Transonic Aerodynamics
Wind Tunnel Testing
Considerations
W.H. Mason
Configuration Aerodynamics Class
Transonic Aerodynamics History
• Pre WWII propeller tip speeds limited airplane speed
– Props did encounter transonic losses
• WWII Fighters started to encounter transonic effects
– Dive speeds revealed loss of control/Mach tuck
• Invention of the jet engine revolutionized airplane design
• Now, supersonic flow occurred over the wing at cruise
• Aerodynamics couldnt be predicted, so was mysterious!
– Wind tunnels didnt produce good data
– Transonic flow is inherently nonlinear, there are no useful
theoretical methods
The Sound Barrier!
The P-38, and X-1 reveal transonic control problems/solutions
Airfoil Example: Transonic Mach Number Effects
• From classical 6 series results
Subsonic design pressures
Lift
Re ≈ 2 Mill
NACA Ames
1 x 3.5 ft 2D WT
6 inch chord foil
From NACA TN 1396, by Donald Graham, Aug. 1947
Drag
Re ≈ 2 Mill
NACA Ames
1 x 3.5 ft 2D WT
6 inch chord foil
From NACA TN 1396, by Donald Graham, Aug. 1947
Pitching Moment: a major problem!
Re ≈ 2 Mill
NACA Ames
1 x 3.5 ft 2D WT
6 inch chord foil
From NACA TN 1396, by Donald Graham, Aug. 1947
Whats going on?
The flow development illustration
From Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators by Hurt
The Testing Problem
• The tunnels would choke, shocks reflected from walls!
• Initial solutions:
– Bumps on the tunnel floor
– Test on an airplane wing in flight
– Rocket and free-fall tests
• At Langley (1946-1948):
– Make the tunnel walls porous: slots
– John Stack and co-workers: the Collier Trophy
• Later at AEDC, Tullahoma, TN:
– Walls with holes!
Wall interference is still an issue - corrections and uncertainty
See Becker The High Speed Frontier for the LaRC tunnel story
Wall Interference Solution 1: Slotted Tunnel
Grumman blow-down pilot of Langley tunnel
Wall Interference Solution 2: Porous Wall
The AEDC 4T, Tullahoma, TN
The Next Problem: Flow Similarity
- particularly critical at transonic speed -
• Reynolds Number (Re)
– To simulate the viscous effects correctly, match the
Reynolds Number
– Usually you cant match the Reynolds number, well
show you why and what aeros do about the problem
• Mach Number (M)
– To match model to full scale compressibility effects, test
at the same Mach number, sub-scale and full scale
Example of the Re Issue: The C-141 Problem
The crux
of the
problem
The Need for developing a High Reynolds Number Transonic WT
Astronautics and Aeronautics, April 1971, pp. 65-70
To Help Match Reynolds Number
– Pressure Tunnels
– Cold Tunnels
• Keeps dynamic pressure reasonable
– Implies acceptable balance forces
– Also reduces tunnel power requirements
– Big Wind Tunnels
– Games with the boundary layer
• Force transition from laminar to turbulent flow: trips
- or a combination of the above -
Example: Oil Flow of a transport wing
showing both the location of the transition
strip and the shock at M = 0.825
Transition strip
Shock Wave
Matching the Reynolds Number?
ρVL
Re =
μ
ρ : density, V: velocity, L : length, μ : viscosity,
Use perfect gas law, and μ = T0.9
γ pML
Re =
R T 1.4
Increase Re by increasing p or L, decreasing T or changing the gas
Balance forces are related to, say, N = qSCL
γ
q = pM 2
2
Reducing T allows Re increase without huge balance forces
- note: q proportional to p, as shown above
AIAA 72-995 or Prog. in Aero. Sciences, Vol. 29, pp. 193-220, 1992
WT vs Flight
Why the National Transonic Facility (NTF) was built
NTF
The Large Second Generation of Cryogenic Tunnels
Astronautics and Aeronautics, October 1971, pp. 38-51
Uses cryogenic nitrogen as the test gas
Trying to match flight Re using cryogenic nitrogen:
The NTF at NASA Langley, Hampton, VA
Feb. 1982
Performance: M = 0.2 to 1.20
PT = 1 to 9 atm
TT = 77° to 350° Kelvin
Cryo effects on fluid properties
Temperature effects on fluid properties
(assuming air as the fluid)
3.0
NTF operating limits NTF at NASA LaRC
M = 0.85
2.5 1 atm pressure
Change in density
2.0
Relative
Value
1.5
1.0 Change in speed
of sound
0.5 Change in viscosity
0.0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200
Stagnation Temperature, deg F
Cryo Effects on Re and q
Temperature effects on Reynolds Number
and test dynamic pressure
5.0
NTF at NASA LaRC
NTF operating limits
M = 0.85
4.0 1 atm pressure
Change in
3.0 Reynolds Number
Relative
Value
2.0
1.0
Change in dynamic pressure
0.0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200
Stagnation Temperature, deg F
Some References
Michael J. Goodyer and Robert A. Kilgore, High-Reynolds-
Number Cryogenic Wind Tunnel,AIAA J., Vol. 11, No. 5,
May 1973, pp. 613-619.
Dennis E. Fuller, Guide for Users of the National Transonic
Facility, NASA TM 83124, July 1981.
Michael J. Goodyer, The Cryogenic Wind Tunnel,Progress
in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 29, pp. 193-220, 1992.
