AERODYNAMICS: SOME INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS 71

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

d
E 0.6
.!:i
u
iB
8u 0.5
¢::
;J

c ' ) Flap
deflection
angle

a, degrees

Figure 1.47 Variation of lift coefficient with angle of attack

for the T-38. Three curves are shown
corresponding to three different flap deflections.
Freestream Mach number is 0.4. (Courtesy of
the u.s. Air Force.)

Moreover, the wing on an airplane experiences a much higher pressure drag than an
airfoil due to the adverse aerodynamic effects of the wing tips (a topic for Chapter
5). This additional pressure drag is called induced drag, and for short, stubby wings,
such as on the T-38, the induced drag can be large. (We must wait until Chapter 5
to find out about the nature of induced drag.) As a result, the L/ D ratio of the T-38
is fairly small as most airplanes go. For example, the maximum L / D ratio for the
Boeing B-52 strategic bomber is 21.5 (see Reference 48). However, this value is still
considerably smaller than that for an airfoil alone.
Finally, we tum our attention to the values of moment coefficients. Figure 1.48
illustrates the variation of em . c /4 for the NACA 63-210 airfoil. Note that this is a neg-
ative quantity; all conventional airfoils produce negative, or "pitch-down," moments.
(Recall the sign convention for moments given in Section 1.5.) Also, notice that its
value is on the order of -0.035. This value is typical of a moment coefficient-on
the order of hundredths.

www.ASEC.ir
72 FUNDAMENTALS OF AERODYNAMICS

%
E
" 0.1 0.. degrees
-16 -8 8 16

--{).1

Flgur. 1.48 Variation of section moment

coefficient about the quarter
chord for an NACA 63-210
6
airfoil. Re = 3 x 10 .

With this, we end our discussion of typical values of the aerodynamic coefficients
defined in Section 1.5. At this stage, you should reread this section, now from the
overall perspective provided by a first reading, and make certain to fix in your mind
the typical values discussed-it will provide a useful "calibration" for our subsequent
discussions.

1.12 HISTORICAL NOTE: THE ILLUSIVE CENTER

OF PRESSURE

The center of pressure of an airfoil was an important matter during the development
of aeronautics. It was recognized in the nineteenth century that, for a heavier-than-
air machine to fly at stable, equilibrium conditions (e.g., straight-and-level flight),
the moment about the vehicle's center of gravity must be zero (see Chapter 7 of
Reference 2). The wing lift acting at the center of pressure, which is generally a
distance away from the center of gravity, contributes substantially to this moment.
Hence, the understanding and prediction of the center of pressure was felt to be
absolutely necessary in order to design a vehicle with proper equilibrium. On the
other hand, the early experimenters had difficulty measuring the center of pressure,
and much confusion reigned. Let us examine this matter further.
The first experiments to investigate the center of pressure of a lifting surface were
conducted by the Englishman George Cayley (1773-1857) in 1808. Cayley was the
inventor of the modem concept of the airplane, namely, a vehicle with fixed wings,
a fuselage, and a tail. He was the first to separate conceptually the functions of lift
and propulsion; prior to Cayley, much thought had gone into omithopters-machines
that flapped their wings for both lift and thrust. Cayley rejected this idea, and in
1799, on a silver disk now in the collection of the Science Museum in London, he
inscribed a sketch of a rudimentary airplane with all the basic elements we recognize

www.ASEC.ir
 AERODYNAMICS: SOME INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS 73

today. Cayley was an active, inventive, and long-lived man, who conducted numerous
pioneering aerodynamic experiments and fervently believed that powered, heavier-
than-air, manned flight was inevitable. (See Chapter 1 of Reference 2 for an extensive
discussion of Cayley's contributions to aeronautics.)
In 1808, Cayley reported on experiments of a winged model which he tested as
a glider and as a kite. His comments on the center of pressure are as follows:

By an experiment made with a large kite formed of an hexagon with wings extended
from it, all so constructed as to present a hollow curve to the current, I found that
when loaded nearly to I Ib to a foot and 1/2, it required the center of gravity to be
suspended so as to leave the anterior and posterior portions of the surface in the ratio
of 3 to 7. But as this included the tail operating with a double leverage behind, I
think such hollow surfaces relieve about an equal pressure on each part, when they
are divided in the ratio of 5 to 12, 5 being the anterior portion. It is really surprising
to find so great a difference, and it obliges the center of gravity of flying machines
to be much forwarder of the center of bulk (the centroid) than could be supposed a
priori.

Here, Cayley is saying that the center of pressure is 5 units from the leading edge
and 12 units from the trailing edge; i.e., x cp = 5/l7e. Later, he states in addition: "I
tried a small square sail in one plane, with the weight nearly the same, and I could
not perceive that the center-of-resistance differed from the center of bulk." That is,
Cayley is stating that the center of pressure in this case is 1/2e.
There is no indication from Cayley's notes that he recognized that center of
pressure moves when the lift, or angle of attack, is changed. However, there is no
doubt that he was clearly concerned with the location of the center of pressure and its
effect on aircraft stability.
The center of pressure on a flat surface inclined at a small angle to the flow
was studied by Samuel P. Langley during the period 1887-1896. Langley was the
secretary of the Smithsonian at that time, and devoted virtually all his time and much
of the Smithsonian's resources to the advancement of powered flight. Langley was a
highly respected physicist and astronomer, and he approached the problem of powered
flight with the systematic and structured mind of a scientist. Using a whirling arm
apparatus as well as scores of rubber-band powered models, he collected a large bulk
of aerodynamic information with which he subsequently designed a full-scale aircraft.
The efforts of Langley to build and fly a successful airplane resulted in two dismal
failures in which his machine fell into the Potomac River-the last attempt being just
9 days before the Wright brothers' historic first flight on December 17, 1903. In spite
ofthese failures, the work of Langley helped in many ways to advance powered flight.
(See Chapter 1 of Reference 2 for more details.)
Langley's observations on the center of pressure for a flat surface inclined to the
flow are found in the Langley Memoir on Mechanical Flight, Part I, 1887 to 1896, by
Samuel P. Langley, and published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1911-5 years
after Langley's death. In this paper, Langley states:

The center-of-pressure in an advancing plane in soaring flight is always in advance of

the center of figure, and moves forward as the angle-of-inclination of the sustaining

www.ASEC.ir
74 FUNDAMENTALS OF AERODYNAMICS

surfaces diminishes, and, to a less extent, as horizontal flight increases in velocity.

These facts furnish the elementary ideas necessary in discussing the problem of
equilibrium, whose solution is of the most vital importance to successful flight.
The solution would be comparatively simple if the position of the center-of-
pressure could be accurately known beforehand, but how difficult the solution is
may be realized from a consideration of one of the facts just stated, namely, that the
position of the center-of- pressure in horizontal flight shifts with velocity of the flight
itself.

Here, we see that Langley is fully aware that the center of pressure moves over
a lifting surface, but that its location is hard to pin down. Also, he notes the correct
variation for a flat plate, namely, x cp moves forward as the angle of attack decreases.
However, he is puzzled by the behavior of x cp for a curved (cambered) airfoil. In his
own words:

Later experiments conducted under my direction indicate that upon the curved sur-
faces I employed, the center-of-pressure moves forward with an increase in the angle
of elevation, and backward with a decrease, so that it may lie even behind the center
of the surface. Since for some surfaces the center-of-pressure moves backward, and
for others forward, it would seem that there might be some other surface for which
it will be fixed.

Here, Langley is noting the totally opposite behavior of the travel of the center of
pressure on a cambered airfoil in comparison to a flat surface, and is indicating ever
so slightly some of his frustration in not being able to explain his results in a rational
scientific way.
Three-hundred-fifty miles to the west of Langley, in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and
Wilbur Wright were also experimenting with airfoils. As described in Section 1.1,
the Wrights had constructed a small wind tunnel in their bicycle shop with which they
conducted aerodynamic tests on hundreds of different airfoil and wing shapes during
the fall, winter, and spring of 1901-1902. Clearly, the Wrights had an appreciation
of the center of pressure, and their successful airfoil design used on the 1903 Wright
Flyer is a testimonial to their mastery of the problem. Interestingly enough, in the
written correspondence of the Wright brothers, only one set of results for the center
of pressure can be found. This appears in Wilbur's notebook, dated July 25, 1905, in
the form of a table and a graph. The graph is shown in Figure 1.49-the original form
as plotted by Wilbur. Here, the center of pressure, given in terms of the percentage
of distance from the leading edge, is plotted versus angle of attack. The data for
two airfoils are given, one with large curvature (maximum height to chord ratio =
1/12) and one with more moderate curvature (maximum height to chord ratio = 1/20).
These results show the now familiar travel of the center of pressure for a curved airfoil,
namely, x cp moves forward as the angle of attack is increased, at least for small to
moderate values of Ci. However, the most forward excursion of x cp in Figure 1.49
is 33 percent behind the leading edge-the center of pressure is always behind the
quarter-chord point.
The first practical airfoil theory, valid for thin airfoils, was developed by Ludwig
Prandtl and his colleagues at Gottingen, Germany, during the period just prior to and

www.ASEC.ir
 AERODYNAMICS: SOME INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS 75

Figure 1.49 Wright brothers' measurements of the center of pressure as a function of angle of
attack for a curved (cambered) airfoil. Center of pressure is plotted on the ordinate in
terms of percentage distance along the chord from the leading edge. This figure
shows the actual data as hand plotted by Wilbur Wright, which appears in Wilbur's
notebook dated July 25, 1905.

during World War I. This thin airfoil theory is described in detail in Chapter 4. The
result for the center of pressure for a curved (cambered) airfoil is given by Equation
(4.66), and shows that xcp moves forward as the angle of attack (hence Ct) increases,
and that it is always behind the quarter-chord point for finite, positive values of Ct. This
theory, in concert with more sophisticated wind-tunnel measurements that were being
made during the period 1915-1925, finally brought the understanding and prediction
of the location of the center of pressure for a cambered airfoil well into focus.
Because x cp makes such a large excursion over the airfoil as the angle of attack
is varied, its importance as a basic and practical airfoil property has diminished.
Beginning in the early 1930s, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA), at its Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory in Virginia, measured
the properties of several systematically designed families of airfoils-airfoils which
became a standard in aeronautical engineering. These NACA airfoils are discussed
in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. Instead of giving the airfoil data in terms of lift, drag, and
center of pressure, the NACA chose the alternate systems of reporting lift, drag, and
moments about either the quarter-chord point or the aerodynamic center. These are
totally appropriate alternative methods of defining the force-and-moment system on
an airfoil, as discussed in Section 1.6 and illustrated in Figure 1.19. As a result, the

www.ASEC.ir