(n ) RA
n+1
= (1) n
sin() where
we have C L ,
C L , = R A a1 = (26)
(1 + C L , / R A )(1 + L )
N
bn n 2 = (0)
1 (1 + R A /C L , )a1
n=1 L (27)
(1 + R A /C L , )a1
N
4b n
bn + sin(ni ) = (i ) b1
(28)
n=1 C L , c(i ) sin(i ) a1
PHILLIPS 131
an2 For the case of linear washout, the normalized washout distribution
D n (29) function is
n=2
a12
b1 a n
bn an (z) = |2z/b| or () = | cos()| (37)
DL 2 n (30)
a1 n = 2 a1 b1 a1
Using Eq. (37) in Eq. (36) and applying the trigonometric identity
2
2 sin(2) = 2 sin() cos() yields
b1 bn an
D n (31)
a1 b a1
C L ,
1 /2
n=2 1
bn = sin(2) sin(n) d
Comparing Eqs. (2431) with Eqs. (1013), we see that washout R A + n C L , 0
increases the zero-lift angle of attack for any wing. However, the
lift slope for a wing of arbitrary planform shape is not affected by
sin(2) sin(n) d (38)
washout. Equations (24), (26), and (27) show that the lift slope for a /2
twisted finite wing depends only on the airfoil section lift slope, the
wing aspect ratio, and the first Fourier coefficient in the infinite series The integrals on the right-hand side of Eq. (38) can be evaluated
obtained from Eq. (19). From examination of Eq. (19), it is seen that from
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.262
Fig. 3 Washout contribution to the induced-drag factor for elliptic Fig. 4 The lift slope factor for tapered wings.
wings with linear washout.
DL C Ld
C L , opt = (45)
2 D
Fig. 6 Washout effectiveness for tapered wings with linear washout. form with a fixed washout distribution and optimum total washout
is given by
C L2 2 C Ld C Ld
(C Di )opt = 1 + D DL 2 (46)
RA 4 D CL CL
From Eq. (46) it can be seen that a wing with optimum washout
will always produce less induced drag than a wing with no washout
having the same planform and aspect ratio, provided that the actual
lift coefficient is greater than one-half the design lift coefficient.
When the actual lift coefficient is equal to the design lift coefficient,
the induced-drag coefficient for a wing with optimum washout is
(C Di )opt = C L2 R A (1 + Do ), Do D DL
2
4 D
(47)
There are many possibilities for wing geometry that will satisfy this
condition. The elliptic planform with no geometric or aerodynamic
twist is only one such geometry. Because the local aerodynamic
angle of attack decreases along the span in direct proportion to the
increase in washout, Eq. (48) can only be satisfied if the washout
distribution satisfies the following relation:
c(z)[1 (z)] c()[1 ( )]
= = Const (49)
1 (2z/b)2 sin()
1 (2z/b)2 sin()
(z) = 1 or () = 1 (50) Fig. 11 Washout effectiveness for tapered wings with optimum
c(z)/croot c( )/croot washout distribution.
For wings with linear taper, this gives
1 (2z/b)2
(z) = 1
1 (1 RT )|2z/b|
or
sin()
( ) = 1 (51)
1 (1 RT )| cos()|
This washout distribution is shown in Fig. 10 for several values of
taper ratio. Results obtained for tapered wings with this washout
distribution are presented in Figs. 1113.
When an unswept wing of arbitrary planform has the washout
distribution specified by Eq. (50), the value of Do as defined in
Eq. (47) is always identically zero. With this spanwise washout dis-
tribution and the total washout set according to Eq. (45), an unswept
wing of any planform shape can be designed to operate at a given lift
coefficient with the same minimum induced drag as that produced
by an untwisted elliptic wing with the same aspect ratio and lift
coefficient. This optimum spanwise washout distribution produces
an elliptic spanwise lift distribution, which always results in uni- Fig. 12 Lift-washout contribution to the induced-drag factor for
form downwash over the wingspan and minimum possible induced tapered wings with optimum washout distribution.
drag. For example, a rectangular wing requires an elliptic washout
distribution according to Eq. (51). With this washout distribution,
an aspect ratio of 8.0, and a section lift slope of 2, Eqs. (2931) Similarly, a tapered wing of aspect ratio 8.0 and taper ratio 0.5 results
and (47) give in
D = 0.0676113, DL = 0.1379367
D = 0.0171896, DL = 0.0455690
D = 0.0703526, Do = 0.0000000
D = 0.0302003, Do = 0.0000000
C L , [1 (1 RT )| cos()|]
= (52)
2a1 R A (1 + RT )
bn C L , [1 (1 RT )| cos()|] bn sin(n )
sin(n) + n
n=1
b1 2R A (1 + RT ) n=1
b1 sin( )
C L , [1 sin() (1 RT )| cos()|]
= (53)
Fig. 10 Optimum washout distribution for wings with linear taper. 2b1 R A (1 + RT )
PHILLIPS 135
twist, provided that the total washout is related to the lift coefficient
according to
2(1 + RT )C L
opt = (62)
C L ,
Fig. 13 Washout contribution to the induced-drag factor for tapered used for this figure has an aspect ratio of 8.0 and the rectangular and
wings with optimum washout distribution. tapered wings are both optimized for a design lift coefficient of 0.4.
The rectangular wing requires an elliptic washout distribution with
To evaluate the induced drag for this wing we make use of the Fourier 4.64 deg of total washout at the wingtips. The tapered wing has a
expansions, taper ratio of 0.4 and uses the corresponding washout distribution
shown in Fig. 10, which has 3.25 deg of total washout at the wingtips
2 and maximum washin of 0.81 deg located at approximately 60% of
2
1= 2 sin( ) + sin[(2m + 1) ] (54)
m =1
2m + 1
2 2m + 1 (1)m
| cos( )| = sin( ) + sin[(2m + 1)]
m =1
2m(m + 1)
(55)
sin[(2m 2n 1) ] (57)
Using Eqs. (54) through (57) in Eqs. (52) and (53), the Fourier
coefficients, bn , can be related to the Fourier coefficients, an . The
result is
C L , Fig. 14 Comparison of the induced drag produced by three wings of
a1 (1 a1 ) 2(1 + R )R , for n = 1 aspect ratio 8.0; a rectangular wing and a tapered wing (RT = 0.4), both
T A of which are washout-optimized for a design lift coefficient of 0.4, and
bn =
C L , an elliptic wing without washout.
an 1 + , for n = 1
2(1 + RT )R A (58)
Applying Eq. (58) together with Eqs. (26) and (29) to Eqs. (30)
and (31), we find that a wing with linear taper and the washout
distribution specified by Eq. (51) results in
C L ,
DL = D (59)
(1 + RT )C L ,
2
C L ,
D = D (60)
2(1 + RT )C L ,
Using Eqs. (59) and (60) in Eq. (25), the induced drag for a wing
with linear taper and the optimum washout distribution defined by
Eq. (51) can be written as
2
C L2 D C L ,
C Di = + CL (61)
RA RA 2(1 + RT )
Fig. 15 Comparison of the induced drag produced by three wings of
From Eq. (61), we see that any wing with linear taper and the corre- aspect ratio 4.0; a rectangular wing and a tapered wing (RT = 0.4), both
sponding optimum washout distribution specified by Eq. (51) pro- of which are washout-optimized for a design lift coefficient of 0.4, and
duces the same minimum induced drag as an elliptic wing with no an elliptic wing without washout.
136 PHILLIPS
design lift coefficient of zero. With the wing operating at any other
lift coefficient, washout could be used to reduce the induced drag at
low Mach numbers.
References
1 Prandtl, L., Tragflugel Theorie, Nachricten von der Gesellschaft
der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Ges-chaeftliche Mitteilungen, Klasse,
Germany, 1918, pp. 451477.
2 Prandtl, L., Applications of Modern Hydrodynamics to Aeronautics,
NACA TR-116, June 1921.
3 Glauert, H., The Monoplane Aerofoil, The Elements of Aerofoil
and Airscrew Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1926,
pp. 137155.
4 Multhopp, H., Die Berechnung der Auftriebs Verteilung von
Tragflugeln, Luftfahrtforschung, Vol. 15, No. 14, 1938, pp. 153169.
5 Rasmussen, M. L., and Smith, D. E., Lifting-Line Theory for Arbitrarily
Shaped Wings, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1999, pp. 340348.
6 Lotz, I., Berechnung der Auftriebsverteilung beliebig geformter
Flugel, Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt, Vol. 22, No. 7,
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA - SANTA CRUZ on February 3, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.262
The lifting-line theory predicts that minimum possible induced drag face to Support a Given Distribution of Lift, NACA TN-855, Aug. 1942.
19 Falkner, V. M., The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Sur-
occurs whenever the product of local chord length and local aero-
dynamic angle of attack varies elliptically with the spanwise coor- faces of Any Shape, Reports and Memoranda 1910, Aeronautical Research
dinate. The traditional solution to satisfying this requirement is the Council, London, Aug. 1943.
20 DeYoung, J., and Harper, C. W., Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading
classic elliptic wing, which has a chord length that varies ellipti-
at Subsonic Speeds for Wings Having Arbitrary Plan Form, NACA TR-921,
cally with the spanwise coordinate and constant aerodynamic angle Dec. 1948.
of attack. However, this is only one of many possibilities for wing 21 Stevens, V. I., Theoretical Basic Span Loading Characteristics of
geometry that will satisfy the requirement for minimum possible in- Wings with Arbitrary Sweep, Aspect Ratio and Taper Ratio, NACA TN-
duced drag. Another obvious solution is a wing with constant chord 1772, Dec. 1948.
22 Munk, M. M., On the Distribution of Lift Along the Span of an Airfoil
having a washout distribution that produces an elliptic variation in
aerodynamic angle of attack. By using the more general washout with Displaced Ailerons, NACA TN-195, June 1924.
23 Munk, M. M., A New Relation Between the Induced Yawing Moment
distribution described in Eq. (50), together with the optimum total
washout specified by Eq. (45), a wing of any planform can be made and the Rolling Moment of an Airfoil in Straight Motion, NACA TR-197,
June 1925.
to satisfy the requirement for minimum possible induced drag. 24 Glauert, H., Theoretical Relationships for an Airfoil with Hinged Flap,
Minimizing induced drag using both chord length and washout Reports and Memoranda 1095, Aeronautical Research Council, London,
variation provides greater flexibility than using chord-length varia- July 1927.
tion alone. For example, the stall characteristics of a wing depend on 25 Hartshorn, A. S., Theoretical Relationship for a Wing with Unbalanced
both the planform shape and the washout distribution. By using the Ailerons, Reports and Memoranda 1259, Aeronautical Research Council,
optimum washout distribution, minimum induced drag can be main- London, Oct. 1929.
26 Pearson, H. A., Theoretical Span Loading and Moments of Tapered
tained at the design lift coefficient for any planform shape. Thus, an
additional degree-of-freedom is provided that can be used to help Wings Produced by Aileron Deflection, NACA TN-589, Jan. 1937.
27 Pearson, H. A., Span Load Distribution for Tapered Wings with Partial-
control the stall characteristics or any other measure of performance
Span Flaps, NACA TR-585, Nov. 1937.
that is affected by wing planform and/or washout distribution. 28 Pearson, H. A., and Jones, R. T., Theoretical Stability and Control
From the results presented here, it can be seen that a wing of Characteristics of Wings with Various Amounts of Taper and Twist, NACA
any planform shape having no geometric or aerodynamic twist is TR-635, April 1937.
a special case of a washout-optimized wing. Except for the case 29 Filotas, L. T., Solution of the Lifting Line Equation for Twisted Elliptic
of an elliptic planform, a wing with no washout is optimized for a Wings, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 10, 1971, pp. 835836.