Aircraft energy efficiency laminar flow control wing design study

General Disclaimer One or more of the Following Statements may affect this Document This document has been reproduced from the best copy furnished by the organizational source. It is being released in the interest of making available as much information as possible.

This document may contain data, which exceeds the sheet parameters. It was furnished in this condition by the organizational source and is the best copy available.

This document may contain tone-on-tone or color graphs, charts and/or pictures, which have been reproduced in black and white.

This document is paginated as submitted by the original source.

Portions of this document are not fully legible due to the historical nature of some of the material. However, it is the best reproduction available from the original submission.

Produced by the NASA Center for Aerospace Information (CASI)

NASA Technical Memorandum

78634 AIRCRAFT ENERGY EFFICIENCY LAMINAR FLOW CONTROL WING DESIGN `TUDY N76-13041 AII2CNAFT ENERGY EFFICILNCY (vASA—T'4-78634) LA"IINAR FLOW CCNTAUL WING DESIGN STUDY O1C A01 A03 /MF 34 p HC (NASA) U11Cl.dS

3/0 5 55215

Toni F. Bonner, Jr., Joseph D. Pride, Jr. and William W. Fernald OCTOBER 1977 to^

r

Nj,honal ! .'runautics ,m(f Space Admo istrahon LangleY Research Center Hampton V ryima 2366,

AIRCRAFT ENERGY EFFICIENCY LAMINAR FLOW CO)ITROL WING DESIGN STUDY by Toni F. Bonner, Jr.

Joseph D. Pride, Jr.

and William W. Fernald SUMMARY An engineering design study was made of a commercial-passenger-type 1:ng range aircraft with laminer flow control (LFC) applied to its wings. The objective of this engineering design study was to perform the necessary design and analyses to configure an integrated LFC wing, including all of the subsystem interfaces associated with a typical wing design plus those special requirerients related to the LFC systems.

The LFC-aircraft configuration selected for this design study was sized for a range of 10,192.5 km (5500 mi.) with 200 tourist class passengers in 1 abreast seating, plus 4,535.9 kg (10,000 lbm.) caro and a F.A.R.

take-off field length not to exceed 3,200 m (10,500 ft.g}.

The design mission was for cruise at M = .8 at a ceiling of 11,582. m (38,000 ft.). The airplane achieved a cruise L/D ratic of 25.2; approx- imately 25`A. better in performance than with LFC system inoperative. The total fuel required for the 10,192.5 kri (5500 n. mi.) miss i on was 56,698.7 kg (125,000 lbm.).

Structural integration of the LFC system slots, i.e., ducting and plenum compartment, was evaluated. Two structural materials, aluminum and titanium, were evaluated and compared. The results of this design ,,Ludy indicates that LFC can be effectively integrated into the wing structure using both standard aluminum and advanced titanium technology and the titanium technology can be expected to yield a lighter weight design.

INTRODUCTION The Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Program Office, LRC, has proposed a pro g ram to focus t%re application of emerging technologies that, by 1985, will provide the basis for the design of advanced subsonic transport air- craft requiring substantially less fuel than current designs. One of the most promising of the new technologies under consideration is Laminar Flow

system prevents the formation of turbulent flow Control (LFC). The LFC by pulling the slow-moving turbulent air, adjacent to the wing surface, through slots, internal ducts/pumps and then discharging this suction air behind the wing trailing e.;ge. The proper application of this technology can effect significant fuel savings and increase the range capability.

of this document is to provide an assessment for LFC-project The purpo , e candidate commercial aircraft decisions on the application of LFC to engineering design study was to perform designs. The objective of this the necessary design and analys es work to provide an integrated wing configuration including all the subsystem interfaces plus those special requirements related to the LFC systems.

The study approach was to first conduct an evaluation of candidate LFC aircraft configurations. A baseline 200 passenger, 10,192.5 kri (5500 n. mi airplane, which incorporates an aspect ratio 10 wing with laminar flow control, was selected for the design study. The emphasis in this engineer- ing design effort was placed on LFC wings of metal technology. The first wing used the standard aluminum technology. The aluminum wing was compared with a recent development in metallic titanium technology--superplastic formed diffusion bonded titanium process (SFDB). Both wings incorporated similar suction-slot concepts.

SYMBOLS The analysis computations in support of this study were performed in U.S.

Customary (English) units. Results were converted to the International System of Units (SI) by using conversion factors in reference 1 and are presented in this report along with the Customary Units.

AR Wing Aspect Ratio ATA Aviation Transport Association C Chord (streamwise) at M.A.C.

c Chord C L Lift Coefficient Nondimensional Suction Coefficient C EI Fending Stiffness, lb.-in2 F.A.R.

Federal Air Regulation g Gravitational Constant Torsional Stiffness, lb.-in 2 GJ L/D List-to-Drag Ratio M.A.C. Mean Aerodynamic Chord M Mach Number NARUVL North American Rockwell Unified Vortex Lattice Horizontal Ta=i Area S Vertical Tail Area S

Wing Area

SW

Thickness/Chord

t/c Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption, 1b /hr fuel TSFC lb thrust Undisturbed free-stream velocity component normal to Uo wing V Velocity Vwal I Boundary Layer Velocity at wall Percent Semi-span n ^,amb Ambient Density Boundary Layer Density at wall pwalI Wing Taper Ratio X Wing Sweep A DISCUSSION LAMINAR FLOW CONTROL (LFC) WING TECHNICAL DATA System Design Study Cycle Chart: The Laminar Flow Control (LFC) in-house system design studies were con- ducted as shown in the cycle chart of figure 1. The basic study input decisions were derived from related in-house efforts. The study aircraft configuration and mission characteristics are shown in reference 2. This reference study involves the preliminary design and evaluation of a 200 passenger commercial aircraft with laminar flow control for a range of 10,192.5 km (5500 n. mi.). This work focused on configuration definition, powerplant size selection and the evaluation of aerodynamic characteristics, mass properties and performance. The wing airfoil for this study was developed by the Theoretical Aerodynamics Branch of NASA/LRC, Subsonic/ Transonic Aerodynamic Division. The wing structural materials selected for comparison in this study are an aluminum skin/stringer concept and a recent development in titanium fabrication as shown in reference 3. These basic study input decisions torrned the guidelines for the design and system integration tasks. Then the candidate design was iterated (see figure 1) to optimize on mission performance and economics.

Baseline LFC-Aircraft Configuration: The baseline LFC-aircraft configuration is illustrated in figure 2. This aircraft concept was configured for 200 passengers plus baggage, 4,535.9 kg (10,000 lbm.) of cargo, with fuel volume to meet a 10,192.5 km (5500 n, mi.)

mission range. This aircraft configuration exhibits the following features: o 7 abreast seating (2-3-2 two aisles) o laminar flow control on upper rind lower wing surfaces from the leading edge aft to 78, o f the chord o all mission fuel contained in the wing

o three high by-pass ratio type engines, aft fuselage mounted o two laminar flow control suction units, one each in wing mounted nacelles o T-tail o cargo space for 4,535.9 kg (10,000 ltxii.) of cargo in the fuselage under the passenger compartment o two hundred passenger seats spaced at 86.36 cm (34 in.) pitch with 50.8 cm (20 in.) wide aisles. A fuselage diameter of 490.2 cm (193.0 in.) satisfies this arrangement with sufficient head room for passengers seated ar,d standing in the aisles.

o a F.A.R. take-off field length not to exceed 3,200 in (10,500 ft.)

LFC-Aircraft Configuration Geometry Data: The baseline aircraft configuration is comprised of an aspect ratio iO

r

wing with a 25 degree quarter chord sweep, a constant streamwise thickness ratio of 12.1% and a specially designed NASAA RC airfoil section. Other specific parameters for the horizontal tail, vertical tail, pewerplants and fuselage are listed in figure 3.

Mission Performance: The design mission objectives (see figure 4) --onsist of a range of 10,192.5 kni (5500 n. mi.) with 23,496. kg (51,800 lbm.) payload at M = .8 and a maximum F.A.R. take-off field length of 3,200 m (10,500 ft.). For this configuration the cruise altitude is 11,582 m (38,000 ft.) and the laminar lift to drag ratio is 25.2. The total mission fuel of 56,698.7 kg ;125,000 lbm.) includes the amount required by the LFC units and a reserve as specified by the ATA for international flights. The case of a LFC system failure at the mid-puint of the design mission range was also investigated. A range loss of approximately 1,111.9 km (600 n. mi.) was experienced.

Wing Planform-Aluminum Wing: The design effort was focused on the baseline aircraft wing planform depicted in figure 5. Standard metal technology was used in the aluminum wins design. The fine lines (of constant percent chord) shown in the :^lanform view represents the suction slots. The increased number of lines near the leading edge and near the trailing edge is the result of increased suctiun required for those areas. The suction system engine is located j ust inboard from the M.A.C. at the break point in the trailing edge. In Sec. A-A, the suction engine nacelle size is minimized by fairing into the upper and lower wing surface just aft of the rear spar. The engine centerline is positioned near the wing reference plane.

Control surfaces consist of inboard and outboard spoilers and an outboard aileron. The trailing edge high lift system consists of a 25 percent chord doutle-slotted flap system.

Wing Planform-SFDB Titanium: The application of a recent development in titanium technology (reference 3) to the same wing planform (figure 6) was compared with the aluminum wing.

i The suction syste.r for the titanium wing was `he same as for the aluminum wing. Ne ther concept utilized suction aft of the 181 chord because of interference with spoilers and flaps. In Sec. A-A, the suction engine and nacelle are beneath the wing reference line thereby providing a clean upper surface.

The wing controls consist of inboard end outboard spoilers and an outboard aileron. The trailing edge high lift system consists of a 15 percent chord vane-flap system.

Structural Concept-Aluminum Skin/Stringer Wing: This LFC wing uses an integrated structural concept with T-type stringer/ ducts bonded or fastened to the aluminum skin as shown in "Detail A" of figure 1. The T-stringers are capped on the backside to form the suction- air ducts. This design technique results in very little structural weight penalty fer the suction air distribution system. The rib/skin shear tie between stringers is shown in "Section X-X" where the rib web bonds to the skin. Access into the wing box is provided on the bottom surface through a series of doors shown in "Detail B." These doors are accessible through the removal of a spanwise skin-panel.

The slot-plenum arrangement with typical dimensions is shown in "Detail C" of figure 1. A thin aluminum, surface strip is shown bonded over close tolerance grooves that are machined in the wing surface. The top surface and precut slot is coated with "Tufram" protective coating to protect a g ainst corrosion and erosion processes. The "Tufram" protective coating is a patented anodizing process, developed by the General Magna Plate Corporation, that converts an aluminum surface to one that is very hard, is resistant to corrosion, abrasion, moisture, and is self-lubricati.ig.

Structural Concept - SFDB Titanium Wing: The LFC titanium wing (figure 8) uses an integrated superplastically formed diffusion bonded truss-core panel concept. The wing structure consists of a series of spanwise continuous panels joined by spanwise T-sections. The truss-core panel structure is shown in "View A" and the suction slot, plenum and metering hole arrangement in "View B." The plenu ms' configuration is formed during the forning process and the metering holes are pre-drilled. The spanwise suction slots are cut in the outer titanium skin in the corner of the appropriate truss-core cell after fabrication of each titanium panel. Access into the wing be ," is provided throu g h a removable spanwise panel as shown in "View C." tructural fail-safe provisions a-e made by integrated crack stoppers and spanwise stiffners.

Wing Suction Slot Distribution: T!,e LFC suction slot spacing is shown in figure 4 for a wing cross-section at the M.A.C. location. The slot spacing decreases significantly near the leading edge and aft of the rear spar because of the hig;ier suction requirements in these areas. The LFC suction distribution, represented by a coefficient C Q , for the wing upper and lower surface is also presented

in figure 9. Incorporation of the spoilers and flap system dictated that the suction slots be terminated at the 78 1 V chord location. Based on the suction distribution shown, 53 suction slots are required for the upper surface and 50 suction slots are required for lower surface. The Reynolds number (based on slot width) for the air flow through the slots was main- tained at a value of 90 over the entire wing surface.

Integral Stringer-Duct Suction System - Aluminum Wing Concept: As shown in figure 10 the suction air internal distribution is primarily in the spanwise direction where the air flows from the wing tip and the side of bony intersection to the centerline of the suction enc,ine plenum compartment. In"Section A-A" the suction engine is located vertically near the wing reference plane to allow the plenuri ducts to pass through the rear spar web and to minimize the engine nacelle size. The upper surface air is directed into the low pressure plenum where it feeds the suction engine's low pressure compressor aad the high pressure air from the lower surface is directed into the high pressure plenum where it feeds the high pressure compressor in the suction engine. The section forward of the front spar uses a Y-type manifold duct to smoothly direct air into the plenums. The section aft of the rear spar uses a large contoured manifold to introduce the air into the plenums just ahead of the compressor stages. The suction engine gas generator is fed by ram air anO all LFC suction air is by-passed and exhausted aft of the wing trailing edge.

Truss-Core Duct Suction System - SFDB Titanium Wing Concept: This suction air distribution system in figure 11 is similar to the aluminum wing concept where air flows from the wing tip and the side of body to the plenum compartment. Also the truss-core structural panels form the spanwise ducts for the flow of LFC suction air. Each truss-core duct uses a local riar.ifold duct that directs the air into the plenum. The plenur is located in a dry bay that is approximately 71.12 cm (28 in.)

wide. The upper surface air is directed through elbows into the low pressure compressor and the lower surface air is directed in a like ranner into the high pressure compressor. In this concept the suction engines are located beneath the wing mold line with the nacelle interfacing the wing lower surface only, thereby providing a clean upper surface.

Upper Surface LFC Concept: Independen"c studies have shown that approximately 70 percent of the wing friction drag occurs on the upper wing surface. The concept shown in figure 12 describes the wing cross-section where LFC is applied on just the upper surface. This allows an efficient leading edge device (Krueger- type shown) which, in combination with a simple trailing edge device, provides increased high lift capability. Also, the leading edge device provides an excellent insect shield during the take-off and landing phases.

The lower surface of the wing utilizes Standard aluminum technology and would provide ready access into the wing box region. This concept would reduce the suction complexity and suction engine size. Overall, a lighter weight and simpler design for the LFC wing would be realized by the application of LFC on just the upper surface.

i

Structural Wing Loads: A simplified loads analysis was performed to allow preliminary sizing of the wing structural parts. A 2.5 g positive maneuver acceleration was selected as the critical load condition for wing box sizing. This positive maneuver condition provided the most critical loading of the wing structure on a typical present day commercial transport aircraft (reference 4) that is similar in configuration to the baseline LFC aircraft. Limit load values are indicated by the curves of figure 13.

Spanwise Lift Distribution: The lift distribution for the baseline LFC aircraft wing was derived using the NARUVL wing lift program (reference 6). This spanwise airload distri- bution in figure 14, when compared with reference 5, shows a slight inboard shift of the spanwise center of pressure.

Leading-Edge High-Lift Systems: The leading-edge high-lift system presented in figure 15 is a slat concept which will allow suction on both the upper and lower surfaces of the wing in the leading edge region. The system is deployed on a track which is attached to a false spar located at the 81 1 ' chord position. In the stored position the track does not extend past the front spar located at the 18" chord position. Air is sucked from the slat by means of a telescoping air duct. This same duct or one mounted internal to this di:ct may be used in the de-icing system. Exact details of the slat geometry must be defined by wind tunnel model tests.

I Krueger-type high-lift system was selected to be used in conjunction with a LFC wing with suction only on the upper surface. The Krueger shown in figure 16 is positioned to have a 2" chord gap and 0" chord overlap. The exact position would be determined using a wind tunnel model.

A Krueger-type device would make it very difficult to provide LFC on the lower surface in the leading edge region due to the volume needed for the com p lex linkage. The system can, however, be practically integrated into a wing with LFC on just the upper surface. This device would also provide a shielding effect for the leading edge that may prevent insect contami- nation of the surface.

'railing-Edge High Lift Systems: The aluminum wing design employs a 25ro chord double slotted fowler-type, flap (figure 17) high lift system in conjunction with a 10" chord flight and ground spoiler. Using an internal track system, the flap system is capable of achieving a minimum 10 chord extension through the fowler action.

Th i s system is estimated to have a take-off C L of 1.0 and an approach CL of 1.8 (2.5 with a leading edge device).

The titanium wing design employs a 15°o vane-flap high lift system (figure 18) with a flight and ground spoiler. This system is capable of achieving a minimum 10% chord extension through the fowler actin- The system is estimated to have a take-off C L of .90 and an approach C L of 1.70.

Suction Powerplant Concept: The LFC suction powerplant selected is a turboshaft engine (figure 19) that is connected to low pressure and high pressure axial flow compressors.

surface enters the low pressure Low pressure air from the upper w i ng compressor from which it discharges into a mixing chamber where it combines with the high pressure air from the lower wing surface. The combined air then passes through the high pressure compressor, bypasses the turbine, and is exhausted at approximately free stream velocity, aft of the wing trailing edge.

Wing Bending Stiffness Comparison: 9 -0 shows the LFC-wing bending stiffness distribution from the wing Figure tip to the wing/body intersection. The cross-hatched band represents 40- 1 estimated values from previous studies. Discrete calculated points from the structural analysis of this study are shown for the aluminum and t itanium wings. The titanium wing has 15% greater bending stiffness than the comparable aluminum wing.

Wing Torsional Stiffness Comparison: FigLjre 21 shows the LFC-wing torsional stiffness distribution from the wing tip to the wing/body intersection. The cross-hatched band represents estimated values from previous studies. Specific calculated points of this study are plotted for the aluminum and titanium wings. The titanium wing has over 20Z greater torsional stiffness than the comparable aluminum wing.

Baseline Aircraft Weight Fractions: The chart in figure 22 shows the statistical weight e3timate of the base- line LFC aircraft with an aluminum wing. The LFC wing was estirated to weigh 24,947.4 kg (55,00 lbm.), which included a weight penalty (increase) (1.5 lb/ft^) of wing area for the LFC suction surface and of 7.32 kg/M 2 ducting system plus 907.2 kg (2000 lbm.) concentrated weight for each suction engine.

CONCLUDING REMARKS NASA-LFC wing in-house design study findings are as follows: T he o The LFC wing-integral stringer/duct technique provides an efficient LFC concept.

o Extent of larninarization aft of the wing rear spar significantly impacts the total suction flow and suction engine size.

o Advanced turboshaft engine technology is necessary for a viable wing mounted concept.

o A double-slotted fowler-type flap system can be integrated into a LFC wing.

o Integration of a leading edge slat with suction appears to be feasible.

o LFC on ,just the upper surface of the wing allows integration of l.F.and T.E. high lift devices, normal wing access, lower weight and less suction system complexity.

o The superplastic formed-diffusion bonded (SFDB) titanium structural concept can he integrated into a LFC. wing.

o The SFDB-titanium Yang with LFC ha, nigher bending and torsional stiffness characteristics than the aluminum wing with LFC, and can be expected to yield a lighter weight design.

inis design study effort concluded that the extent of wing laminarization should end near the 80t of the wing chord. This location allows laminar- ization to be contained in a fixed wing structure inxnediati^ly aft of the ..- , rear spar and forward of movable panels such as ailerons, flaps and spoilers.

The SFDB titanium technique results in an attractive LFC-wing concept that has increased stiffness characteristic that are important for high aspect ratio wing structures. Further development and manufacture of large flight quality panels are required in order to commit this technology to actual flight aircraft design and fabrication.

i REFERENCES 1. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units-Physical Constants and Conversion Factors (second rc:ision), NASA sp-7012, 1973.

2. Vought Corp., HTC: ACE[ Laminar Flow Control Reference Airplane Data, Prepared under Contract NAS1-13500, February 4, 1977.

Rockwell International Corp.: Laminar Flow Control Wing Structure, 3.

p repared under Contract NAS1-14566, March 8, 1977.

4. NASA CR-144950, A Preliminary Design Study of a Laminar Flow Control a" n Wing of Composite Materials for Long Range Transport Aircraft.

NASA TR-921, Theoretical Symmetric Span Loading at Subsonic Speeds 5.

For Wings Having Arbitrary Plan Form.

6. Tulinius, J.: The Unified Subsonic, Transonic and Supersonic NAF Vortex Lattice TFD-72-523, Los Angeles Division, North American Rockwell, January 26, 1973.

FIGURE I LFC, IN-HOUSE SYSTLili DESIGN STUD IES A/C WI11(i CONF 1611RA- WING A I R F 0 1 L C T I ON PLANFOR'l 'DESIGN SURFACE MISSION STUDY MATL' S EFINIT10 INPUT ECISI0;1 SURFACE DING PRESSURES 0 i*,J ^L'CT 1 SURFACE LOADS WING UI ► JG NEL CONCEPT RUC , CO^JCEP BOX LAYOUT SUCIION DUCTS, PVP SYSTEMS I.OW CONTROL D E S I G'^J ~ 6 _ fiIGH-LIFT WING SYSTE'"S DEVICES CO^41TR0LS INTEGRATION AUXILIAuY FU EL STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS PROVISION") FLUTTER APJALYSIS ITERATI ON WEIGHTS ANALYSIS MISSION ECONOMICS - P1 LE E'.! M NOT ADDRESSED UMENTAT 1 ON C IN THIS STUDY

N WN M v i rl N 1

rn

o '^ ^o ^. N Npp v fQ?

O w .-q ^I cr, O .T .r M N CC v r^ N zD oN O^ a i OO rl

y

N

U yN,^ CC Z O_

N

Z A

J

J M

CT M N ^D N M Qc co I ^ r

GEOMETRY DATA WING spd,)w = 57.83m (189.74 = 334.5 M 2 (3600 ft 2 ) ft) Sw root chord = 8.90 m (29.29 ft)((d A/C CL ) AR w = 10 tip chord = 2.6 7 m (8.76 ft taper w = .3 25° M.A.C.w = 6.34 m (20.8 ft) sweeo w @ 1/4 C = = 12.7% t/ c w strearnwi se HORIZONTAL TAIL in 16.49 in (54.1 ft) (900 ft 2 ) span = = 83.61 s roo' chord = 7.25 in (23.8 ft) AR h = 3.25 .40 tip chord = 2.90 m (9.5 ft) taper = M.A.C.h 5.39 in (17.7 ft) sweep h C 30 0 = ' @ 1/4 moment arm = 22.86 in (75 ft) t/c h ( d root = 11 4 , @ tip 9% t/c h = .90 vol. coeff VERTICAL TAIL in spanv = 7.67 m (23.2 ft) = 75.69 (8o4 ft 2 ) s root chord v = 8.4 m (27.6 ft) AR = .67 , n; tip chord = 8.41 ( 2 7 1.6 ft) s we ep v @ 1/4C = 50° @ root = 13% M.A.C.v = 10.70 m (35.1) t/c v moment arm = 15.54 m 1,51 ft) t/c v @ tip = 9% _ .06 vol coeff.

POWERPLANTS sealevel/stand. day take-off thrust per engine = 12,246.9 kg (27,000 lbs) installed FIGURE 3

FUSELAGE length = 49.32 m (161.8 ft) maximum dia. = 4.91 m (16.1 ft) FIGURE 3 CONTINUED

C W r^ Lll LD O F--- ^ CD O CO U M - Q L!1 O -- -7 := O r\ r\ - 00 M C:) N Ln dj^ + N C N ^ 00 111 Lll V) CD V) O Z d C:) Q Cl- O Of cl` Ln LL - ) - ^ O - O C7 O N J ' - .--/ O t11 F- >Z M M t\ N O r-I Ln M M N LL_ \ . O r-{ CT Cn J 1 F- CYa C G4 ^ J J W J J M O O C7 U CD _J - O O O c7 C^ F- ^7-_- r-I M l O O r-I LL- Lr 1\ O O - D O O C) N O ci:j N -% W O O C7 O N . N t-, CD (N i C:) J r-I N C71 r--4 --a- V t\ Cn co LO r• Z-1 lD 00 L rN N N (:>CV W 1 m:: r-I LL- - - - - C) U-) Lfl O r-I I\ LL <: Q) ^ (-D LD Q Y >C Cl- I ^14 M N r - I N c y) W C] Y Y ^z CD LD LD _-r U - C', i _ - j - Cr W Q . . . C LD Q) F- Lr) Y Cl- - - G:^ - - Ln 00 t\ V - S r - 1 LD -ZT O ZT -- Z (D LD 1- U' C/? t\ ^ — M O LL- N CV C r) O --+ CV -:^ N W K1 N U-% L!1 M L1 M N h l C-D O C> O C V) C7 0 0

lD 00 N --A O U U

^ LL r-- Lr) c= r--I M m 00 X J_-x M U r--4 O V Z F- V) LO V Lr% LU LD Cr W d LD i. ► -^ M M M N N Z - F--• H- W Z QD S i i Z CL- CL Z F -- QS - - - - - W H- c — CD Of V -T U) U'l O O II Z ^:: ► - + W (-- G7 Q LLJ-- N 00 LO lfl lD

Z

J W V) li Q W Cl- W ^T' r-I r i t\ r - i W

3 F O J O J O:^MU

W Call _z Lr) _-T m CO CAD V) S i-. o 3 J J --- S C:4 L[7 lD U') r^ r-1 z Q V) (. V) d F-- r--,

V) V) J 1-4 r-I r-4 --i r-4

L_7 04 ► — W ^-. C W O J Ca V) LLJ L CY 3 ^- o L> _J LLJ Z — — Z V) V .- ( W LL- C'D - D Q J r-- 3 LL- LLJ Q Lo U J w F— . Q J J W Z W d i /) d LL W I W LL- LL- LL- Ca CY F - :m I - LL. LL LL V) W W L7 ► --. V _.J Q 3 • - O F - d Q V) ► -- V) O O O LL. C .- Z LL1

Q C -4r Z 1 I I U- V V O V) Z LL- Q

CV W QC J V -^ — W W W O Cl:^ W — -VC I !-- F-- .--. J Y W }- Z J Y Y (X U C=l I Y LLJ C/) c d CL 4 ^ • - CY QC r--+ V CL LLJ Q Q d V) Q 3 V F- Y Q dC^ CZ X O «--+ F- O C1. F- •-^ O d 1- F- L Z Q J C^

^ J

i

g O O O O

O O O O J Ln O r - + 00 r--4 r--1 O .. .^ N w- n LL- U"N (-D Ln r\ c-D Lll M O Ln Y Ln 111 N O M J1 Zr 00 Zr N V) F- M M r1 CT w LL N Ctf r\ r1 O O r\ O C::) N W Cl O N - t\ N Ln Lf1

CD co CA z

F-- F- W Ll.. :x - C:) O U Z O D` Ln r-4 W

rn w

J ^D Q O N O - r1 F- r\ U- LL 111 <c of U

^ d

Q 2 Z U ^ ? Z W L W Q O ► --+ W Z

` 2 - - O O Q

► D:^ N J = J Z Z S -^ Cl- W W F- O W W \ S C^ cn Cl._

CL 2 W Q U V ^.=

D` Q Z LL LL rle l

LL- ► — W LLD ^-- U LL LL 00 QD v) LL Lo - Q L:J W Q W J t VD CD O Cr O O CZI .--.

f\ O C) U U C:7 - LLA ri t rq l *^ hel \ F- F- F- L7 F- (_j --^ J LL 4 LL LL F- W • - Cr — C/') J Q J J F- Q Q O

ORIGINAL' PAGE'

Ib

OF W X)It QVALITV

^

r -4 O 1!1 N .--) V) f+. f1 K O 5^ 11 N ^ N Opp W J If If K II N II J S O O Q X ^"( • x N S d

x L-5

o d x

q— _l L- _• - J It II —^-^ ! O G .-i ^ ^ W N c I ^ u1 duQ^ r„n LA- ` a N O J N If •

^ ^ u

C ^ N W C14 ^ O 8 00 w o

i M W

O I J G Z ^ w V?

O N d u W cn X = N M y '1 J O V) J --t ~ rn r In -r'- u M - m - CN W ac Z J O

T N

LA- ar L ^ N J W Z M N O = 1 ^ N S

7 F) x --

o^C

z

^ W m p W DC s

i

x ^.

)t W V7 cn c J LZ ec a ^- Q O OC u - - W U 1L F- 00 K^ W OO O r--C) t\ v 2E w O u-4 00 O J C73 O M O N 00 .- 1 N 00 ^ - .— W .••1 Q t N ^^ u u O) `z N O , N W: E U J I ME V) .-H 491 r- I,J1 00 00 to Z • Y O \ ^ zr

a

M U' ^ °° N ca

M

U I V) .1 .^ OC 1--N S ^ a p o ^ u v ^ .-i mxox _ OON i uxr- cn Z v oc Cl. u cv ^n m W waa- ` v ~^_ Cl. . n V) Cc -M g -V)V)ocI.- a Q ► z N N .

s =

x x

i

OWGINAL. PAU I'.

w

I

.,

a

M O " ^ 1 K ^ O O

C 1

ss

T-

O" _ .......... ^»^ i NW "

c >

W J r i \F N

J cr ~

}

N

^! u § M ^ M 1 O / ^^pp .^9 N 4 -

" W

O ^ r y _

N

N N ^

i J

= \` Y IV 1

J

n r[ t ,

r C)

8 88°°

p

' M N ^ O 4!^'O rl LL y M .^

^

Q

t

N

Z '^' a ^^ °d

r ^` ,ulul^

W v

8 A ^-

Q _ " go W n d M

N N I

^ 1

"

W;J

1QW^

H

- M

i

O ^,cn f d N x

N n- O ^ y'^

N f X K X

,.. Q ^p ^pp lx

4 Z y W '^ y ^ v

N

W,

LI mid .3 N 4.S SI

W

W

i1

Lti'g t RlP 1' UUK (^l,'gl^

/i /

,

^^a^- /

A

^a

Mo.•

EMS 414- tA ti Jf

cr W F W W Z F--

G z 2: l W i

a

K

O _ ^ Lhi VI

Ll

W

Li z ` W J ^ J

d

W

N Z

W Z c' N Q d

N

I ^ s -i u W

i v

a W

a ` i Ln - W Z .- O q Z W cl } J

C

W Z U

^ O ^ ^.., OOC

F--

N

O c^ W W W W J ./9 m = O T LA- w Lai

N F-

J VI) N Z W

Z Q O ^.., w N W W LAJ C7 Z --i 3 `Q LL LA. I

O N

=

J

OC W ^ a= SL d vwi W W } d ^r U

Z

O

3 ~ Li

W z CA:

Z

J

C

d

a

G. W `I

V O

N N ^ Z F- .^ Ln

) d U c7

LLJ Z ` Z N O F a m LL J 3 LL.

a J 3 3 ^ O d ^ W W W

^l

F- Q W } L^

a C)

J

J

N

Z ^ ^

W d

Z W J Lai ~ CD

N

Z d W J co V) W J F- Z Z

J CL a i

N W W F- O m F

rr N q

} I U O O 3 ^ ' N w d a a C v l/) V W l/) LL N J '- - =) co - 9i CD w (..)

rl O '- ~ J ^• W W V) a >- 3 L` Z O d -:t J Q `S Z d p J O Ln W C,3 .

w x VI LA- d 3 O F- V) F-

d

W ^ 1.L. W d U- a O v N

ORIGINAL PAG9 fa

nF'

POOR

QUALI'1j6

.R

^a

o r—

o

J p J O V) 1--- N I.-- P LZ M LL L!l .-.

ce un

cc U- O Z V) 'a

N =

v ^l oc:

w

N IY ti d

J

O

I

n ° IX

cn

o^

^ II Y

w

a h

Y•

S^

I

t o

N Y n I i

I

J I

r r-

V f'^ c–i I I °d f` I

s ,s

I W C-) cn N I lL N Re a v, i N w

J LAJ

3 M O 11J

U (^

♦ ^ U ^ u ^ w 4 1Q w^ n CL ,u d •^ I :D CD v Iu I di LJ ?

U n ^o I Cl- c cn I ° I I ^ I I

O U

I I c./^ d I i I °

i

v

--

wV

4 I

I ^

I i

N ^ J ^j;^ L --------- m (^ J h f.

^ n ^ ^ Q'.

^ w 'NI 9NI)bdS lO1S 0001 X 03

—_

— M S t,ap

N --i pp O LIl O O WO ` 9N I OVdS 1015

ohlr'LVAIL' PArp IS Of , i N

A

4 LLJ kq ^oO LA- 1.14

W Z

a

J W W Cl cx W J = LAJ W S, W Q U W LL. U cr cx 2 LY LL- = O O Z OC V) N ~ V V1 W alb- ' ' = cc V1 W O Y 1 V1 d

z

a^

d W a

J Y W O d U• 1-- 2 _Z

OC

^^ 3 V)

N

W LAJ U

^ a u z

a

On 1 d

' n V1 o ~

Ln o z = a rn W Cl- C7 V) cx S Ur Lw

2 rr O

I U F-

a J 3 V ~O

F- G O t/1 Z U W U- vW7 J Q '_' I t9

^^ 1 J

li

m J j \

a z \ i^ J

Q

^ I I i W F- 2 I ^ 1 ` u \ ' V) I ,, Q

w

U I I \^ 3

I 1^4

1.

V)

W

cx a \

^ ^ V _1 N I _^ \ V) d

I' f \

W

O

^.^ N 1 a S M .^.

cx 2 \ Ln I I Q

11 x

cc

3 O

Q)

a CL

4 °

S n Cl.

W V1 cx ^^ \ d W

J W

Z

Z

ldi cr LL a -^ J O GC W LL V: ^ O O Z Of V LLJ

f 3 W ~

U O tY .1 d W

D

J

ORIGINAL PACE lh

OF POOR c^t?E LI'':

W g

g

t

r a E

^

y 1 V 4oh- ^ f Y

^J

:g.

N_

i 6 ,bc

W

d' t? q l, _ 0 3 4 lA- V J

a

--^ --1

f I -

lol

^, o

W Q Y .

61; J ' ^7} J W O

u

yp,^

^

r

r^ ^, A O

J

4' U ^ ^" Z r ¢ W = 41 J ^_ O D ^ ZLLdd dq d X d O O ^ M N

u .^-1

o

L L

N '

ra

J J l- T cr u^

N

ti pN O O_

8 w O 000 O

N

dv]HS X 91 Z S - o SOT CN X U-NI ,"W - NOIS801 y ► W 1N NOW 3SIMNVdS , x 90T X 91-NI m rn o W r: ry M Ln l! N M 1-4 O .-4 X N Z S - bb3HS S OT a, o o, o Uri rn r4 NOISHOI 901 X N-W3 , ~ W - '1N3WOW 3SIMNVdS 90T X N-W) , X W

LFC-BASELINE WING SPANWISE THEORETICAL LIFT DISTRIBUTION AR - 10, 6' TWIST 1,4 - , "1) 1.2

u

r-^ J ^ U 1.0

z

W

V

ll..

W O O U ,O Z O a I cr- V) Q

J

J .4

w

cr-

O

w

x

— ► .2 -,2 FIGURE 14

a- d

Q

d ^, ^ I

U

O V) N CD F- Q w

(n C:--1

fi ^ Y v = Cn L7 Q JI 1- W

w

1 V) F-- I I 1 r ,J LO SI

w

c.^ Li

W

O

N

Q

W I

J

u

LL O I C/7 CL J t Z N cn y C Z^ 1 R9 i W O Q Cil- CD ^.

O U Cl- F-

J O

a V) IJ O O g cn u ► - V V) I ca cc LA t— w h-

J

w

y.

^ t U w J J O U Cif V) U CZ-4 Q

W

Cn \ ^ 4 Z ^ O Q ^ l LJ U C/) C/) LL-J ^ 2 Cr Y Q W Z •I W J F— C/) >1 U L LJ >C 6\ N J

L

LL J I C/)

Z

W F— X W LL Q af, W S C/) w U W W W c^ cr^ CC) U C/) cQ L^ U Q W C/) J LL o Z ^ J iJ ^ C/7 CY_ C--) W ► -^ Cl- F--

Z

^ U U W U C/') W

=) j

Z Y H W L W cl:f C C v) F- U W J J U

U

i

Z

o

^Q

U rY ^ — :^j i O ^—I 2C W Z O F- v^ C) Ca

w

>- c CD LAJ Q W cz — U

J ^

W z

a

a

IZ

W

<.7 i Z ,

Z

O

N O CL D W O Z

W ^ Z

W

F--

r ,^

x

N N

W

^ W

r

a

r

d LL CL W

W N

J LL

Z

^ O O

w

z

0 u

w

a z

cr- .^ a ZD C7 LL- i LL- ^ w 3

w z

Q

Z > ^

J Z

Q ~

r

L C

)

C L

)

J I J f L J l S f f

^I

m

Y^ W ti

U

ASELINE AIRCRAFT CONFIGURATION LFC STIFF NL SLLUtlf' RISO l ILNDM n n .085 20,089, — TITANIUM WING ALUMINUM WING 17,219 14,,349.- — R

N

N

E

V

11,479. ,1400

Z

W V) 8^ 609 .

`1300 u- Q 5, 740 - 200 N l W 2,870, 1,v n - FRACTION OF SEMISPAN FIGURE 20

l FC_BASELINE AIRCRAFI CONFIGURATION n = .085 TORSIONAL STIFFNESS COtIPARISON i i WING/BODY INTERSECTION (D — TITANIUM WING 20, 089 v -- ALUMINUM WING 17,219- 600 14,349, z

U

Z

U

11,479, w z BAND) 8,609 300 Q z 5,740 "7 200 1,0 2,870 ,0 n - F RAC T I -0f- EaUlAN FIGURE 21

i 1 LFC - IN-HOUSE DESIGN STUDIES BASELINE AIRCRAFT WEIGHT FRACTIONS 0- 1 100 TOGW 165,424 KG (364,700 LBM) -FUEL- 56,699 KG (125,000 LBM) ZFW 108,732 KG (239,715 LBM) -PAYLOAD -23,496 KG (51,800 LBM) OWE --8:,236 KG (187,915 LBM) -------79,400. KG (175,049 LBM) WE SYS , & EOU I P. -12, 093 KG (26, 600 LBM) - PROPULSION ^-13,163 KG (29,019 LBM) AIRCRAFT STRUC T URE -1 54,145, KG (119,369 LBM) WING - 24,947. KG (55,000 LBM) -LAMINAR FLOW CONTRO1 FIGURE 22

2 Govwnment Accsuiw No 1. Flepurt No 3 Rec prent s rAtebg No _ NASA TM 18634 s True and Suosrtte — 5 Report ate _ Octob er 197 1_ Aircraft Energy Efficiency Laminar Flow Control Wing 6 Performing Orgttnrrelron colt ► - Design Study 55.410 9 Performing Orgenrtation Report No Toni F. Bonner, Jr., NASA, Langley Research Center 7 Author ' s) Joseph D. Pride, Jr., " 1) if W. Fernald " r' 10 Wurk Unit No for 9 Pet mfngOfgan-ulron Name and Addfeu _ 514-55-03-21 NASA, Langley Research Center 11 Contfsct or Grant No Hampton, Virginia 23665 13 Typ. of Report and Pw,od covered - 12 Sponsoring Agency Name and Address — Technical Memorandum National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14 Swnstx,ng Agency Code _--- Washington, DC 20546 15 Supplementary Notes --_ 16 Abstract An engineering design study was performed in which Laminar Flow Control (LFC) was integrated into the wing of a contnercial passenger transport aircraft. A baseline aircraft configuration was selected and the wing geometry was defined. The LFC system, with suction slots, ducting, and suction pumps was integrated with the wing structure. The use of standard aluminum technology and advanced Superplastic Formed- Diffusion Bonded (SFDB) titanium technology was evaluated. The results of the design study show that the LFC system can be integrated with the wing structure to provide a structurally and aerodynamically efficient wing for a cortanercial transport aircraft.

17 Key Words (Suggested by Authorlsll 19 (`)M r , hut-on Statement Laminar Flow Control Unclassified-unlimited Aircraft Energy Efficiency Star category W Wing Slots, ducts, suction engines 19 Secur ty class if (of this report) 20 Security ;of th s page) 121 No of Pages 22 Ptrce' Gault Unclassified Unclassified 33 54.00 For sale by the National Technical Infofmation Service Springfield Virginia 22161