C H A PT E R 4 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils 369

dealing with the moment about, the aerodynamic cen- location of the aerodynamic center for the complete
ter, is particularly convenient. The fact that Mac for a flight vehicle. It is for this reason that we have placed
flight vehicle is independent of angle of attack simpli- extra emphasis on the aerodynamic center in Sec-
fies the analysis of the stability and control character- tion 4.9. For an introduction to stability and control see
istics, and the use of the aerodynamic center therefore Chapter 7 of the author’s book Introduction to Flight,
becomes important in airplane design. In the design 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2005. For more in-
process, it is important to know where the aerody- formation about the aerodynamic center, and its use
namic centers of the various components of the aircraft in airplane design, see the author’s book Aircraft Per-
(wing, tail, fuselage, etc.) are located, and above all the formance and Design, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999.

4.10 LIFTING FLOWS OVER ARBITRARY BODIES:

THE VORTEX PANEL NUMERICAL METHOD
The thin airfoil theory described in Sections 4.7 and 4.8 is just what it says—it
applies only to thin airfoils at small angles of attack. (Make certain that you under-
stand exactly where in the development of thin airfoil theory these assumptions
are made and the reasons for making them.) The advantage of thin airfoil theory
is that closed-form expressions are obtained for the aerodynamic coefficients.
Moreover, the results compare favorably with experimental data for airfoils of
about 12 percent thickness or less. However, the airfoils on many low-speed air-
planes are thicker than 12 percent. Moreover, we are frequently interested in high
angles of attack, such as occur during takeoff and landing. Finally, we are some-
times concerned with the generation of aerodynamic lift on other body shapes,
such as automobiles or submarines. Hence, thin airfoil theory is quite restrictive
when we consider the whole spectrum of aerodynamic applications. We need a
method that allows us to calculate the aerodynamic characteristics of bodies of
arbitrary shape, thickness, and orientation. Such a method is described in this
section. Specifically, we treat the vortex panel method, which is a numerical tech-
nique that has come into widespread use since the early 1970s. In reference to
our road map in Figure 4.7, we now move to the left-hand branch. Also, since
this chapter deals with airfoils, we limit our attention to two-dimensional bodies.
The vortex panel method is directly analogous to the source panel method
described in Section 3.17. However, because a source has zero circulation, source
panels are useful only for nonlifting cases. In contrast, vortices have circulation,
and hence vortex panels can be used for lifting cases. (Because of the similarities
between source and vortex panel methods, return to Section 3.17 and review the
basic philosophy of the source panel method before proceeding further.)
The philosophy of covering a body surface with a vortex sheet of such a
strength to make the surface a streamline of the flow was discussed in Section 4.4.
We then went on to simplify this idea by placing the vortex sheet on the camber
line of the airfoil as shown in Figure 4.16, thus establishing the basis for thin
airfoil theory. We now return to the original idea of wrapping the vortex sheet
over the complete surface of the body, as shown in Figure 4.15. We wish to find
370 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

γ (s) such that the body surface becomes a streamline of the flow. There exists
no closed-form analytical solution for γ (s); rather, the solution must be obtained
numerically. This is the purpose of the vortex panel method.
Let us approximate the vortex sheet shown in Figure 4.15 by a series of
straight panels, as shown earlier in Figure 3.40. (In Chapter 3, Figure 3.40 was
used to discuss source panels; here, we use the same sketch for discussion of
vortex panels.) Let the vortex strength γ (s) per unit length be constant over a
given panel, but allow it to vary from one panel to the next. That is, for the
n panels shown in Figure 3.40, the vortex panel strengths per unit length are
γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γ j , . . . , γn . These panel strengths are unknowns; the main thrust of
the panel technique is to solve for γ j , j = 1 to n, such that the body surface
becomes a streamline of the flow and such that the Kutta condition is satisfied.
As explained in Section 3.17, the midpoint of each panel is a control point at
which the boundary condition is applied; that is, at each control point, the normal
component of the flow velocity is zero.
Let P be a point located at (x, y) in the flow, and let r pj be the distance from
any point on the jth panel to P, as shown in Figure 3.40. The radius r pj makes
the angle θ pj with respect to the x axis. The velocity potential induced at P due
to the jth panel, φ j , is, from Equation (4.3),

1
φj = − θ pj γ j ds j (4.72)
2π j
In Equation (4.72), γ j is constant over the jth panel, and the integral is taken over
the jth panel only. The angle θ pj is given by
y − yj
θ pj = tan−1 (4.73)
x − xj
In turn, the potential at P due to all the panels is Equation (4.72) summed over
all the panels:
n n 
γj
φ(P) = φj = − θ pj ds j (4.74)
j=1 j=1
2π j

Since point P is just an arbitrary point in the flow, let us put P at the control point
of the ith panel shown in Figure 3.40. The coordinates of this control point are
(xi , yi ). Then Equations (4.73) and (4.74) become
yi − y j
θi j = tan−1
xi − x j
n 
γj
and φ(xi , yi ) = − θi j ds j (4.75)
j=1
2π j

Equation (4.75) is physically the contribution of all the panels to the potential at
the control point of the ith panel.
 C H A PT E R 4 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils 371

At the control points, the normal component of the velocity is zero; this
velocity is the superposition of the uniform flow velocity and the velocity induced
by all the vortex panels. The component of V∞ normal to the ith panel is given
by Equation (3.148):
V∞,n = V∞ cos βi (3.148)

The normal component of velocity induced at (xi , yi ) by the vortex panels is

∂
Vn = [φ(xi , yi )] (4.76)
∂n i
Combining Equations (4.75) and (4.76), we have
n 
γj ∂θi j
Vn = − ds j (4.77)
j=1
2π j ∂n i
where the summation is over all the panels. The normal component of the flow
velocity at the ith control point is the sum of that due to the freestream [Equa-
tion (3.148)] and that due to the vortex panels [Equation (4.77)]. The boundary
condition states that this sum must be zero:
V∞,n + Vn = 0 (4.78)
Substituting Equations (3.148) and (4.77) into (4.78), we obtain
n 
γj ∂θi j
V∞ cos βi − ds j = 0 (4.79)
j=1
2π j ∂n i
Equation (4.79) is the crux of the vortex panel method. The values of the integrals
in Equation (4.79) depend simply on the panel geometry; they are not properties
of the flow. Let Ji, j be the value of this integral when the control point is on the
ith panel. Then Equation (4.79) can be written as
n
γj
V∞ cos βi − Ji, j = 0 (4.80)
j=1
2π
Equation (4.80) is a linear algebraic equation with n unknowns, γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γn .
It represents the flow boundary condition evaluated at the control point of the
ith panel. If Equation (4.80) is applied to the control points of all the panels, we
obtain a system of n linear equations with n unknowns.
To this point, we have been deliberately paralleling the discussion of the
source panel method given in Section 3.17; however, the similarity stops here. For
the source panel method, the n equations for the n unknown source strengths are
routinely solved, giving the flow over a nonlifting body. In contrast, for the lifting
case with vortex panels, in addition to the n equations given by Equation (4.80)
applied at all the panels, we must also satisfy the Kutta condition. This can be
done in several ways. For example, consider Figure 4.32, which illustrates a detail
of the vortex panel distribution at the trailing edge. Note that the length of each
372 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

Figure 4.32 Vortex panels at the

trailing edge.

Figure 4.33 Airfoil as a solid body, with zero velocity

inside the profile.

panel can be different; their length and distribution over the body are up to your
discretion. Let the two panels at the trailing edge (panels i and i −1 in Figure 4.32)
be very small. The Kutta condition is applied precisely at the trailing edge and is
given by γ (TE) = 0. To approximate this numerically, if points i and i − 1 are
close enough to the trailing edge, we can write
γi = −γi−1 (4.81)
such that the strengths of the two vortex panels i and i − 1 exactly cancel at
the point where they touch at the trailing edge. Thus, in order to impose the
Kutta condition on the solution of the flow, Equation (4.81) (or an equivalent
expression) must be included. Note that Equation (4.80) evaluated at all the panels
and Equation (4.81) constitute an overdetermined system of n unknowns with
n + 1 equations. Therefore, to obtain a determined system, Equation (4.80) is not
evaluated at one of the control points on the body. That is, we choose to ignore
one of the control points, and we evaluate Equation (4.80) at the other n − 1
control points. This, in combination with Equation (4.81), now gives a system of
n linear algebraic equations with n unknowns, which can be solved by standard
techniques.
At this stage, we have conceptually obtained the values of γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γn
which make the body surface a streamline of the flow and which also satisfy
the Kutta condition. In turn, the flow velocity tangent to the surface can be ob-
tained directly from γ . To see this more clearly, consider the airfoil shown in
Figure 4.33. We are concerned only with the flow outside the airfoil and on its
surface. Therefore, let the velocity be zero at every point inside the body, as shown
in Figure 4.33. In particular, the velocity just inside the vortex sheet on the surface
 C H A PT E R 4 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils 373

is zero. This corresponds to u 2 = 0 in Equation (4.8). Hence, the velocity just

outside the vortex sheet is, from Equation (4.8),
γ = u1 − u2 = u1 − 0 = u1
In Equation (4.8), u denotes the velocity tangential to the vortex sheet. In terms of
the picture shown in Figure 4.33, we obtain Va = γa at point a, Vb = γb at point
b, etc. Therefore, the local velocities tangential to the airfoil surface are equal
to the local values of γ . In turn, the local pressure distribution can be obtained
from Bernoulli’s equation.
The total circulation and the resulting lift are obtained as follows. Let s j be
the length of the jth panel. Then the circulation due to the jth panel is γ j s j . In
turn, the total circulation due to all the panels is
n
= γjsj (4.82)
j=1

Hence, the lift per unit span is obtained from

n
L  = ρ∞ V∞ γjsj (4.83)
j=1

The presentation in this section is intended to give only the general flavor of
the vortex panel method. There are many variations of the method in use today,
and you are encouraged to read the modern literature, especially as it appears in
the AIAA Journal and the Journal of Aircraft since 1970. The vortex panel method
as described in this section is termed a “first-order” method because it assumes
a constant value of γ over a given panel. Although the method may appear to be
straightforward, its numerical implementation can sometimes be frustrating. For
example, the results for a given body are sensitive to the number of panels used,
their various sizes, and the way they are distributed over the body surface (i.e., it is
usually advantageous to place a large number of small panels near the leading and
trailing edges of an airfoil and a smaller number of larger panels in the middle).
The need to ignore one of the control points in order to have a determined system
in n equations for n unknowns also introduces some arbitrariness in the numerical
solution. Which control point do you ignore? Different choices sometimes yield
different numerical answers for the distribution of γ over the surface. Moreover,
the resulting numerical distributions for γ are not always smooth, but rather, they
have oscillations from one panel to the next as a result of numerical inaccura-
cies. The problems mentioned above are usually overcome in different ways by
different groups who have developed relatively sophisticated panel programs for
practical use. For example, what is more common today is to use a combination
of both source and vortex panels (source panels to basically simulate the airfoil
thickness and vortex panels to introduce circulation) in a panel solution. This
combination helps to mitigate some of the practical numerical problems just dis-
cussed. Again, you are encouraged to consult the literature for more information.
374 PA RT 2 Inviscid, Incompressible Flow

␥1

␥2
␥3

␥4

Control point Boundary points

Figure 4.34 Linear distribution of γ over each panel—a second-order panel

method.

Figure 4.35 Pressure coefficient distribution over an NACA 0012 airfoil; comparison
between second-order vortex panel method and NACA theoretical results from Reference 11.
The numerical panel results were obtained by one of the author’s graduate students,
Dr. Tae-Hwan Cho.

Such accuracy problems have also encouraged the development of higher-

order panel techniques. For example, a “second-order” panel method assumes a
linear variation of γ over a given panel, as sketched in Figure 4.34. Here, the
value of γ at the edges of each panel is matched to its neighbors, and the values
γ1 , γ2 , γ3 , etc. at the boundary points become the unknowns to be solved. The
flow-tangency boundary condition is still applied at the control point of each
panel, as before. Some results using a second-order vortex panel technique are
 C H A PT E R 4 Incompressible Flow over Airfoils 375

given in Figure 4.35, which shows the distribution of pressure coefficients over
the upper and lower surfaces of an NACA 0012 airfoil at a 9◦ angle of attack.
The circles and squares are numerical results from a second-order vortex panel
technique developed at the University of Maryland, and the solid lines are from
NACA results given in Reference 11. Excellent agreement is obtained.
Again, you are encouraged to consult the literature before embarking on any
serious panel solutions of your own. For example, Reference 14 is a classic paper
on panel methods, and Reference 15 highlights many of the basic concepts of
panel methods along with actual computer program statement listings for simple
applications. Reference 62 is a modern compilation of papers, several of which
deal with current panel techniques. Finally, Katz and Plotkin (Reference 63) give
perhaps the most thorough discussion of panel techniques and their foundations
to date.

4.11 MODERN LOW-SPEED AIRFOILS

The nomenclature and aerodynamic characteristics of standard NACA airfoils are
discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3; before progressing further, you should review
these sections in order to reinforce your knowledge of airfoil behavior, especially
in light of our discussions on airfoil theory. Indeed, the purpose of this section is
to provide a modern sequel to the airfoils discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
During the 1970s, NASA designed a series of low-speed airfoils that have
performance superior to the earlier NACA airfoils. The standard NACA airfoils
were based almost exclusively on experimental data obtained during the 1930s
and 1940s. In contrast, the new NASA airfoils were designed on a computer using
a numerical technique similar to the source and vortex panel methods discussed
earlier, along with numerical predictions of the viscous flow behavior (skin fric-
tion and flow separation). Wind-tunnel tests were then conducted to verify the
computer-designed profiles and to obtain the definitive airfoil properties. Out of
this work first came the general aviation–Whitcomb [GA(W)-1] airfoil, which has
since been redesignated the LS(1)-0417 airfoil. The shape of this airfoil is given
in Figure 4.36, obtained from Reference 16. Note that it has a large leading-edge
radius (0.08c in comparison to the standard 0.02c) in order to flatten the usual peak
in pressure coefficient near the nose. Also, note that the bottom surface near the
trailing edge is cusped in order to increase the camber and hence the aerodynamic

Figure 4.36 Profile for the NASA LS(1)-0417 airfoil. When

first introduced, this airfoil was labeled the GA(W)-1 airfoil,
a nomenclature which has now been superseded. (From
McGhee, R. J., and W. D. Beasley: Low-Speed Aerodynamic
Characteristics of a 17-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section
Designed for General Aviation Applications, NASA TN
D-7428, December 1973.)