- -

1999 01 5619

Advanced Aerodynamic Control Effectors

Richard M. Wood and Steven X. S. Bauer
NASA Langley Research Center

ABSTRACT Our present approach to aircraft design is highly

influenced by our national economic policies. These
A 1990 research program that focused on the influences have resulted in acquisition cost and
development of advanced aerodynamic control effectors operational cost of new airborne weapon systems to be
(AACE) for military aircraft has been reviewed and the most critical elements in determining if a new system
summarized. Data are presented for advanced planform, is developed. This change has placed an increased
flow control, and surface contouring technologies. The burden on aircraft designers to develop cost effective
data show significant increases in lift, reductions in drag, aircraft concepts that satisfy multi-disciplinary, multi-role,
and increased control power, compared to typical and multi-mission design challenges. Future aircraft
aerodynamic designs. The results presented also designs must also have dramatic improvements in
highlighted the importance of planform selection in the survivability to address the daily advancements in
design of a control effector suite. Planform data showed electronic sensor technology used to detect and track
that dramatic increases in lift (> 25%) can be achieved military aircraft. In addition to the need for survivability,
with multiple wings and a sawtooth forebody. Passive there is also a need for low drag and the ability to be
porosity and micro drag generator control effector data highly maneuverable.
showed control power levels exceeding that available
from typical effectors (moving surfaces). Application of This paper will review the results (references 9 to 12) of a
an advanced planform to a tailless concept showed study conducted at the NASA Langley Research Center
benefits of similar magnitude as those observed in the from 1989 to 1992 to develop advanced aerodynamic
generic studies. control effector concepts required for new millennium air
vehicles. In the late 1980s, it was recognized that to
INTRODUCTION advance the state-of-the-art in military aircraft design, the
development of the next generation of control effectors
As we move into the new millennium, the technical and must address signature, weight, and maintainability
political challenges for the aerodynamic community are issues while offering dramatic improvements in
significant and continued success will require that all aerodynamic efficiency. As a result, the focus of this
available information and knowledge be utilized to guide study was to develop control effector technologies
future aircraft development activity. This is especially consistent with the development of an aircraft that would
true for the military community that must battle the not have gaps, cracks, steps, holes, etc. in all surfaces
challenges created by the diverse and dramatically visible by advanced electromagnetic detection systems.
changing threat environment. With this in mind, it is clear The selected control effector technologies are required
that we must review the technical accomplishments of to satisfy projected survivability, drag, and agility
the past before we attempt to create the future. requirements. The design philosophy and selected data
for advanced aerodynamic control effector concepts
A review of the history of aircraft design (references 1 to consistent with this philosophy are presented in the
8) reveals that aerodynamic control effector technology following sections of this paper. Particular emphasis will
has changed little since the early 1900s. Aircraft have be placed upon passive porosity technology, micro flow-
tended to utilize "typical" suites of moving surface management devices , and advanced planforms.
control effectors such as rudders, elevators, flaps,
ailerons, etc. One exception to this trend is the use of
thrust vectoring for control (Le. AV8B and the F22).
 Minimize planform breaks Noted in the table are the technologies for which
experimental data have been obtained. Note that data
No sensor-visible breaks in the parent surfaces are available for all technologies listed with the exception
of Stagnation Point Control, listed under surface
No movement of the sensor-visible parent surfaces contouring, and Adapting/Flexible Surface, listed under
both surface contouring and flow control. Both of these
2"dderivative continuous sensor-visible surfaces technologies were identified at the end of the program
and as a result were not fully investigated.
These constraints suggest that the chosen design
space resides outside the realm of solutions recognized Selected results from the planform group, flow control
in the late 1980s. group, and surface contouring group will be presented in
the following sections of the paper.
Desian Strateav
Planform Technologies
To meet the challenges described above; a design
strategy was developed which assumed that success As mentioned previously, the planform was viewed as a
could only be achieved when approached from the most primary contributor to control effector performance within
challenging direction. A graphical depiction of this point the AACE activity. In particular, the activity focused on
is presented in figure 1. The figure shows the variation in the development of planform concepts that would
aircraft performance and aircraft weight due to design provide significant increases in lift and linear stability
angle-of-attack (lift) for an existing design approach and characteristics for angles-of-attack up to 70". A total of 2 1
for the AACE design strategy, in which the dominant planforms were investigated in the activity. All of the
design condition is the high angle-of-attack point. The planforms were a variation from the 6 planforms depicted
present strategy assumes that it is easier to achieve high in figure 2. As shown in figure 2, the planform types
levels of off-design performance if you focus your design were a diamond (baseline configuration), twin-body,
efforts on the most challenging design point and thus sawtooth forebody, twin-wing, cut-out wing, and joined
allow the most benign design point to be viewed as "off- wing. All planform models tested were constructed as
design ". flat plates with sharp edges. Tests were conducted at a
Mach number of 0.17. The data obtained for each
A major concern of the activity was to reduce the planform was reduced with a reference area equal to the
influence of historical, but unproven, constraints and total planform area to ensure that differences in lifting
assumptions which tend to dominate many existing surface area did not bias the results. Note that the use of
design activities. An example of an unproven historical the total planform area as the reference area will result in
aerodynamic assumption would be that the minimum aerodynamic coefficients that are of lower value than
drag boundary is defined by linear theory with 100% those typically observed for configurations with similar
leading edge thrust, reference 13. Another assumption planforms.
is that wing leading-edge bluntness increases wave drag
at supersonic speeds, reference 13. The twin-body and sawtooth forebody concepts were
developed to investigate vortex flow interaction between
The final strategy employed by the team was to explore the fuselage and wing structures as well as fuselage
the use of interfering aerodynamic flow fields and upwash (reference 14) in order to increase lift and to
electromagnetic fields to improve the aerodynamic eliminate large nonlinear stability characteristics at
performance and electromagnetic performance, moderate to high angles-of-attack. Another benefit of
respectively, of candidate technologies. In the the twin-body concept is the ability to reduce drag at
aerodynamic arena, the effort focused on wake supersonic speeds through positive near-field
interaction studies, fuselage upwash (reference 14), interference (references 15 to 17). The notion behind
base-drag management, and vortex management. the twin wing, cut-out wing, and joined wing planforms is
to create aircraft designs with multiple primary lifting
AACE TECHNOLOGIES surfaces such that each surface can be turned off and on
(Le., loading increased, decreased, or eliminated) as
A list of the technologies included in the AACE activity required to create the desired flight characteristics. It was
are presented in table 1. In general, these technologies hypothesized that independent control of each primary
can be divided into three groups: planforms, flow control, lifting surface could increase lift and also allow control of
and surface contouring. All experimental tests of the the aircraft stability level at all angles-of-attack.
aerodynamic technologies were conducted on generic
models in order to isolate the particular aerodynamic and The longitudinal aerodynamic data (reference 9)
flow control effect. obtained for all planforms showed that the twin wing and
sawtooth forebody provided the largest increase in lift

3
ratio wing with a GA(W)-1 airfoil (reference 21). Both wing actuated strakes. Also shown on the figure is the
models were porous over their complete surface area in available side force from the F/A-18 vertical tail (reference
order to maximize the flexibility of the models. In addition 25). In the region where asymmetric vortex shedding
fuselage studies were conducted on a 2.5 and 5.0 typically occurs (a > 20"), the application of 360" of
caliber, tangent-ogive models. The porosity for all porosity eliminates the asymmetric vortex loading.
passive porosity models was nominally 22% with hole Application of porosity to the left side of the forebody
diameters of approximately.020 inch. The focus of the allows for maximum control of the side force. The
wing models was to investigate roll and pitch control addition of a chine to the same model increases the side
effectiveness and the forebody models were used to force contribution of passive porosity. As observed with
investigate yaw control. Applying tape over the porous the wing data shown in figure 7, a comparison of the
surface to create a solid surface varied the extent of the generated forebody forces shows significant increases
porous surface on all models. at angles-of-attack greater than 25" over that available
with more traditional movable control effectors, a vertical
Representative passive porosity control effector results tail or actuated forebody strakes.
at a Mach number of 0.17 for the 65" Delta wing model
are presented in figures 7 and 8. Also shown in figure 7 Micro-Drag Generators (MDGs)
are representative control effectiveness data for the F/A-
18 aircraft (references 22 and 23). Because a control The Micro-flow-management devices that were '

effectors ability to provide pitch control is highly investigated include micro-drag bumps, spoilers, and
dependent on vehicle layout it was decided that the splitter plates. These concepts modify the boundary
potential of passive porosity to provide pitch control layer in order to promote or inhibit flow separation that in
would be evaluated by investigating the change in lift turn creates large changes in the aircraft forces and
coefficient, see figure 8. moments. These concepts would work in concert with
other flow control and surface contouring technology to
Roll control for various extents of tip porosity is shown in enhance the naturally occurring pressure field over the
figure 7 and changes in lift coefficient for various extents configuration in order to maximize the desired
of trailing-edge porosity are shown in figure 8. The data aerodynamic force.
are for configurations with porosity applied to both the
upper and lower surface. This application of porosity The Micro Drag Generator concept (reference 11) uses
allows the passive porosity system to eliminate (dump) lift small deployable devices referred to as MDGs that
on a particular region of a wing. The data of figures 7 and individually generate small amounts of drag, but when
8 clearly show that significant control authority is available deployed in large numbers can generate substantial
with this technology, at moderate angles-of-attack. A amounts of drag. The micro-drag generators (MDGs) may
comparison of the passive porosity results with those for be thought of as miniature spoilers or speed brakes.
the conventional aerodynamic control effector show that During normal operation of the vehicle (e.g., during
the passive porosity device is more effective for angles- cruise), the devices would not be extended into the
of-attack greater than 10". flowfield and would not increase the drag of the vehicle.

The failure of the passive porosity device to generate MDGs are designed to force the flow on a vehicle to
control forces at low lift is due to the symmetric loading separate on the aft-facing side of the device and to
on the airfoil at these conditions. As mentioned reattach before reaching the next device, see figures 10
previously, passive porosity effectiveness is a function of and 11. Note that the MDG devices tested were sized for
the pressure differential on the surface. Geometries wind-tunnel conditions (i.e. thicker boundary layer in the
studied in the AACE activity were symmetric, and thus, wind tunnel than would be seen in flight for the same
they would have negligible pressure gradients at zero lift. wing chord) to ensure the concept was properly
This observation supports the need to view the planform evaluated. The MDG concept allows substantial amounts
and surface contour as important contributors to control of drag to be generated with a simple system of small
effectiveness. To maximize the effectiveness of the devices. The drag generated by a system of MDGs is
passive porosity control effector, large pressure expected to be equivalent to that generated from a
gradients must exist on the surface of the wing or single device with the same projected area as the sum of
fuselage at all angles of attack. To create this all the MDG projected areas. Because MDGs are very
environment may require new families of planforms and nonintrusive, the application of such devices on military
surface contours. aircraft as a control effector is quite attractive (reduced
weight and complexity)
Figure 9 presents side force data for a porous 5.0 caliber,
tangent-ogive forebody model with various MDGs were experimentally investigated on the right
circumferential extents of porosity, a porous forebody hand side of a high aspect ratio wing with the G A O - 1
with chine, and the F/A-18 H A W (reference 24) with airfoil, see figure 11, and also on a family of axisymmetric
bodies. The wind-tunnel data indicated that the
5
symmetric wing with a NACA 64a-series airfoil, and a the baseline and twin wing concepts. The drag data
symmetric near-conical wing (reference 26) with a show that the two concepts are similar with the twin wing
variable-thickness, NACA 64a-series airfoil were tested concept having approximately 2 to 4% greater drag than
over a range of Mach number range of 1.6 to 2.0 and the baseline. These results are very encouraging when
angles-of-attackfrom -4" to 20". considering the fact that the baseline configuration was
area ruled for the design point and the twin wing design
Surface oil flow photographs are presented in figure 15 activity was limited by the existing hardware.
for the three wings and longitudinal aerodynamic
characteristics of the three wings are shown in figure 16. Presented in figure 20 is a summary of the lift
The oil flow photographs of figure 15 are for a lift characteristics over the Mach range of 1.6 to 2.2 for the
coefficient of 0.3 and show that all three wings have baseline and twin wing concepts. The data clearly show
nearly identical surface flow characteristics despite that the lift curve slope for the twin wing is approximately
having large differences in UD, see figure 16. Note that 14% greater than the lift curve slope for the baseline
the dark regions at the tip of each wing is a result of geometry. Note that these data are consistent with the
lighting and does not reflect a change in flow results of the planform study discussed previously.
characteristics. The data of figure 16 clearly show that Analysis of the results of figures 19 and 20 show that the
the natural flow wing provides the same performance as increased lifting efficiency of the twin-wing concept more
the symmetric wings at zero lift and outperforms the than compensated for the increase in zero-lift drag to
symmetric wings at lifting conditions. In general, the produce a vehicle with improved aerodynamic efficiency.
natural flow design provides approximately a 10%
improvement in aerodynamic performance with a non- CONCLUDING REMARKS
symmetric and planar geometry.
A 1990 research program that focused on the
ADVANCED AIRCRAFT CONCEPT development of advanced aerodynamic technologies
(AACE) for military aircraft has been reviewed. A new
The results presented show that AACE technologies class of advanced aerodynamic control effector
provide increased lift, reduced drag, and increased technologies have been presented and discussed.
control authority, compared to typical aircraft concepts. These new technologies were developed to meet the
The data also indicate that these results are consistent following requirements; invisible to electromagnetic
with afixed geometry, rigid vehicle with minimal moving energy, aerodynamically robust, and light weight. The
surfaces. To further refine the concepts, an technologies must be aerodynamically and mechanically
investigation of the aerodynamics of a representative simple and they must minimize the powedenergy
advanced vehicle configured with AACE technologies requirements for operation.
was conducted.
Data presented for planform, flow control, and surface
The AACE advanced concept was developed by re- contouring technologies have shown significant
winging an existing advanced tailless concept. The increases in lift, reduced drag, and increased control
baseline vehicle consisted of a chined fuselage and a power, relative to typical aerodynamic designs. The
30" swept trapezoidal/diamond wing. The redesign results presented also highlighted the importance of
effort focused on replacing the single 30" diamond wing planform in the design of acontrol effector suite. The
with twin 30" diamond wings as depicted in figure 17. A planform data showed that dramatic increases in lift (>
primary design consideration was the minimization of 25%) can be achieved with multiple wings and the
supersonic cruise drag for a Mach number of 1.8. The sawtooth forebody. Passive porosity and micro-drag
redesigned configuration was highly constrained by the generator control effector data showed control power
wing/fuselage attachment points for the existing high- levels exceeding that available from typical effectors
speed wind tunnel model. The resultant twin wing (moving surfaces) at moderate to high angles-of-attack.
design was constrained to have the same exposed wing Application of an advanced planform to an tailless
area and the same wing volume as that of the baseline concept showed benefits of similar magnitude as that
wing. These two requirements in combination with the observed in generic planar configuration studies.
wing/body attachment restrictions penalized the twin
wing design activity. A photograph of the AACE Acknowledgments
advanced twin wing concept installed in the NASA
Langley Research Center Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel is The authors would like to acknowledge the outstanding
shown in figure 18. contributions of Brian McGrath of Johns Hopkins Applied
Physics Laboratory, Greg Gatlin and Ken Goodrich of
Selected experimental results from the supersonic test National Aeronautics and Space Agency, and Pat O'Neil
program are presented in figures 19 and 20. Figure 19 and Garry Billman of Boeing Airplane Company.
shows the variation in zero-lift drag with Mach number for

7
 PLANPORMS
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS - MUlti-body*
- Serrated Body*
advanced aerodynamic control effectors - Joined Wing*
- Multiple Wings'
- cut-out Wings*
drag coefficient
SURFACE CONTOURING FLOW CONTROL EFFECTORS
- Natural Flow Design* - Passive Porosity*
zero-lift drag coefficient - Multi-Body Design* - Separation Control Plates*
- Blunt Trailing Edge* - Inflatable Micro Bumps'
- Passive Porosity* - Adaptingfilexible Surface
lift coefficient ~ Stagnation Point Control - Boundary Layer Control*
- Adaptingfilexible Surface

lift curve slope

* data available
side force coefficient Table 1. Candidate AACE technologies.

change in lift coefficient

change in rolling moment coefficient

hole diameter, inches

plenum depth, inches

hole spacing, inches 0 Existing Design Strategy Design Point

Advanced Design Stalegy Design Point
lift to drag ratio

mach number
Aircraft
Performance
micro drag generators

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Angle-of-attack
u Angle-of-attack
external pressure, psi Figure 1. Graphic depicting AACE design strategy.
external pressure, psi

skin thickness, inches

trailing edge

hole exit velocity

angle-of-attack,degrees
Diamond Twin Body Sawtooth
(baseline)

boundary layer thickness, inches

Twin Wing cut-out Joined

Figure 2. Sketch of the six classes of planforms
investigated in the AACE activity.

9
 +No Micro-drag Generators
+Medium Density, Large Drag Bumps
Medium Densi
0.20

0.15

CD
0.10

0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 0.05

a
Figure 9. Plot of the side force coefficient for various
circumferential extent of passive porosity on a 0.00
5 caliber, tangent-ogive model -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
CL
Figure 12. Plot of drag coefficient against lift coefficient
for the GAW(1) wing with and without micro
drag generators installed
Flow Over a Hemispherical Ridge
Region Geomerxy P r e s ~ u r e Drag Expansion R c g m n

POIlflYe
N~~~~~~
slope
Negarwe slope h,gh high
low - Airfod M a i m u r n Thmtncsr
Line

Upper Surface Lower Surface

Flow Over a Vertical Plate Standard Natural Standard Natural

or Rectangular Ridge

Figure 13. Graphic depicting Natural Flow design

Figure 10. Sketch of local flow field characteristics over concept applied to a delta wing.
micro drag generators

Figure 14. Photograph of Natural Flow 65"delta wing

model.
Figure 11. Photograph of GAW(1) airfoil model with large
micro drag bumps installed.

11
AACE PROGRAM performance, controllability potential, and survivability
potential of the vehicle over a broad range of angle-of-
The Advanced Aerodynamic Control Effector (AACE) attack and mach number. These characteristics were
program was an ad hoc activity created by a group of especially important when considering new classes of
researchers at the NASA Langley Research Center. The control effectors. It was thought that traditional planforms
team was formed in 1989 with a focus of developing and surface contours might not provide the three-
"NEW" aerodynamic technologies in a multidisciplinary dimensional loadings required to optimize the
environment that supported the development of performance of the advanced aerodynamic control
advanced military vehicles for the projected threat effectors.
environment in 2010.
The notion of moving large or even small sensor-visible
The goal of the AACE team was to create new elements of the aircraft parent surface (i.e., external and
aerodynamic technologies that allow for a dramatic internal surfaces) to create control power is counter to
improvement in both aerodynamic performance and the design constraints imposed by reduced cost,
survivability performance with respect to the levels improved survivability, and low drag. In a first order
available with existing technologies. An implied goal analysis, the purchase and operational costs of an aircraft
within the program was to create a significantly lighter and are proportional to the number of parts of an aircraft.
cost effective vehicle, compared to existing aircraft. Survivability is proportional to the number and types of
physical breaks and curvature breaks in the sensor-
In pursuit of this goal, advanced three-dimensional visible parent surfaces and drag is proportional to the
shaping, advanced planforms, micro devices, passive number of breaks in the flow-contact surfaces. To
pneumatics, and inflatables were identified as target address these issues, the AACE activity focused on
technologies. From 1989 to 1992, the activity executed eliminating breaks in the parent surface and/or
more than 30 experimental test programs involving more eliminating moving control effectors in order to reduce
than 60 models in 5 test facilities at the NASA Langley the number of parts and reduce actuation requirements;
Research Center, references 9 and 12. The AACE thus, decrease cost and drag and increase survivability.
activity consisted of approximately 5 work years of effort
each year with a budget of approximately $200,000.00 Desian Space
per year.
In conceptualizing the design philosophy, a design
The following sections of this report will review the space was defined that would allow significant intellectual
research conducted from 1989 to 1992. freedom while ensuring resulting technologies were
relevant. As noted earlier, specific design goals were
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY not identified in the AACE program, however, a set of
objectives/constraints were identified up front, and
A typical design approach is to execute a hierarchical these objectives/constraints were used to focus the
scheme in which identification, development, and team's efforts. The AACE objectives are listed below:
implementation of control effectors is performed
sequentially on a pre-designed vehicle with fixed Balanced signature
planform. In contrast to a typical approach, the AACE
activity employed a scheme in which all aerodynamic High lift at low angle of attack (M e .3)
control effector technologies would be identified,
developed, and implemented in parallel. This approach Maneuverabilityto 70 degrees angle-of-attack (M e .9)
would allow each technology development activity to
follow the path of the most significant technical Dry supercruise (M e 1.8)
challenge.
20% increase in usable volume
Another aspect to AACE was that the planform was
recognized as being a primary contributor to control These objectives clearly show the broad range of
effector performance and the surface contouring was technical challenges presented to the team. However,
recognized as being secondary contributor to control to place these objectives into perspective and to
effector performance. The recognition of these two complete the design space definition a set of design
points were critical to the success of the activity because constraints were imposed on the AACE concepts.
it recognized that planform and surface contour are These constraints are listed below.
responsible for much more than creating lift and
establishing stability levels at low lift conditions. The Linear and aligned planform edges
approach used in AACE required the planform and
surface contouring to establish the aerodynamic Planar planform perimeter

2
and significant improvements in longitudinal stability Passive Porosity Technology
characteristics compared to the baseline geometry. Lift
characteristics for the sawtooth forebody are presented The passive porosity technology has been extensively
in figure 3 and twin-wing results are presented in figure studied both experimentally and computationally as a
4. means to control shocklboundary layer interaction, see
references 10, 18 to 21. The focus of passive porosity in
The data of figure 3 show that the sawtooth forebody the AACE activity was for both local boundary layer
concept provides a significant increase in lift for all management and global application of passive porosity
angles-of-attack greater than 10". The data also show on an aerodynamic vehicle to control the forces and
that the sawtooth forebody concept provides a 25% moments of the vehicle.
increase in maximum lift over the baseline planform.
Note, the magnitude of these benefits is depressed by Passive porosity is designed to modify and control the
the use of the total planform area as the reference area pressure loading acting on a surface The passive
for data reduction. The benefit achieved by the porosity concept consists of a porous outer surface and
sawtooth forebody concept results from both vortex lift a solid inner surface. The volume between the outer and
acting on the sawteeth as well as the parent wing and an inner surfaces form an open plenum that is filled with the
interfering flow field emanating from the sawteeth onto same fluid which is flowing over the exterior surface of
the parent wing. The interfering flow field is the porous skin, see figure 5. The effectiveness of the
characterized by a downwash field that acts on the parent concept is dependent upon the ability of the system to
wing. This allows the parent wing to operate at an allow unrestricted communication between large
effective lower angle of attack thereby reducing pressure differences on the external surface (high
separation. It is important to note that the sawtooth permeability).
forebody concept has been shown to be applicable to
other planform shapes (reference 9). A representative application of a passive porosity flow
control effector is depicted in figure 6 along with the
The data of figure 4 show that the twin wing concept also equivalent typical control effector (trailing edge flap). It is
provides a significant increase in lift starting at 20" angle- conjectured that passive porosity control effectors
of-attack and extending to 70" angle-of-attack. The data provide improved aerodynamic benefit, compared to
show that the twin wing concept also provides a 25% typical effectors, because the change in force generated
increase in maximum lift over the baseline planform. It is by the passive porosity device acts perpendicular to the
conjectured that the benefit achieved by the twin wing vehicles principal plane and as a result would have a
concept results from reduced flow separation on the aft greater moment arm. It is also argued that the passive
wing due to astrong downwash field from the forward porosity effector would be more effective because it
wing. This downwash allows the aft wing to operate at an produces a linearly varying control force with increasing
effective lower angle of attack thereby reducing lift whereas the typical effector control force nonlinearly
separation. It is important to note that the multiple wing decreases with increasing lift.
concept has been shown to be applicable to other
planform shapes (reference 9). The passive porosity effector would be configured with a
means to control the permeability of the passive porosity
These data show that the high-lift performance of aircraft system. The means to activate and deactivate the
can be greatly enhanced through the use of multiple passive porosity system may be accomplished by
primary lifting surfaces and interfering flow fields. reducing the permeability of the porous surface or by
Additional results will be shown to document the high reducing the permeability of the plenum. The porous
speed performance of these planforms. surface permeability may be controlled by restricting the
size of or closing the passages through the porous
Flow Control Technoloaies surface with asmart skin technology or by covering the
internal surface of the porous surface with a non porous
A total of five different flow control technologies were surface or low permeability surface. The permeability of
identified in the AACE program and four were the passive porosity system may also be controlled by
investigated. Based upon initial results, the majority of changing the plenum characteristics.
the effort was directed towards passive porosity
technology and inflatable/deployable micro bumps. A Passive porosity control effector development was
brief overview of each of these two technologies is performed on a series of wing and fuselage models. The
presented below. two wing models were a 65" Delta wing and a high aspect

4
deployment of MDGs on a wing can increase the drag by The natural flow surface contouring design approach is
as much as 400% (medium density, large drag plates), based upon the observation that the characteristic
see figure 12. The 400% increase in wing drag equates surface loading of an aircraft is primarily determined by
to achange in drag coefficient, between the clean wing the vehicles planform and the global loading pattern
and the wing with MDG's, that varies from 0.04 at zero-lift varies little with changes in Mach number and angle-of-
to 0.1 1 at a lift coefficient of 0.5. The magnitude of this attack (reference 13). This observation allows the
asymmetric force is equivalent to the side force designer to create the optimum three-dimensional
generated by the F/A-18 actuated forebody strakes surface for the vehicle planform for the characteristic
(references 22 and 23). Both concepts can generate surface loading to act. This observation and design
useful amounts of yawing moments for control. A review approach is equally applicable to planar shapes or
of the data contained in reference 11 shows that MDG's fuciform shapes.
can also be used to reduce lift.
The application of the Natural Flow design concept to a
These results indicate that by asymmetrically deploying delta wing is graphically depicted in figure 13. For a
MDGs (only on one wing panel) to an aircraft substantial typical delta wing the application of thickness results in a
amounts of control effectiveness (both rolling- and wing geometry that is conical about the wing tip.
yawing-moment coefficients) may be generated. However experimental data (reference 13) show that the
Therefore, MDGs appear to be an effective concept for flow is conical about the wing apex. The figure shows
decelerating or controlling a vehicle. that the flow over the upper surface of a swept wing is
characterized by an expansion over the leading edge
Surface Contourina Technoloaies that is followed by a recompression to a more positive
pressure as the flow moves inboard and aft. If the upper
The final area of aerodynamic technologies to be surface of the standard wing is divided into four
discussed are those related to surface contouring. The quadrants, defined by the intersection of the airfoil
notion that surface contouring has a significant impact on maximum half-thickness line (crest line) and the cross-
control effector performance is undoubtedly quite flow recompression line, two favorable and two
unusual, however, it is critical if we are to maximize the unfavorable regions are identified. The two unfavorable
benefit of this suite of new technologies. Surface regions, which contribute to drag, are the inboard
contouring creates the optimum surface to receive the forward region (A) and the outboard aft-region (C) of the
naturally occurring loading generated by the planform wing. Region A has high pressures acting on a forward
and works in parallel with flow control effectors to facing surface and region C has low pressures acting on
increase or decrease the loading. Surface contouring an aft-facing surface. Regions B and D have pressure
technologies must produce the loadings required by the fields, which combine favorably with the local surface,
flow control effectors over a broad flight envelope as well slope to reduce drag. The Natural Flow design approach
as provide low drag. Note, surface contouring is not is to reduce the size of regions A and C and increase the
performed to create a predetermined loading or a size of regions B and D.
predetermined aerodynamic characteristic.
The Natural Flow wing lower surface design concept is
The surface contouring technologies that have been also shown in figure 13. The sketch on the right side of
investigated vary significantly in their approach used to figure 13 show that the lower surface pressure loading is
improve the aerodynamic and vehicle performance. The characterized by high pressure over the complete lower
Natural Flow, Multi-Body, and Blunt Trailing Edge surface. The combination of this high pressure and the
technologies create the optimum three dimensional forward facing surface of region A combine to increase
shape over which the naturally occurring flow field, and drag and the high pressure combined with the aft facing
resulting pressures, may act. Passive Porosity and surface of region D reduces drag. As discussed above
Adapting/Flexible Surface are used to either fluidically or the design approach is to reduce the size of region A
physically change the external surface to match the flow and increase the size of region D.
field in an effort to reduce or eliminate separation.
Adapting/Flexible Surface technology was viewed as the To investigate this technology, an aerodynamic design
lowest ranking technology because of its complexity and study and experimental validation was conducted. The
because it violated the design philosophy of eliminating design activity was performed on a 65" delta wing for a
all moving surfaces. The highest-ranking surface Mach number of 1.62 and a design lift coefficient of 0.3.
contouring technology was the Natural Flow Wing (NFW) A photograph of the natural flow designed wing is shown
design approach(reference 12 and 26) because of its in figure 14. The design has negligible surface curvature
robustness and flexibility. The remainder of this section (Le., no inflection points) and all planform edges reside in
will highlight this technology. a single plane. The natural flow design wing, a baseline

6
REFERENCES 15. Wood, R. M., Miller, D. S., and Brentner, K. S.;
Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of
1. Rolfe, D., Dawydoff, A., Winter, W., Byshyn, W., and Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Twin -
Clark, H; Airplanes of the World, 1490 to 1969. Fuselage Concept. NASA TP-2184, 1983.
Simon and Schuster. 1969.
16. Wood, R. M., Rose, 0. J., McMillin, S. N.; Effects of
2. Taylor, M. and Mondey, D.; Guiness Book of Aircraft Body Cross-Sectional Shape on the Supersonic
Facts and Feats. Guiness. 1984. Aerodynamics of Multibody Configurations. NASA
TP-2587, 1986.
3. Wooldridge, E. T.; Winged Wonders The Story of
the Flying Wings. National Air and Space Museum. 17. McMillin, S. N. and Wood, R.M.; Planform Effects on
1983. the Supersonic Aerodynamics of Multibody
Configurations. NASATP-2762, 1987.
4. Myhra, D.; The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing
Aircraft. Schiffer Publishing. 1998 18. Bauer, S. X. S. and Hemsch, M. J.: Alleviation of
Side Force on Tangent Ogive Forebodies Using
5. Gibbs-Smith, C. H.; Aviation An Historical Survey Passive Porosity, Proposed AlAA Paper 10th
from its Origins to the end of World War 11.1985. Applied Aerodynamics Conference, June 1992.

6. Anderson, F.; Northrop: An Aeronautical History. 19. Wilcox, F. J.: Experimental Investigation of the
Northrop Corporation, Los Angeles, 1976. Effects of a Porous Floor on Cavity Flow Fields at
Supersonic Speeds. NASA TP 3032, 1990.
7. Bowers, P. M.; Unconventional Aircraft. TAB Books,
Blue Ridge Summit, PA. 1984. 20. Nagamatsu, H. T. and Orozco,R. D.: Porosity Effect
on Supercritical Airfoil Drag Reduction by Shock
8. Chambers, J. R.; High-Angle-of-Attack Technology- Wave Boundary Layer Control. AIAA-4-1682.
Progress and Challenges. High Angle-of-Attack
Technology, Volume 1. NASA CP-3149, Part 21. McGhee, R. J. and Beasley, W. D.: Low-Speed
1.1 992. Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 17-Percent -Thick
Airfoil Section Designed for General Aviation
9. Gatlin, G. M. and McGrath, 6. E.; Low-Speed Applications. NASA TN D-7428. December 1973.
Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics Through
Poststall for Twenty-one Novel Planform Shapes. 22. Erickson, G. E.;Wind Tunnel Investigation of Vortex
NASA TP 3503. August 1995.. Flows on F/A-18 Configuration at Subsonic Through
Transonic Speeds. NASA TP-3111, 1991.
10. Wood, R. M., Banks, D. W., and Bauer, S. X. S . ;
Assessment of Passive Porosity with Free and Fixed 23. Erickson, G. E. and Murri, D. G.; Wind Tunnel
Separation on a Tangent Ogive Forebody. AIAA-92- Investigations of Forebody Strakes for Yaw Control
4494, 1992. on F/A-18 Model at Subsonic and Transonic
Speeds. NASA TP-3360, 1993.
11. Bauer, S. X. S.; An Aerodynamic Assessment of
Micro-Drag Generators (MDGs). 16th AlAA Applied 24. Regenie, V., Gatlin, D., Kempel, R., and Matheny,
Aerodynamics Conference. AIAA-98-2621. N.; The F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle: A High
Angle-of-Attack Testbed Aircraft. NASA TM-104253,
12. Wood, R. M. and Bauer, S. X. S; The Natural Flow 1992.
Wing Design Concept. NASATP 3193. May 1992.
25. Buttrill, C. S.; Arbuckle, P. D.; and Hoffler, K. D.:
13. Wood, R. M.; Supersonic Aerodynamics of Delta Simulation Model of a Twin Tail High Performance
Wings. NASA TP 2771, 1988. Airplane. NASA TM-107601, 1992.

14. Wood, R. M. and Miller, D. S.; Effect of Fuselage 26. Bauer,X. S. X., Wood, R. M., and Brown, S. M.; A
Upwash on the Supersonic Longitudinal Natural Flow Wing Design Employing 3 D Nonlinear
Aerodynamic Characterisitics of Two Fighter Analysis Applied at Supersonic Speeds. AIAA-89-
Configurations. NASA TP-2330, 1984. 2167, 1989.

8
 TRADITIONAL POROUS CONTROL
40" Diamond and 40" Sawtooth Diamond TRAILINGEDGE FLAP SURFACE
Nonlinearly decreasing moment - Linearly varying aerodynamics.
1.2 and increasing drag with - Minimal impact on flow field
increasing lift. characteristics.
1 .0 Modified flow
- Modified flow field.
field. - A

0.8

0.6

0.4 A
Total Lift Total Lift ,y Porous
0.2
t " t e Surface
0.0

-0.2 '-Vent Pipe

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 A- A B-B

01, deg Figure 6. Sketch comparing traditional control effector

Figure 3. Plot of lift against angle-of-attack for the 40" with passive porosity control effector.
diamond planform and the 40" sawtooth
planform.
+Upper and Lower (15% semispan)
UUpper and Lower (30% remispan)
+Upper and Lower (45% semispan)
*Upper and Lower (60%semispan)
SO0 Diamond and 30° Twin Diamond +Upper and Lower (75% semispan)
+Upper and Lower (100% semispan)
M, = .14
0.00 5
1.2
0.000
1 .0
-0.005
0.8

0.6 -0.010
Acl
- 0.4 -0.015

0.2 -0-020

0.0 -0.02 5

-0.2 -0.030
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
a
a. deg
Figure 4. Plot of lift against angle-of-attack for the 30" Figure 7. Plot of rolling moment increment for various
diamond planform and the 30"twin diamond passive porosity applications to the tip of the
planform. 55"delta wing.

BoundaN
IM = 0.2 I
0.05

0.00

-0.05

L J Plenum
Region -0.10

/ Solid Inner
Surface -0.15

Figure 5. Schematic of passive porosity system. -0.20

-5" 0" 5' 10" 15" 20" 25" 30"
a

Figure 8. Plot of the lift coefficient increment for various

passive porosity applications to the trailing
edge of a 55" delta wing.
10
 hAfllRhL FLOW WNC

Figure 15. Oil-flow photographs of baseline, near _I

Figure 18. Photograph of the twin wing advanced aircraft

conical, and natural flow 65"delta wing
models for M = 1.6 and a lift coefficient of 0.3. concept model.

0.06
-
-_-_
0 I Baseline Wing
0 Near-Conical Wing
A Narural Flow Wing 0.05

0.04
,o 0.03

6.0 0.02
a
0.0 1

2.0 c ca' 0
I .4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Mach
CL CL Figure 19. Plot of the zero-lift drag characteristics against
Figure 16. Plot of lift coefficient and lift-to-drag ratio for Mach number for the baseline and twin wing
the baseline, near conical, and natural flow advanced aircraft concepts.
65"delta wing models.

n no
u.uo

0.07

0.06

cLa 0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Figure 17. Sketch of baseline and twin wing advanced Mach
aircraft planform concepts.
Figure 20. Plot of the lift-curve slope characteristics
against Mach number for the baseline and
twin wing advanced aircraft concepts.
12