Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

A97-31777
AIAA-97-2320

NACA 5312 IN GROUND EFFECT:

WIND TUNNEL AND PANEL CODE STUDIES

Christoph Hiemcke*
Department of Physics and Engineering Sciences
Loras College
Dubuque, Iowa

ABSTRACT correspondence, photos, drawings, and films to Iowa

Wind tunnel pressure measurements were made
on a NACA 5312 airfoil at various distances from the
ground and at various incidences. Tests were carried
out at a freestream Reynolds number of l.SxlO 6 ,
resulting in turbulent flow over most of the airfoil. The
nondimensionalized trailing edge distance ranged from
0.0 to 0.5, while the incidence ranged from -4 to 16
degrees. The presence of the ground was simulated via
the image method, i.e., by using a pair of symmetrically
opposed airfoils that formed a symmetry plane midway
between them. A numerical method based on constant-
vorticity flat panels was used to assess the usefulness of
panel methods in studying airfoils in ground effect.
Results from the panel code were compared to the
experimental pressure distributions. While the
experimental results were considered reliable, panel
methods were not deemed effective in predicting
pressure distributions and aerodynamic coefficients for
airfoils operating at various incidences and various
ground distances. Computational methods must model
the presence of boundary layers on the airfoil and on
the ground.
State University. The author pre-sorted and packed the
materials in the presence of Mrs. Lippisch. He then
organized them further at the university between 1990
and 1992.2
Lippisch, known as the "Father of the Delta-
Wing", became interested in the ground effect while
working on a speed boat used as an avionics testing
platform at Collins Radio (now Rockwell Collins) in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa.3'4 His first ground effect aircraft,
the X-112, flew in 1963.5 His second and third
"Aerofoil-Boats", the X-113Am (Ref. 6) and the X-
114, were designed and built in collaboration with
Rhein-Flugzeugbau (RFB) in Germany. RFB has since
been bought and, more recently, dissolved, but
Lippisch's work has been carried on by Hanno Fischer
of RFB and, via contract, by the Connecticut-based
Flarecraft Corporation.7 8

INTRODUCTION

The motivation for the research leading to this

paper arose from the author's establishment of the
Alexander Martin Lippisch Manuscript Collection.1
Fig. 1 Aerolev train.
Shortly before her death in 1991, Dr. Lippisch's wife,
Gertrude, donated her husband's papers, notes,
Inspired by Lippisch's work, the author decided to
focus his doctoral research on the ground effect.9 Just
* Assistant Professor, Member AIAA
as Lippisch did initially, the author searched for a
Copyright © 1997 by Christoph Hiemcke. peaceful application of the ground effect. This resulted
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics in the idea of an aerodynamically suspended public
and Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
829
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
transportation system. This "AeroLev" train differs
from other designs10"13 in that the wing-fuselage
combination wraps around the T-track (see Fig. 1).
In this design, the wings make use of the entire
width of the track, and wingtip circulation is minimized
due to the presence of the wing supports protruding
vertically from the fuselages. Furthermore, the risk of
derailment is minimal.
The author felt that the first step in the design of
this Aerolev train needed to be a full understanding of
airfoils at various ground distances and various
incidences. Even though much experimental research
had been carried out on airfoils in ground effect, a
comprehensive set of data for airfoils at numerous
attitudes did not appear to exist (see Refs. 14-17, for
example; for an extensive bibliography, see Ref. 9).
Only two researchers have measured pressure
distributions on airfoils in ground effect.16'18 Ground
pressure distributions beneath airfoils have been
recorded twice.19'20 Pressure distributions on finite
wings near the ground have been measured in five
cases.21"24'18 The present research was conducted to
obtain pressure distributions for an airfoil at various
ground distances and various incidences.
PRELIMINARY PANEL CODE STUDIES
The first step in the present research was to write
a panel code that could be used to choose an
appropriate airfoil shape for the wind tunnel model.
Panel methods have been used in the past to study
the aerodynamic ground effect. Giesing applied the
Douglas-Neumann Method to an airfoil in ground
effect in 1968.25 A boundary layer integral method and
a trailing edge separation displacement model were
added by Steinbach in 1978.20-26 Other researchers
made use of panel methods for this problem.27"29
The panel code used for the present research was
based on constant-vorticity, flat panels; this method is
particularly well described in Ref. 30 (pp. 327-330).
The presence of the ground was simulated by using two
symmetrically opposed airfoils that formed a flow
symmetry plane halfway between them (see Fig. 2).
This method is known as the image method.31-32
830
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Main
Wing
t Symmetry _ _ _ _{_°i_ _~1_^_-^L °_
2N-2
Image
Wing
Figure 2 Problem geometry
The code was verified by comparison to other
codes and by means of a grid study. 9 It is worth noting
that this panel method requires the use of an internal
no-slip boundary condition instead of the familiar
external tangency condition. This helpful fact is
pointed out in Ref. 30, and it is due to the fact that the
self-induced effect of each panel is zero at the panel's
midpoint. This results in an influence coefficient
matrix with a zero diagonal.
The trailing edge Kutta condition was
approximated in two ways. Initially, the customary
method of equating the constant vortex panel strengths
of the two panels adjacent to the trailing edge, y, = - yn,
was used. Later, in an effort to improve the match
between computational and experimental results, an
adjustable Kutta panel was appended downstream of
the trailing edge. Tangency was enforced at the
midpoint of that panel.
The present panel code was used to numerically
analyze a number of NACA airfoils with regard to their
pressure distributions at various ground distances. The
goal was to maximize lift, to maintain a thickness of at
least ten percent of chord to provide structural integrity,
and to avoid large pressure gradients that might induce
flow separation. Figure 3 shows the pressure
distributions for three NACA airfoils with a trailing
edge ground clearance of h/c = 0.1 and with a lift
coefficient of 1.5. Each airfoil was represented by 100
panels. The reason for the unusual data point at the
center of the bottom surface is that the boundary
condition there was replaced with the Kutta trailing
edge condition. In the case of Fig. 3, the location of
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
maximum camber varies, with the NACA 5312
displaying the most moderate pressure gradients. The
effects of thickness and camber magnitude on pressure
distributions were also studied. The process resulted in
the selection of the NACA 5312 airfoil.
0.2 0.4 0.6
Chordwise Coord., x/c
Fig. 3 Pressure distributions for NACA airfoils
atc,=1.5, h/c = 0.1
WIND TUNNEL MODEL & TEST FACILITY
The experimental model consisted of two
identically-shaped prismatic wings that were mounted
in an open-ended (non-recirculating) wind-tunnel
belonging to the Department of Aerospace Engineering
and Engineering Mechanics of Iowa State University.
The two "infinite" wings had NACA 5312 sections and
contacted both side walls of the wind tunnel. The
dimensions of the test section were 15 inches (width),
74 inches (height), and 8 feet 2 inches (length),
approximately. The two wings were aligned in such a
way as to create a flow symmetry plane halfway
between them, in conformity with the image method
employed in the numerical method. With a chordlength
of 19 inches and a freestream velocity of approximately
200 feet per second, the Reynolds number was l.SxlO 6 .
The boundary layers were therefore mostly turbulent,
properly modeling the full-scale wings of the AeroLev
train. The top wing consisted of seven wooden
segments and one center aluminum section. The center
831
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
section featured 79 pressure taps (0 0.2") along its
perimeter. The bottom wing was very similar in
construction and had nine pressure taps that were used
to verify the symmetry of the flow. Plastic tubes
connected the pressure taps to two 48-channel
Scanivalve pressure transducers that communicated
with a personal computer. A Pilot tube was used to
measure freestream conditions and was connected to a
differential pressure transducer that also served as the
calibration transducer for the data acquisition system.
Each wing had a circular main spar that penetrated
a vertical slot in one of the wind tunnel's side walls.
These main spars could be rotated to change the
incidences of the two wings, and they were secured to
the traversing mechanism by means of set screws. The
crank-powered vertical traversing mechanism allowed
for easy adjustment of the distance between the trailing
edges (see Figure 4).
The experimental procedure consisted of
obtaining ambient atmospheric pressure and
temperature readings, adjusting the two wings'
positions and incidences, starting the wind tunnel, and
instructing the computer to step through all of the
Scanivalves' channels. A computer program translated
the counts from the Scanivalves into pressure
coefficients. Scanivalve readings were at one point
verified using a water manometer board.9
Slider
Main Wing
Block
Main
Spar
Image
Wing
Crank Driving
Threaded Rod'
Fig. 4 Wind tunnel model.
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

EXPERIMENTAL ERROR SOURCES incidences and trailing edge clearances were only
accurate to within 0.2° and 0.1 inches, respectively.
The success of the image method depends on the The 0.2° error in the incidence corresponds to a
symmetry of the flow. The symmetry was verified 1.1 percent error in the lift coefficient. The 0.1 inch
when pressure measurements on both wings yielded error in the ground clearance corresponds to a 1.0
identical values.9 The image method itself is a major percent error in the lift coefficient. This value is based
weakness of this experiment. The symmetry plane on the experimental finding that the variation in lift
formed between the two wings lacks the boundary layer coefficient with ground clearance ratio (h/c) is -2.4 near
that is present on the stationary ground under a moving the design condition (see Fig. 6).
wing. The experiment thus did not properly model the Another source of error was the presence of the
physical situation of a wing in ground effect. The wind tunnel's upper and lower walls. This problem
method is particularly unsuitable for small ground was more pronounced in this case since there were two
clearances since the boundary layers' thicknesses wings in the test section.
become relatively more important in those cases. After taking into consideration the above, together
When the ground clearance ratio is 0.1 and the with additional factors such as possible equipment
incidence is six degrees, the thickness of the turbulent errors and wind gusts, the overall experimental error is
boundary layer near the ground is approximately approximated at five percent, resulting in high
0.016c. Such a boundary layer would effectively confidence in the experimental findings.
increase the incidence by 0.63 degrees, and result in a
2.8 percent increase in the lift coefficient. This
C-.^i
conclusion is based on experimental values of c, a, and
c, which were 0.055 (per degree) and 1.24 near the * i ! o Experiment
design condition (see Fig. 5). The design condition (a i ; I K Panel Code
2 | * : : : :
= 6°; h/c = 0.1) was chosen to keep the vehicle clear of
i X \ \ \ \
small ground obstacles and to avoid stalls. o
O
i * i i '•
6 • ' : ' : ]
• o : •• :
1.5
2.5 ': 0 I I I i
i i * i i i
i ? * * * * * * * *
2| i i 0 ? : !
Q

.I
1.5 O.t101 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
a> TE Ground Clearance Ratio
S
' 0.5
Isolated (panel code) i Fig. 6NACA5312, a = 6°,
0.1 Ground Clearance i(panel) c, versus trailing edge ground clearance ratio.
0 « Isolated (experiment) i
* 0.1 Ground Clearance ;(exp.)
-0.5,
0 5 10 15 20
Inclination (degrees) EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Fig. 5 NACA 5312, lift curves.
An additional experimental error was that there
was some play in the wings' structural support system
and the traversing mechanism. As a result, the
Data obtained from the wind tunnel model with
the NACA 5312 section are in the form of pressure
distributions. All data shown here correspond to a
Reynolds number of l.SxlO 6 . Figure 7 shows
experimental results for the airfoil at various trailing

832
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

edge ground clearance ratios and at a constant incidence, the flow underneath it is retarded. Indeed,
incidence of six degrees. The lift coefficients are 1.11 the underbody flow approaches stagnation as the
(experimental result for the wing with a large ground trailing edge ground clearance ratio drops below 0.02.
clearance ratio), 1.07, 1.10, 1.24, 1.36, 1.48, 1.52, 1.57, This phenomenon is known as the "ram effect",
and 1.59. Ref. 9 includes similar plots for incidences since the oncoming air is rammed under the wing, finds
of-4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16 degrees. no escape, and is thus forced to come to a halt. Descent
toward the ground also results in a modest retardation
of the flow over the top of the airfoil. Since the
o h/c = large * h/c = 0.4 + h/c = 0.2 retardation of the underbody flow is much more
x h/c = 0.1 o h/c = 0.05 * h/c = 0.03 pronounced than that over the top, the result is an
+ h/c = 0.02 x h/c = 0.01 o h/c = 0 increase in lift (see Fig. 6). To document the
importance of the low-speed underbody flow, the ratio
of the lift contribution from the bottom surface to that
from the top surface was computed for the case of a 6°
incidence. For the isolated airfoil, the ratio is 0.15, so
13% of the lift is due to the underbody flow. When the
airfoil is at h/c=0.1, the ratio is 0.8, so that 44% of the
lift is due to the underbody flow. Finally, when
h/c=0.01 the ratio rises to 1.55, indicating that 61% of
the lift is due to the underbody flow.

™mxxx x x»c xx * x ;
< i>3p<»OOO o 600 00 (P O : O ° O

-1.5,
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Chordwise Coord., x/c
o Qdeg. exp.)
Gomp:)
* 6deg. exp.)
Fig. 7 Experimental pressure distributions at various 6deg. comp.)
o (exp:)
ground clearances, NACA 5312, a = 6°. O — I2deg (comp.)
»> 1
ID

Fig. 8 represents the wing at various incidences,

and with a constant trailing edge ground clearance ratio
of 0.1. The lift coefficients are 0.39 (experimental
result for the wing at 0° incidence), 0.62 (panel code 0.2 04 0.6 0.8
result for the wing at 0° incidence), 1.24, 1.66, 1.54, Chordwise Coord., x/c
and 2.27. Ref. 9 includes similar plots for ground
clearance ratios of 0.0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2,
and 0.4. Fig. 8 Pressure distributions at various incidences,
NACA 5312, h/c = 0.1.

THE AERODYNAMIC GROUND EFFECT

When the incidence is near or below zero, the
The experimental pressure distributions (Fig. 7) underbody flow initially accelerates very strongly to
indicate that as the airfoil nears the ground at moderate squeeze under the leading edge. This leading edge low
833
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
pressure region beneath the wing dominates the flow
for large negative incidences and results in a negative
overall lift. Beyond the leading edge, the flow quickly
decelerates and continues at a velocity near that of the
freestream.
At large incidences, proximity to the ground
encourages flow separation. At a 12 degree incidence,
the flow is attached as long as the trailing edge ground
clearance is above 0.02, approximately. When the
wing descends further, the flow separates from the top
surface at approximately 40 percent of chord. The
reason might be that less fluid is able to pass between
the wing and the ground. This "excess" fluid must pass
over the top at high velocities, causing a pressure peak
followed by a high pressure gradient that encourages
separation. Despite this separation, the lift coefficient
remains near the freestream value because of the high
pressure generated by the nearly stagnant underbody
flow.
PANEL CODE RESULTS
The same panel code developed to select the
shape of the experimental airfoil was used to assess
whether ideal fluid theory is an appropriate tool for
modeling an airfoil near the ground. Numerical results
differed significantly from experimental ones,
particularly near the trailing edges and between the two
wings (see Fig. 9). Grid studies revealed that using 50
to 200 panels per airfoil yielded practically identical
results.
Figure 9 shows that the agreement between
experimental and panel code results was better when
the incidence was matched than when lift coefficients
were matched. The experimental lift coefficient was
1.24, while the panel code lift coefficient at the same
incidence was 1.66. To match the experimental lift
coefficient, an incidence of 3.05° had to be used for the
panel code. The discrepancy between the experimental
and numerical lift coefficients was 25%, which
corresponds to experience with panel codes (see Ref.
33, p. 61, for example).
Because of the disagreement between
experimental and computational results, the customary
834
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
trailing edge Kutta condition was replaced with
an adjustable Kutta panel downstream of, and adjacent
to, the trailing edge. The logic was that the presence of
the ground was likely to bend the wake upwards. It
was hoped that as the orientation of the Kutta panel was
adjusted, the leading edge stagnation point would move
to provide a better match between experimental and
panel code results. Initially, the size of the Kutta panel
was the same as that of the panel adjacent to the trailing
edge; its length was 0.00046c. A tangency condition
was enforced at the midpoint of the Kutta panel. The
results remained within 2% of those based on the
classical Kutta condition.
Classical
ame Lift
xperirrient
— Kutta Pane
-1
0.2 04 0.6
Chordwise Coord., x/c
Fig. 9 Pressure distributions, NACA 5312,
a = 6°,h/c = 0.1,
comparison of experiment and panel code.
When the size of the adjustable Kutta panel was
increased, the procedure still did not yield satisfactory
results. In the case of Fig. 9, the length of the Kutta
panel was O.Olc, and it was rotated down 3.0° from the
global horizontal. The lift coefficient was 1.56.
Computational pressure distributions formed a fishtail
shape at the trailing edge (see Fig. 9), a phenomenon
also described in Ref. 33 (p. 61/2). In the case of the
classical Kutta condition, a stagnation point is
essentially placed at the trailing edge; the pressure
coefficient is always tending to negative unity there. In
the case of the adjustable Kutta panel, large and
unequal tangential velocities result near the trailing
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
edge, despite the fact that tangency is enforced just
downstream.
The conclusion reached was that the turbulent
boundary layers near the airfoil and near the ground
significantly impact the flow behavior. Any numerical
model that is to properly simulate the flow, and that is
to be used to optimize the airfoil shape, needs to model
those boundary layers. Work in this area has already
been carried out. The Euler equations were solved by
Deese and Agrarwal34 in 1986, and the compressible
flow equations were used by Morishita and Tezuka35 in
1994. This was followed by the solution of the two-
dimensional, steady, laminar, incompressible Navier-
Stokes equations in 1993.36'37 Turbulent flow was
added in 1996.38
CONCLUSION
The present experimental results are deemed
reliable to within five percent. Computational models
need to include boundary-layer models if they are to be
used for airfoil optimization.
Both experiment and computation were based on
the image method and yielded pressure distributions on
the airfoils, and the ground effect was explained on that
basis. No satisfactory flow visualization or wake
measurements were achieved during the experiment.9
It is still unclear what exactly the flow looks like
between the airfoil and the ground - is there an
underbody recirculating flow region moving with the
wing?
Based on the experimental results, a further
conclusion was that wings near a rigid track can
generate sufficient lift to support a prototype 10,000
pound (44,482 N) AeroLev train at speeds above
91mph (145 km/h) above a six yard (6 meter) wide
track.9 This conclusion is based on the experimental
lift coefficient of 1.24 for the NACA 5312 airfoil at
design condition (a = 6 °; h/c = 0.1).
With sufficient lift available to suspend the
AeroLev train, future research should address the
longitudinal pitch and heave stability of both a single
wing and of a tandem-wing configuration near the
ground, based on the experimental data. Beyond that,
835
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the lift of the airfoil should be optimized using a
refined two-dimensional computational model. This
could be extended to a tandem-airfoil configuration,
and eventually to a three-dimensional computational
model of the entire vehicle and its guideway.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is dedicated to Gertrude and Alexander M.
Lippisch. The author thanks Iowa State University
Professors Jeff Huston, James Iversen, Ganesh
Rajagopalan, Jerald Vogel, and David B. Wilson, as
well as Dr. Nancy Eaton (Dean of the library), for their
support. He also thanks the ISU Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics for
its support and use of its facilities.
REFERENCES
'Iowa State University "The Alexander Martin
Lippisch Manuscript Collection." Department of
Special Collections, 403 Parks Library, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa 50011, telephone (515) 294-
6672.
2
Hiemcke, Christoph "Alexander Lippisch: The
Art of Airplane Design", presented at the 1993
Midwest Junto for the History of Science, Chicago,
April 2-4, 1993.
3
Alexander M. Lippisch Erinnerungen,
Steinebach-Worthsee, West Germany: Luftfahrtverlag
Axel Zuerl( 1976).
4
Alexander M. Lippisch Ein Dreieck Fliegt: Die
Entwicklung der Delta-Flugzeuge bis 1945 Stuttgart,
Germany: Motorbuch Verlag (1976). ISBN 3-87943-
467-0.
5
Lippisch, Alexander M. "Dynamic Air-Cushion
Vehicle - Dr. Lippisch Sends News of a Remarkable
Craft." Flight International, Air-Cushion Vehicles
Supplement (London) (25 June 1964): 80-81.
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

6
Lippisch, Alexander M. "The Aerofoil Boat: A ' 5 Muller, Horst "Stromungsbilder zum
Free-Flying Ram-Wing/Surface Effect Vehicle." in Bodeneinfluss." Forschung auf dem Gebiete des
Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1974-75 Edition, London: Ingenieurwesens Band 10, Heft 5 (Sep/Oct 1939):
Jane's Publishing Company, Ltd., 1975: 368-375. 220-226.

7 16
Cole, Tim "License to Fly." Popular Mechanics Bagley, J. A. The Pressure Distribution on
(July 1989): 57-59, 124-125. Two-Dimensional Wings Near the Ground, Great
Britain Aeronautical Research Council Report and
8
Cameron, Kevin A. "The Boat that Flies." Memorandum ARC R&M 3238 (Feb 1960): 40 pages;
Popular Science (April 1992): 56-60, 111. also Royal Aircraft Establishment Report Aero 2625,
ARC22,060 (Feb 1960): 40 pages.
'Hiemcke, Christoph Design of a Wing Section in
Ground Effect: Application to High Speed Ground '7Hayashi, M., and Endo, E. "Measurement of
Transportation Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Flow Fields Around Airfoil Section with Separation,"
Ph. D. Dissertation (1994). Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci., Vol. 21, No. 52
(1978): 69-75.
'°Widnall, Sheila E. and Timothy M. Barrows An
18
Analytic Solution for Two- and Three-Dimensional Steinbach, Dieter Experimental and Theoretical
Wings in Ground Effect, MIT Fluid Dynamics Research Investigations of the Flow Around Airfoil Systems with
Laboratory Report 69-1 (Jun 1969); also in Journal of Ground Effect prepared at the Institute for Theoretical
Fluid Mechanics Vol. 41, Part 4 (1970): 769-792. Fluid Mechanics at Gottingen, Germany, Report
DFVLR-FB-85-17; also ISSN 0171-1342, NTIS N86-
"Harris, Gordon L. and Gerald R. Seemann "The 10026, Feb 1985: 63 pages.
Terrafoil: A New Concept in High Speed Ground
19
Transportation." High Speed Ground Transportation Curtiss, H.C, Jr. and W. F. Putman
Journal Vol. 4, No. 2 (1970): 197-209. Experimental Investigation of Aerodynamic
Characteristics of a Tracked Ram Air Cushion Vehicle
12
Lehl, Elvest L. and Glen W. Zumwalt "The prepared at Princeton University, U.S.A. for the Office
Airtrain: An Aircraft Technology Ground of the Secretary of Transportation at the Transportation
Transportation System." High Speed Ground Systems Center of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Journal Vol. 8, No. 2 (1974): 11-15. Transportation at M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachusetts,
U.S.A., Interim Report DOT-TSC-OST-78-1; also
"Anonymous "Air-Powered El (Elevated) Train Report DOT-TSC-OST-77-35; also AMS Technical
Would Hit 300 Mph." Popular Mechanics (Mar Report 1318, NTIS N78 24099 or PB-277 674, Jan
1991): 17. 1978.

14 20
Pistolesi, Enrico "Teorie ed Esperienze sul Steinbach, Dieter "Berechnung der Stromung
Problema dell'Ala in Vicinanza del Suolo." mit Ablosung fur Profile und Profilsysteme in
Pubblicazioni della R. Scuola d'lngegneria di Pisa Ser. Bodennahe oder in geschlossenen Kanalen."
VI, no. 261 (July 1935): 1-25; also Ground Effect- Zeitschrift fur Flugwissenschaften und
Theory and Practice, NACA TM 828, June 1937: 40 Weltraumforschung, Jahrgang 2, Heft 5 (Sep./Oct.
pages; also published in L'Aerotecnica Vol. 15 (Apr 1978): 293-305.
1935): 393-418.

836
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
21
Serebrisky, Y. M. and S. A. Biachuev Wind
Tunnel Investigation of the Horizontal Motion of a
Wing Near the Ground, CAHI Report No. 437
(Transactions 437) of the Central Aero-
Hydrodynamical Institute Moscow (1939); also
NACA TM 1095, Sep 1946: 32 pages (English
Translation).
22
Harry, Charles W. Wind Tunnel Investigation of
Ground Effect on a Rectangular Wing of Several
Moderate Aspect Ratios Bureau of Naval Weapons
(BuWeps) Problem Assignment 1-34-52, David W.
Taylor Model Basin (DTMB) Aerodynamics
Laboratory, Washington, B.C., U.S.A., Aero Report
1086, NTIS AD 474 257, Jul 1965: 65 pages.
"Gallington, Roger W., Mark K. Miller and
Woodrow D. Smith "The Ram-Wing Surface Effect
Vehicle: Comparison of One-Dimensional Theory with
Wind Tunnel and Free Flight Results." Hovering Craft
& Hydrofoil Vol. 11, No. 15 (Feb 1972): 10-19; also
Report SRL-TR-71-0012 US Air Force Systems
Command (July 1971).
24
Gallington, Roger W. Ram Wing Surface Effect
Boat AIAA Paper 72-601, 1972: 11 pages.
25
Giesing, Joseph P. Potential Flow About 2-D
Airfoils. Part I, Report LB 31946 of the Long Beach
Division of Douglas Aircraft Co. (May 1968): 152
pages. (NTIS AD 773 524).
26
Steinbach, Dieter and Jacob, K. "Some
Aerodynamic Aspects of Wings near Ground," Trans.
Japan Soc. Aero. Space ScL, Vol. 34, No. 104 (1991):
56-70.
27
Haake, M., G. Kleineidam, R. Staufenbiel, B.
Weckesser, M. Wessels and B. T. Yeh Flugmechani-
nische und aerodynamische Untersuchungen zum Stau-
flugelprinzip prepared at the Lehrstuhl fur Luft- und
Raumfahrt at the RWTH Aachen, Germany, for the
German ministry of defense, Report BMVg-FBWT-79-
4, NTIS N80-17037, Feb 1979: 111 pages.
837
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
28
Masuda, S. and Suzuki, K. "Simulation of
Hydrodynamic Effects of 2-Dimensional WIG Moving
near the Free Surface," Journal of the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Vol. 170 (Dec. 1991): 83-92.
29
Kataoka, K., Ando, J., and Nakatake, K. "Free
Surface Effect on Characteristics of Two-Dimensional
Wing," Transactions of the West-Japan Society of
Naval Architects, No. 83 (March 1991): 21-30.
30
Katz, Joseph and Alien Plotkin Low-Speed
Aerodynamics: From Wing Theory to Panel Methods,
New York: McGraw-Hill (1991). ISBN 0-07-050446-
6.
3
'Betz, Albert "Auftrieb and Widerstand einer
Tragflache in der Nahe einer horizontalen Ebene
(Erdboden) (Mitteilungen aus der Gottinger
Modellversuchsanstalt)." Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik
and Motorluftschiffahrt Jahrgang 3, Heft 17 (14 Sep
1912): 217-220; also The Lift and Drag of a Wing in
Proximity to the Ground, McCook Field Memorandum
Report 167 of the Engineering Division of the Air
Force Air Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A.,
1925 (English Translation).
32
Wieselsberger, Carl. "tiber den
Fliigelwiderstand in der Nahe des Bodens." Zeitschrift
fur Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt (Munchen,
Germany) Heft 10, Jahrgang 12 (31 May 1921): 145-
147; also "Der Einfluss der Erdbodennahe auf den
Fliigelwiderstand." Ergebnisse der Aerodynamischen
Versuchsanstalt zu Gottingen, II. Lieferung. 1923: 41-
42 (Abridged Version); also Wing Resistance Near the
Ground, NACA TM 77, April 1922: 7 pages (English
Translation).
"Abbott, Ira H. and Albert E. von Doenhoff
Theory of Wing Sections, Including a Summary of
Airfoil Data, New York: Dover Publications (1959).
34
Deese, J.E. and R.K. Agarwal Euler Calculation
for Flow over a Wing in Ground Effect, AIAA-86-
1765, sponsored by McDonnell Douglas (1986): 5
pages.
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

35
Morishita, E. and Tezuka, K. "Ground Effect
Calculation of Two-Dimensional Airfoil," Trans. Japan
Soc. Aero. Space ScL, Vol. 36, No. 114 (1994): 270-
280.

36
Hsiun, Chih-Min and Chen, Cha'o-Kuang
"Numerical Calculation and Investigation of
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Two-Dimensional
Wing in Ground Effect," 6th National Conference on
the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineering, Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineering of the Republic of China, Chia-Yi,
Taiwan, ROC (1993): 1-12.

37
Hirata, N. "Simulation on Viscous Flow around
Two-Dimensional Power-Augmented Ram Wing in
Ground Effect," Journal of the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, Vol. 174 (Dec. 1993): 47-54.

38
Hsiun, Chih-Min and Chen, Cha'o-Kuang
"Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Two-Dimensional
Airfoil with Ground Effect," Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
33, No. 2 (March-April 1996): 386-392.

838
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics