Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063

NATIONAL

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE-

, FOR AERONAUTICS

,,_,,_,

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL

-.--.

COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR
COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR
COMMITTEE- ” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR

REPORT

1063

” , FOR AERONAUTICS ,,_,,_, - . - - . REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIl%IUMPRESSVRE'DRAG

AIRFOIL

PROFILES FOR MINIl%IUMPRESSVRE'DRAG

AT SUPERSONIC~~ELOCITIES~GEN~RAL

ANALYSIS WITH APPLICATION TO LINEARIZED SUPERSONICFLOW

 

(I

_

 
 

By

DEAN

R.

CHAkMAN

 
 

.

For

sale

by

the

Superintendent

of

Documents.

U.

9.

Govemmont

Printing

Office,

Washington

 

25.

D.

C.

Subscription

price:

 

year;

$1.25

additional

for

foreinn

mailing.

Single

copies

vary

in

price

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Price

20

cents

- ,.

$9.75

a

Single copies vary in price - - - - - - - - Price 20 cents
Single copies vary in price - - - - - - - - Price 20 cents
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED

REPORT 1063

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM SUPERSONIC APPLICATION VELOCITIES-GENERAL TO LINEARIZED

AIRFOIL

PROFILES

FOR

MINIMUM

SUPERSONIC

APPLICATION

VELOCITIES-GENERAL

TO

LINEARIZED

PRESSURE

ANALYSIS

SUPERSONIC

By

DEAN

R.

CHAPMAN

Ames

Aeronautical

Laboratory

Moffett

Field,

Calif.

DRAG

AT

WITH

FLOW

By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
By DEAN R. CHAPMAN Ames Aeronautical Laboratory Moffett Field, Calif. DRAG AT WITH FLOW
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for

National

Advisory

Committee

for

Aeronautics

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Created by act of Congress approved March 3, 1915, for

Created

by

act

of Congress

approved

March

3,

1915, for

the

supervision

and

direction

of the scientific

study

of the problems

of flight

(U.

S. Code,

title

50,

sec.

151).

Its

membership

was

increased

from

12

to

15 by

act

HeaoSpurters,

17.24

F

Street

NW.,

Washington

26,

D.

C.

approved March 2,1929, and to 17 by act approved May 25,1948. The members are appointed by the President,

and serve as such without

compensation.

 

JEROME

C.

HUNSAKER,

SC. D.,

Massachusetts

Institute

of

Technology,

Chairman

 

ALEXANDER

WETMORE,

SC. D.,

Secretary,

Smithsonian

Institution,

Vice

Chairman

DETLEV

W.

BRONK,

PH.

D.,

President,

Johns

Hopkins

Univer-

HON.

DONALD

W.

NYBOP,

Chairman,

Civil

sity.

DONALD

L.

PUTT,

Major

General,

United

JOHN

H.

CASSADY,

Vice

Admiral,

United

States

Navy,

Deputy

Acting

Deputy

Chief

of

Staff

(Development).

Aeronautics

Board.

States

Air

Force,

Chief

EDWARD

of

Naval

U.

Operations.

PH.

CONDON,

Standards.

D.,

Director,

National

Bureau

HON.

JAMES

R.

M.

THOMAS

H.

HAZEN,

W.

DOOLITTLE,

B.

S.

S.,

DAVIS,

Assistant

SC. D.,

Vice

Secretary

President,

Director

of

Engineering,

of

Shell

Allison

Commerce.

Oil

Co.

Division,

General

Motors

Corp.

 

WILLIAM

LITTLEWOOD,

M.

E.,

Smerican

Airlines,

Inc.

 

THEODORE

C.

LONNQUEST,

Rear

Deputy

and

Assistant

Chief

of

Vice

President,

Admiral,

United

the

Bureau

of

Engineering,

States

Navy,

Aeronautics.

HUGH

L.

DRYDEN,

PH.

D.,

Director

of

ARTHUR

E.

RAYMOND,

SC.

D.,

Vice

President,

Douglas

Aircraft

Co.,

Inc.

FRANCIS

W.

REICHELDERFER,

SC.

D.,

Chief,

Engineering,

United

States

Weather

Bureau.

 

GORDON P.

SAVILLE,

Major

General,

United

States

Air

Force,

Deputy

Chief

of

Staff-Development.

 

HON.

ment

WALTER

Board,

G.

WHITMAN,

Department

THEODORE

Cornell

P.

WRIGHT,

University.

SC.

Chairman,

of

Defense.

Vice

D.,

JOHN

F.

VICTORY,

LL.

Research

and

Develop-

President

for

Research,

D.,

Executive

Secretary

JOHN

W.

CROWLEY,

JR.,

HENRY

B.

S.,

Associate

Director

for

J.

E.

REID,

D.

Eng.,

Director,

J.

DEFRANCE,

B.

S.,

Director,

Director,

Lewis

Research

Langley

Ames

Flight

E.

Laboratory,

H.

CHAMBERLIN,

Field,

Va.

Calif.

Cleveland,

Execulive

Aeronautical

Langley

SMITH SHARP, SC. D.,

R.

Aeronautical

Laboratory,

Moffett

Field,

Airport,

EDWARD

Propulsion

Laboratory,

Cleveland

Ohio

Ofleer

 

TECHNICAL

COMMITTEES

 
 

AERODYNAMICS

 

OPERATING

PROBLEMS

 

POWER

PLANTS

FOR AIRCRAFT

INDUSTRY

CONSULTING

AIRCRAFT

CONSTRUCTION

 
 

Coordination

of Research

Needs

of

Military

and

Civil

Aviation

 

Preparation

of Research

Programs

Allocation

of Problems

 

Prevention

of Duplication

Consideration

of Inventions

LANGLEY

AERONAUTICAL

LABORATORY,

AMES

AERONAUTICAL

LABORATORY,

LEWIS

FLIGHT

PROPULSION

LABORATORY,

Langley

Field.

Va.

Moffett

Field,

Calif.

Cleveland

Airport,

Cleveland,

Ohio

Conduct,

under

unified

control,

for

all

agencies,

of scientific

research

on the fundamental

problems

of jlight

 

OFFICE

OF AERONAUTICAL

INTELLIGENCE,

 
 

Washington,

D.

C.

 

Collection,

classi$caGon,

compilation,

and

dissemination

of scientijic

and

technical

information

on aeronautics

 
compilation, and dissemination of scientijic and technical information on aeronautics   II

5

i

_,-

,.,1

REPORT

1063

5 i _ , - ,.,1 REPORT 1063 AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM PRESSURE DRAG AT SUPERSONIC

AIRFOIL

PROFILES

FOR

MINIMUM

PRESSURE

DRAG

AT

SUPERSONIC

VELOCITIES-GENERAL

ANALYSIS

WITH

APPLICATION

TO

LINEARlZED

SUPERSONIC

FLOW

1

By

DEAN

R.

CHAPMAN

TO LINEARlZED SUPERSONIC FLOW 1 By DEAN R. CHAPMAN SUMMARY A theoretical inuestigation   is made

SUMMARY

A

theoretical

inuestigation

 

is

made

of the air:foil

projile

for

minimum

pressure

drag

at

zero lift

in

supersonic$ow.

 

In

the

Jirst

part

of

the

report

a ge,neral

method

is

developed *for

calcu-

lating

the

pro$le

having

 

the

least

pressure

drag

for

a

given

auxiliary

condition,

such

as a given

structural

requirement

 

or

a

given

thickness

ratio.

The

various

structural

requireme&

con-

sidered include

bendiny

sttength,

bend&g

stitfness,

totsional

 

strength,

and

torsional

stijfness.

No

assumption

 

is

made

regarding

the

trailing-edge

thickness;

the

optimum

value

 

is

determined

 

in

the calculations

as a function

of the base pressure.

To

illustrate

the general

method,

the optimum

airfoil,

de$ned

as the airfoil

having

minimum

pressure

drag for

a given

auxil-

iary

condition,

is

calculated

in

a second part

of the report

using

the equations

of linearized

supersonic$ow.

It

is found

that

the

optimum

ai?:foil

in

most

cases has a blunt

trailing

edge.

It

also

is-found

that

the optimum

thickness

distribution

depends

only

on

one dimensionless

parameter,

termed

the “base

pressure

param-

eter”.

This

parameter

involves

the

Mach

number,

airfoil

thickness

ratio,

and

base

pressure

coe$icient.

The

<fleet

of

variations

in

each of these latter

three

guantities

on the shape

of

the optimum

proJile

is discussed,

and

a simple

criterion

formu-

lated

for

determining

the

condition

under

which

the

optimum

trailing-edge

thickness

is

greater

than

zero.

The

calculated

pressure

drag

of the

optimum

projile

is

compared

to

that

of

a

biconvex

sharp-trailing-edge

pro$le

satisfying

the

same

struc-

tural

requirement.

The

reduction

in

pressure

drag

depends

on

the base pressure parameter and varies.from

a few

percent

to

as

much

as 75 percent.

 

INTRODUCTION

sharp-trailing-edge airfoil.

This

particular

auxiliary

condi-

tion, however,

does not

represent

practical

cases where

an

airfoil must satisfy a certain structural

a given

Drougge

analysis to determine the optimum

condition of a given bending stiffness of the airfoil, and also

requirement,

section

such as

area moment

(reference

of inertia,

1) has made

or a given

a more

modulus.

theoretical

auxiliary

elaborate

for

the

profile

for the condition

of a given torsional

stiflncss.

Drougge used

linearized

airfoil

theory

and

considered

only

sharp-trailing-

edge

respects: They do not cover cases outside the scope of linear- ized airfoil theory, and, though they include the auxiliary

conditions of given bending and torsional stiffness, they do

are

two

airfoils.

His

results

somewhat

limited

in

not include the auxiliary condition of a given bending strength

(given section modulus).

A

far

more

important

limitation

of this analysis, though, is the tacit assumption

that

the

optimum

airfoi1

will

have

a sharp

trailing

edge.

Thcrc

is

a small

amount

of

cxpcrimcntal

evidence

in

t.he

measurements of Ferri (rcfcrcnce 2) on airfoils with sharp trailing cdgcs which suggests that the optimum airfoil might,

meas-

in fact, have a moderately thick

ured profile drag of one airfoil tested by Ferri (G. U. 3 airfoil

at a Mach number

inviscid theory would indicate. Allowance for skin friction

would

Schlieren photographs and pressure-distribution measure-

ments showed that viscous effects effectively thickened the

trailing

to

edge.

The

lower

of

1.85)

was

considerably

become

than

cause

this

discrepancy

even

greater.

airfoil shape near the trailing edge. From these results

it

can be inferrecl that at moderate supersonic velocities it

is

possible for an airfoil with a thickened trailing edge-that

is,

a

blunt-trailing-edge

airfoil-to

have

lower

drag

than

a

In

supersonic

flow

the finite

thickness

of an airfoil

invari-

ably introduces

a certain

amount

of pressure drag which

can

be

minimized

by

a

rational

choice

of

airfoil

shape.

The

profile

for

minimum

pressure

drag

depends,

among

other

things,

on the particular

auxiliary condition that is imposed

on the airfoil geometry. For

example,

if

it

is required

that

the optimum

profile

(defined

herein

as the

profile

of

least

pressure drag for

a given

auxiliary

condition)

satisfy

the

auxiliary condition

of a given

thickness

ratio,

then according

to a well-known

result

of Ackeret’s

linearized

airfoil

theory,

the so-called double-wedge

profile

represents

the

optimum

corresponding sharp-trailing-edge airfoil. Employing a different approach, this inference has been obtained from

quantitative considerations in reference 3, where a reasonable

estimate

lated 8s a function of trailing-edge thickness. Such calculn-

tions, though very approximate, have indicated that in cer-

of the base pressure was made

and

the drag

calcu-

tain cases a moderate increase in trailing-edge thickness

will

decrease the over-all

pressure drag.

 

Apart

from

the

reasons just

cited

for

expecting

that

the

optimum supersonic airfoil might have a thick trailing

edge,

there are other independent considerations which suggest

1Supersedes NACA

TN

2264,“Airfoil

Profiles

for hfinimum

Pressure Drag

at Supersonic Velocities-General

Analysis

With

Application

to Linearized

Supersonic FLOW,” by Dean R.

Chapman,

pressure published subsequent to TN 2264.

1951. Vnriow

examples of Optimum

proffles given in TN

2264have been supplemented

and revised for the present report

iu sccordance with

CXPeri~eLItal meWWm?ntS

of bse

in TN 2264have been supplemented and revised for the present report iu sccordance with CXPeri~eLItal meWWm?ntS
2 REPORT 1063-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS   the same result. By
2 REPORT 1063-NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS   the same result. By

2

REPORT

1063-NATIONAL

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

FOR

AERONAUTICS

 

the

same result.

By

analyzing

conditions

at

infinite

Mach

ing-edge

thickness.

The

profile

so

determined,

which

is

number,

Saenger pointed

out in 1933 that

even with

a vacuum

termed

an

optimum

profile,

is considered

to

depend

on

the

at

the base

the

optimum

airfoil

for

a given

thickness

ratio

base

pressure,

Mach

number,

and

the

particular

auxiliary

would,

in

this

extreme

case, have

a trailing-edge

thickness

condition

imposed

on

the

airfoil.

A

secondary

purpose

of

equal

to

the

maximum

airfoil

thickness.

(See reference

4.)

the investigation

is

to

develop a method of sufficient gener-

In

reference

5, Ivey

obtained

a similar

result

by

calculating

the

pressure

drag

at

a Mach

number

of

8

for

a family

of

airfoils

having

va.rious

positions

of

maximum

thickness.

More

recently,

Smelt

(reference

6) has developed

an approx-

imate

condition

determining

when

an airfoil

with

maximum

thickness

at

the

trailing

edge has lower

drag

in hypersonic

flow

than

an

airfoil

with

a

sharp

trailing

edge.

Saenger,

Ivey,

and

Smelt,

however,

did

not

consider

airfoils

having

a

ality

to

enable

second-order

and

shock

expansion

theories

to

be used in

calculating

optimum

profiles.

Such

generality

is desirable

in order

to obtain

results

that

are valid

at hyper-

sonic

Mach

numbers.

B

base pressure

7

73

NOTATION

parameter

for

linearized

supersonic

flow

trailing-edge

ness, and

profile

that

has

unreasonable

bers

trailing

thickness

their

less than

results

velocities.

Mach

trailing

that

the

maximum

determine

airfoil

the

it

Mach

thick-

hence

do not

edge.

at lower

optimum

evident,

profile

it

is

not

num-

at

the

at

for

hypersonic

Nevertheless,

the

this

is

optimum

basis

high

supersonic

thick

expect

numbers

On

have

a relatively

the

to

optimum

edge.

supersonic

some

profile

would

thickness

The

physical

edge airfoil

in

reason

why

it

supersonic

flow

is possible

to have

for

a lower

a blunt-trailing-

pressure

drag

z?

c

Cd

f

F(k,

h

H

1

limiting value of the base pressure parameter below

which

the

chord

optimum

the

drag

function

airfoil

has a blunt

airfoil

section

symbol

pressure

for

coefficient

Py’

trailing

edge

q>)incomplete

lus k-and

trailing-edge

dimensionless

elliptic

integral

amplitude

(p

thickness

trailing-edge

of the

first

kind

thickness

(h/t)

of modu-

than

a

corresponding

 

sharp-trailing-edge

airfoil

 

is

quite

   

simple,

as can

be

illustrated

 

by

the

t,wo profiles

shown

in

I

given value of the auxiliary

integral

[:~c&d~]

 

figure

1.

These

profiles

have

the

same

area,

which

corre-

 

sponds to the

same torsional

stiffness

of a thin-skin

structure

k,

1

constant defined by equation (20)

length of chord over which airfoil thickness is constant

 

L

dimensionless length of chord over which airfoil thick-

Mach number

 

!

:

r

- - Sharp-

I r - -Bun

broiling-edge

f- h-oiling-edge

oit

.foif

airfoil

 

M

ness is constant (Z/s)

 

n

arbitrary parameter appearing in the definition of the auxiliary integral I

 

(For the examples considered

~2,is taken

as

I,

2,

3 or

 

*

I

P

static pressure on airfoil surface

 

FIGUREI.-Sketch

comparing

a typical

sharp-trailing-edge

airfoil

P

pr ess,I coefhcient [(,-,-)/(a

p,

vaz)]

 

airfoil

of equal area (equal torsional

stitiess

and a blunt-trailing-edge structure).

for a thin-skin

   

The

blunt-trailing-edge

 

airfoil

 

has

a slightly

smaller thick-

 

base pressure coefficient [(P~-~J/($ pm V-Z)]

 

ness

ratio

and

a position

of

maximum

thickness

which

is

Reynolds number based on airfoil chord

farther

rearward,

hence

the

leading-edge

angle

is

smaller

 

distance from leading edge to first downstream posi-

and

the

pressure

drag

 

of

the

surface

forward

of

the

trailing

tion

of maximum

thickness

 

edge is less than

that

of

the

sharp-trailing-edge

 

airfoil

A

t

maximum thickness of airfoil

certain

amount

of base drag,

 

however,

obviously

is added

by

v

velocity

employing

a thick

trailing

 

edge.

If

the

added

base drag

is

X

distance from leading edge

 

less

than

the

reduction

 

in

pressure

foredrag,

then

the

net

x

dimensionless distance from leading edge (r/s)

 

result

is a smaller

total

 

pressure

drag

for

the

blunt-trailing-

Y

ordinate of upper half of airfoil

 

edge airfoil.

 

This

invariably

 

is the

case at

extremely

high

Y

dimensionless ordinate [y/(t/2)]

supersonic

Mach

numbers

where

the

base drag

is negligible

P

JMm2-

1

compared

to

the

pressure

 

foredrag.

 

At

low

 

supersonic

x

Langrangian

multiplier

(arbitrary

constant)

Mach

numbers,

though,

 

the

base

drag

can

be many

times

u

arbitrary

parameter

appearing

in

the

definition

 

of the

the

pressure

foredrag,

 

and

the

optimum

 

trailing-edge

thick-

auxiliary

integral

I

ness must

be expected

 

a priori

to

depend

to

a great

extent

(For

the

examples

considered

u

is

taken

as

0

or

1.)

on the base pressure.

 

P

mass density

 

The

present

 

theoretical

analysis

was

initiated

 

in

view

of

SUBSCRIPTS

 

the

foregoing

considerations.

 

The

primary

purpose

of

the

0

airfoil

surface

at leading

edge

investigation

 

is

to

develop

 

a

method

 

of

determining

the

1

airfoil

surface

at

trailing

edge

supersonic

airfoil

profile

 

for

minimum

pressure

drag

at

zero

free stream

 

lift,

without

making

an arbitrary

 

assumption

about

the trail-

brn

base

AIRFOIL PROFILES FOR MINIMUM PRESSURE DRAG AT SUPERSONIC VELOCITIES 3 circular-arc biconvex airfoil with sharp

AIRFOIL

PROFILES

FOR

MINIMUM

PRESSURE

DRAG

AT

SUPERSONIC

VELOCITIES

3

circular-arc

biconvex

airfoil

with

sharp

trailing

edge

double-wedge

airfoil

with

sharp

trailing

edge

V

vacuum

at base

I

differentiation

with

SUPERSCRIPT

respect

to

x

THEORETICAL

ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTIONS

AND

STATEMENT

OF

PROBLEM

In

the

analysis

which

follows

several

simplifying

assump-

tions

sonic flow

the pressure

trailing

nonconducting

edge is sharp.

are made.

Two-dimensional

only

airfoils

in

It

surface

flow

the

assumed

a purely

is assumed

super-

that

of the

at zero lift

are considered.

on the airfoil

from

is further

at any point

forward

of

edge can be calculated

gas.

No

It

an inviscid,

the

leading

regarding

that

analogous

assumption

is made

h

which

minimizes

this

expression

for

a

given

auxiliary

condition.

 

Before

expressing

the various

auxiliary

conditions

in

ana-

lytical

form,

it

should

be noted

that

the surface

pressure

co-

efficient

P

is regarded

as a known

function

of the variable

y’

and

the

two

parameters

y’,,

(surface

slope

at

leading

edge)

and

M,.

The

actual

functional

form

of

P(y’,

y’o,M,)

 

will

depend

shock-expansion

on

whether

linearized,

is

second-order,

in

hypersonic,

or

theory

employed

calculating

surface

pressures.

For

example,

if linear

theory

were employed,

the

explicit

expression

P=2y’/

Jm

would

be

used;

but,

if

implicit

have

employed,

shock-expansion

expression

to

be used.

the

theory

involving

were

employed,

as

a

more

M,

complex

would

to

y’,, as well

to

allow

y’ and

In

order

various

form

of

theories

P(y’,

y’,,

M,)

be

particular

functional

the

trailing-edge

thickness,

but

it

is assumed

that

the

base

will

at

present

be unspecified.

 

The

equations

 

which

result

pressure

coefficient

Pa is known.

 

This

enables

the

optimum

 

can

be applied

to any

of the

various

theories

by

substituting

trailing-edge

thickness

to

be calculated

as a function

of

PO;

the

appropriate

function

for

P.

hence, experimental

 

data

on base pressure

in two-dimensional

 

Turning

now

to

the

consideration

of

auxiliary

 

conditions,

flow

are required

in

order

to apply

the

theoretical

results

of

it

is

clear

that

some

integral

 

expression

will

be

involved,

the

analysis

to a given

case.

 

since

the

function

 

y(x)

is not

known

beforehand.

If,

for

ex-

From

the

fact

that

the

surface

pressures

on

the

top

and

ample,

the

airfoil

is a solid-section

structure

and the moment

bottom

of

an

airfoil

can

be

calculated

independently

in

a

of

inertia

is prescribed,

then

the

particular

auxiliary

condi-

supersonic

flow,

it

follows

that

 

at

zero

lift

the

optimum

tion

which

y(x)

must

satisfy

in

addition

 

to

minimizing

cd is

profile

will

be

symmetrical

about

the

chord

plane.

Conse-

that

the

integral

S Ocy3dx be constant.

 

A

different

 

auxiliary

quently,

reference

is made

throughout

to the thickness distri-

     

bution

of only

the upper

surface

of an optimum

profile.

 

condition

would,

of

course,

be

present

investigation is used which

 

represented

by

a

different

In

comparing

the

pressure

drag

of

various

profiles,

the

integral.

ized

In

auxiliary

the

condition

a somewhat

is represented

general-

chord

length

is held

constant,

and

the

thickness

distribution

   

by

the

along

the

chord

is

varied

in

a

manner

which

is

arbitrary

single

integral

 

except

for

the

requirement

of

satisfying

 

the

particular

 

1 S 0 ‘7J” (t/2)”

dx=constant

 

(2)

auxiliary

condition

 

being

considered.

The

various

auxiliary

 

I’;

conditions

investigated

are:

a given

 

torsional

stiffness

of

the

 

airfoil

section,

a given

torsional

 

strength,

a given

bending

where

n

and

u are constants.

 

Thus

the

example

 

just

cited

stiffness,

a

given

bending

strength,

and

a given

thickness

is a special

case of

the

above

integral

with

n=3

and

a=O.

ratio.

For

each

of

the

structural

 

conditions

 

the

case of

a

TO illustrate

further,

the auxiliary

condition

of a given

section

thin-skin

structure

and a solid-section

structure is considered

modulus

of a solid-section

airfoil

is represented

by

the special

since

the optimum

airfoil

profile

may

be expected

to depend

case n=3

and

a=l.

The

corresponding

solution

 

for

y(x)

somewhat

on the

type

of structure.

 

Attention

 

is focused

on

in

this

latter

case would

provide

the

profile

of least

pressure

the fact

the minimizing

that

the basic idea

employed

in the

analysis

involves

drag

for

a given

bending

strength.

 

of pressure

drag for a given

structural

require-

Some

of the

different

structural

criteria

to which

 

the gen-

ment;

the same as would

were

the results

maximized

obtained

with

if

this

value

FORMULATION

method

of approach

are

be obtained

for

a given

the structural

of the

OF

drag.2

PROBLEM

characteristic

MATHEMATICAL

The

pressure

drag

cd of an airfoil

with

a thick

trailing

edge

is the

sum

of the base drag

and the pressure

drag

of the

sur-

face forward

of

the

trailing

edge.

Letting