NASA TECHNICAL NOTE NASA TN D-8264

,,O

A HIGH SUBSONIC SPEED

WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION
OF WINGLETS ON A REPRESENTATIVE

SECOND-GENERATION JET TRANSPORT WING

Stuart G. Flechner, Peter F. Jacobs,

and Richard T. Whitcomb

Langley Research Center

_ _ "_,,

Hampton, Va. 23665

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • JULY 1976

=
 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

NASA TN D-8264
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

A HIGH SUBSONIC SPEED WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF July 1976

WINGLETS ON A REPRESENTATIVE SECOND-GENERATION 6. Performing Organization Code
JET TRANSPORT WING

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Stuart G. Flechner, Peter F. Jacobs, and Richard T. Whitcomb L-I0387

10. Work Unit No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-11-11-04

'11. Contract or Grant No.
NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, Va. 23665

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, D.C. 20546

15, Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

This paper discusses the effects of winglets (described in NASA TN D-8260) on the aero-

dynamic forces and moments, loads, and crossflow velocities behind the wing tip. The results
of the investigation indicate that winglets significantly reduce the drag coefficient at lifting con-
ditions. The experiments were conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel at
Mach numbers from 0.70 to 0.83 and over a lift coefficient range up to 0.65. A semispan model

was used.

17. Key Words (Suggested by Authoris)) 18. Distribution Statement

Winglets Unclassified - Unlimited

Induced drag

Drag due to lift

Subject Category 02

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price*
19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified Unclassified 66 $4.25

* For sale by the National Technical nformation Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
 A HIGH SUBSONIC SPEED WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION

OF WINGLETS ON A REPRESENTATIVE

SE C OND- GE NE RATION J ET

TRANSPORT WING

Stuart G. Flechner, Peter F. Jacobs,

and Richard T. Whitcomb

Langley Research Center

SUMMARY

This paper presents the effects of winglets (described in NASA TN D-8260) on the

aerodynamic forces and moments, loads, and crossflow velocities behind the wing tip of a
representative second-generation jet transport wing. The investigation was conducted in

the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel using a semispan model. The test was car-
ried out at Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.80, and 0.83 over a lift coefficient range up to 0.65,
and at a constant Reynolds number of 13.1 x 106 per meter (4.0 × 106 per foot).

The results of the investigation indicate that winglets significantly reduce the

induced drag coefficient with a resulting 0.0015 reduction in overall drag coefficient at
the design condition at a Mach number of 0.80 and a lift coefficient of 0.53. The winglets
cause small increases in the lift coefficients and produce small negative increments in

the pitching-moment coefficients at near-design conditions. The bending-moment coeffi-

cients at the wing-fuselage juncture are increased slightly because of (1) the increased

lift loads on the wing at the tip and (2) the substantial side loads on the upper winglet.

The winglets substantially reduce the magnitudes of the crossflows behind the wing tip.

When compared with wing-tip extensions on the basis of equal effects on wing bending-
moment coefficients, winglets produce substantially greater reductions in the drag coeffi-

cients at near-design conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Winglets, described in reference I, are intended to provide reductions in drag coef-

ficient for near-cruise conditions substantially greater than those obtained with simple

wing-tip extensions which impose the same bending-moment increments on the wing struc-
ture. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been conducting extensive

experimental investigations of the effects of winglets for jet transport wings at high sub-
sonic Mach numbers, and this report is the first to document these studies.
 The investigation reported here was conductedto determine the effects of winglets
on the aerodynamic forces and moments, loads, and crossflow velocities behindthe wing
tip for a representative second-generationtransport wing. In an effort to obtain the high-
est winglet Reynoldsnumber, a semispanmodel was used. The investigation was con-
ducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel. The tests were carried out at
Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.80, and0.83 for lift coefficients up to 0.65. A constant Reynolds
number of 13.1x 106per meter (4.0 × 106 per foot) was maintained.
The effects of winglets on the longitudinal and directional aerodynamic character-

istics of a representative second-generation jet transport are presented in reference 2.

That study used a full-span model without tails.

SYMBOLS

The longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics presented in this report are referred

to the stability-axis system. Force and moment data have been reduced to coefficient

form based on the exposed area of the basic wing. All dimensional values are given in

both International System of Units (SI) and U.S. Customary Units. (See ref. 3.) All mea-
surements and calculations were made in U.S. Customary Units.

Coefficients and symbols used herein are defined as follows:

A aspect ratio of basic wing, based on original wing outer panel extended to
plane of symmetry, (Span)2/Area, 7.13

b/2 exposed semispan of wing with basic tip, 136.53 cm (53.75 in.)

bending-moment coefficient of wing at wing-fuselage juncture,

CB,w
Bending moment
b
qoo s

bending-moment coefficient for spanwise station y? ,

1 fb/2
=---6 _y, CnC(Y - y') dy
CB'y' S

incremental change in bending-moment coefficient at y',

,Y/winglets on or tip extension on basic tip

- . , ,,
 Drag
CD drag coefficient,
qoo S

induced drag coefficient

CD, i

AC D incremental drag coefficient, !co)

winglets on
<co
" }basic tip

Lift
CL lift coefficient,
qooS

CrK pitching-moment coefficient about moment reference center,

Pitching moment
qo_Sc

force coefficient, normal to upper winglet, obtained by integrating

CN,upper winglet
upper winglet spanwise load distribution

pressure coefficient, Pl - Poo

Cp qoo

pressure coefficient corresponding to local speed of sound

Cp,sonic

local chord, cm (in.)

mean geometric chord of exposed basic wing, 44.30 cm (17.44 in.)

C average chord of exposed basic wing, S 42.08 cm (16.57 in.)

av bl12 '

Cn section normal-force coefficient obtained from integrated pressure

m easurements

section side-force coefficient obtained from cn

Cy

h vertical height above wing tip (see fig. 2(b)), cm (in.)

Moo
free-stream Mach number

local static pressure, N/m 2 (Ib/ft 2)

Pt

Poo free-stream static pressure, N/m 2 (lb/ft 2)

 free-stream dynamic pressure, N/m 2 (Ib/ft 2)
qoo

S area of expesed basic wing, 0.5745 m2 (6.1837 ft 2)

chordwise distance aft of leading edge, cm (in.)

cm (in.)
spanwise distance from wing-fuselage juncture, positive outboard,

cm (in.)
y! spanwise station at which bending-moment coefficient is determined,

Ol angle of attack, deg

Abbreviations:

L.S. lower surface

U.S. upper surface

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES

Test Facility

This investigation was conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel, a

continuous, single-return tunnel with a slotted, rectangular test section. The longitudinal
slots in the floor and ceiling of the test section reduce tunnel wall interference and allow

relatively large models to be tested through the subsonic speed range. Controls are

available to permit independent variation of Mach number, stagnation pressure, tempera-

ture, and dewpoint. A more detailed description of the tunnel is found in reference 4.

Model Description

In an effort to obtain the highest winglet Reynolds number and a sufficient winglet

size in which to install surface-pressure measurement tubes, a semispan model was used.

Photographs of the model in the wind tunnel are shown in figure I. Drawings of the model

are shown in figure 2. The model fuselage and wing approximate those of a representative

second-generation jet transport. No tail surfaces were simulated.

Fuselage.- The fuselage has an elliptical nose, a cylindrical midsection, and a boat-

tail afterbody. The midsection covered the balance and had a slot through which the wing
protruded. The fuselage was not attached to the balance but did rotate with the wing

through the angle-of-attack range.

 _.- The basic wing used in this investigation has advancedpeakyairfoil sections
(fig. 2(c)) andapproximately an elliptical spafi load distribution at the design condition of
Moo= 0.80 and C L = 0.53. This wing has 6 ° dihedral, a root chord incidence of 5.9 °,
and a twist that varies from 3.6 ° (washout) at the trailing-edge break station to 9.4 °

(washout) at the tip. The outboard region has a quarter-chord sweep of 35 ° and a con-

stant i0 percent thickness ratio. The trapezoidal planform, excluding the inboard

trailing-edge extension region but including the wing portion within the fuselage, has an

aspect ratio of 7.13 and a taper ratio of 0.228. For data analysis purposes (reference

area S, semispan b/2, mean geometric chord c, average chord Car) , only the exposed

region of the basic wing, including the inboard trailing-edge extension region, was con-
sidered. A small portion, 0.025b/2 of the tip of the basic wing, was removed before add-

ing the winglets to reduce the increased bending moments in the wing associated with add-

ing the winglets. (See fig. 2.) The amount removed approximates the portion of the wing
outboard of the main wing structural box for the jet transport configuration simulated for

this investigation.

Winglets.- A detailed drawing of the winglets is given in figure 2(b). The winglets

employed modified ll-percent-thick supercritical airfoil sections (fig. 2(c)) and a total
area of 2.5 percent of the basic wing exposed area. The ratios of winglet average chord

to wing average chord are 0.16 and 0.12 for the upper and lower winglets, respectively.

The upper winglet has a span approximately equal to the wing-tip chord, a root

chord equal to 60 percent of the wing-tip chord, a taper ratio of 0.39, and a leading-edge
sweep of 38 ° . This upper winglet is canted outward 18° from the vertical (72° dihedral)
and toed out 2° (leading edge outboard) relative to the fuselage center line and is untwisted;

as a result, the geometric incidence is constant and negative. The airfoil "upper surface"
is the inboard surface. The lower winglet, whose span must be shorter to allow for

ground clearance, has a root chord equal to 40 percent of the wing-tip chord, a taper ratio

of 0.60, and a leading-edge sweep of 52 ° (fig. 2(b)). This lower winglet is canted outward
36 ° from the vertical (54° anhedral) and toed in 6.5° at the root, relative to the fuselage

center line, with 1.5° washout at the tip. The upper surface of this winglet is the outboard

surface. The planform and the magnitudes of the toe-in, twist, and cant for this lower

winglet have not been optimized.

To make the transition smoothly from the wing to the winglets, fillets were added to

the inside corners at those junctures, and the outside corners were rounded.

Vortex generator.- To alleviate a local separation problem between the wing upper
surface and the upper winglet, a small, cambered vortex generator was added to the wing

upper surface. (See fig. 2(a).) The vortex generator is 1.19 cm (0.47 in.) at the base,
0.25 cm (0.10 in.) at the tip, and 0.81 cm (0.32 in.) in height. The leading edge was swept
back 49.1 °. The vortex generator was located 1.65 cm (0.65 in.) inboard of the wing-
winglet juncture with the trailing edge 2.79 cm (1.10 in.) ahead of the wing trailing edge
and was approximately parallel with the airstream.

Boundary-Layer Transition Strips

Boundary-layer transition strips were placed on the upper and lower surfaces of
the wing and winglets. These strips were comprised of a O.16-cm (0.06-in.) wide band
of carborundum grains set in a plastic adhesive. The carborundum grains were sized by
following the procedure of reference 5. The transition pattern for the wing is shown in
figure 3.

On the lower surface (outboard) of the upper winglet, No. 120 grains were applied
at the 40-percent chord line. No. 150 grains were applied on the upper surface (inboard)
from a point 2.54 cm (1.0 in.) from the leading edge at the root to a point 0.89 cm
(0.35 in.) from the leading edge at the mid-semispan station. No. 180 grains were
applied from that point to a point 0.25 cm (0.10 in.) from the leading edge at the tip of
the winglet. On the lower winglet, No. 240 grains were applied at 5 percent of the stream-
wise chord of the upper surface (outboard), and No. 220 grains were applied at the 40-
percent chord line for the lower surface (inboard).

The transition strips on the lower surface of the winglets were located rearward in
an attempt to simulate full-scale Reynolds number boundary-layer conditions (ref. 6).
The strips on the upper surface of the winglets were located forward to insure transition
ahead of the shock for the various test conditions.

Test Conditions

Measurements were taken at Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.80, and 0.83 with the angle of
attack of the model ranging from approximately -3 ° to 7 ° . Stagnation temperature was
maintained at 322 K (120 ° F) throughout the entire test, and the air dried until the dew-
point was sufficiently low to prevent condensation effects. A constant Reynolds number
of 13.1 x 106 per meter (4.0 x 106 per foot) was maintained for this investigation. The
free-stream dynamic pressures q_ for the three test Mach numbers were 28.6, 31.6,
and 32.4 kN/m 2 (597, 660, and 677 Ib/ft2), respectively.

Measurements

Force and moment data were obtained by using a five-component electrical strain-
gage balance. Side-force measurements were not taken. The angle of attack was mea-
sured within the fuselage.

Chordwise static-pressure distributions were measured at the 0.261, 0.907, and

0.963 semispan stations on the basic wing. In addition, they were measured at three
stations on the upper winglet for the wing plus winglets configuration. These stations
were at 0.22, 0.50, and 0.78 of the upper winglet span. The stations are located at the
0.991, 1.003, and 1.015 wing semispan stations. (Note that semispan stations are defined
as a fraction of the distance from the wing-fuselage juncture to the tip of the basic wing.

Because the upper winglet extends beyond this distance, semispan stations can be greater

than 1.0.)

A special sting-mounted yaw head rake was used to survey the flow field behind the

wing-tip configurations (fig. 4). Details of the yaw head rake are given in reference 7.

The rake was located approximately two wing-tip chords behind the wing trailing edge

with the center slightly above and inboard of the wing tip. Data were taken with the rake
located in the vertical, horizontal, and ±45 ° positions for both wing-tip configurations.

Corrections

The angle of attack of the model was corrected for flow angularity in the wind tunnel.
The slotted wind-tunnel test section reduces wall effects on lift; therefore, no correction

was made to the data for this effect. The wing semispan and the model frontal area were

sufficiently small so that corrections to Mach number for wind-tunnel blockage effects
were unnecessary. The tip of the wing was approximately 50.8 cm (20 in.) from the tun-
nel sidewall. This distance corresponds to about three spans of the upper winglet. Thus,

the influence of the wall on the winglet loads should be small.

The yaw head rake was placed at an angle of attack of 1.8 ° during the investigation.

This position properly located the rake in the area of interest behind the model. Correc-
tions to the yaw head rake calibration were made to account for this initial angle.

Validity of Data

To insure the validity of the balance data presented, particularly the drag incre-

ments caused by the winglets, two tests were made for each tip configuration discussed

in this paper. At the design condition, M = 0.80 and C L = 0.53, the difference between
the drag coefficients for the two tests of a given configuration was about 0.0002. The lift

coefficient differed by less than 0.2 percent for the two tests of a given configuration at

the design condition. These increments provide an indication of the repeatability of the
data. The data for the two configurations shown in figures 5, 6, and 7 are averages of

the results for the two tests for each configuration.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The figures presented in the following list contain the results of this investigation.

All of the results presented in the report are not discussed in "Results and Discussion."
Those not discussed are included for reference purposes.
 Figure
Basic aerodynamic data plotted against lift coefficient:
Variations of incremental drag coefficient with lift coefficient;

ACD = (CD)winglets
' on (CD)basic tip ...................... 5
Variation of angle of attack with lift coefficient .................. 6
Variation of wing-root bending-momentcoefficient and pitching-moment
coefficient with lift coefficient ......................... 7
Load data:
Chordwise pressure distributions on wing and upper winglet ........... 8
Spanwiseload distributions. Elliptic load distribution for basic wing also
shown ....................................... 9
Variation of upper winglet integrated normal-force coefficient with lift
coefficient ..................................... 10
Yaw headrake data:
Flow-field crossflow velocity vectors behind model; C L = 0.53 ......... 11
Comparison of bending-moment increments caused by adding winglets with

those for 1.5-percent wing-tip extension for C L = 0.53 ............ 12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Force and Moment Characteristics

Drag.- The configuration used in this investigation results in unrepresentative

absolute axial-force values since there is substantial drag associated with the gap between

the wing and fuselage. The gap effects can reasonably be considered systematic and will
thus affect all configurations equally at the same test conditions. Both lift and drag val-

ues are influenced by the gap effects on axial force. For this limited angle-of-attack

range, however, the lift component of axial-force error is a negligible percentage of the

total lift, but the drag component of axial-force error is a considerable percentage of the

total drag. Therefore, absolute values of lift are presented while the drag results are

given as a plot of incremental drag coefficient due to adding the winglets to the basic wing

configuration plotted against lift coefficient. (See fig. 5.)

As expected, the added skin friction and form drag of the winglets predominate at

low lift coefficients. At a near-design lift coefficient of 0.53, the winglets have reduced

the induced drag so that there are incremental drag-coefficient reductions of 0.0012,

0.0015, and 0.0020 for Mach numbers of 0.70, 0.80, and 0.83, respectively. As the lift

coefficient of the wing is increased further, the favorable effects of the winglets increase.
The selected design lift coefficient of 0.53 is based on the exposed wing area and corre-
spondsto an overall trimmed airplane lift coefficient of about 0.48. It should also be
notedthat with winglets installed, the optimum cruise lift coefficient for an airplane
would increase by about 6 or 7 percent as a result of the rotation of the drag coefficient
plotted against the lift-coefficient polar associatedwith the addition of the winglets.
Thus, this selected design lift coefficient corresponds to an unmodified airplane lift
coefficient of 0.45 which is near the cruise lift coefficients for present jet transports.
At full-scale Reynoldsnumbers, the skin-friction drag of the winglets would be sig-
nificantly less than at the Reynoldsnumbers of this investigation; for such conditions the
favorable increments causedby these surfaces would be greater than those measured.
It has beenestimated that the increment is about0.0002.
The reductions of induceddrag causedby the addition of winglets are greater than
the reductions in the increment of measuredtotal drag (fig. 5) becauseof the increase in
skin friction andform drags associatedwith addingwinglets. It has been estimated that
for the design condition of Moo= 0.80 and CL = 0.53, these effects add a CD incre-
ment of about0.0003. Thus, for this condition the reduction in induceddrag coefficient
must be about0.0018. A comparison of this increment with the estimated induceddrag

(CD,i - 0-_AJ
CL2 \Isuggests
coefficient for the_wing that the winglets reduce the induced drag

for this condition by about 13 percent. When the theoretical effect of the cant or dihedral

of the winglets is included, this increment is approximately the same as the calculated
effects of references 8 and 9 for vertical surfaces with the same ratio of total height to

wing semispan as that for the present configuration.

The reductions in drag coefficient achieved during this investigation are substan-

tially less than those obtained for the configuration of reference 1 for comparable lift
coefficients. The differences can be attributed primarily to the smaller relative winglet

height for the present investigation. The differences also result from the removal of
part of the basic wing span before the winglets were added during the present investigation.

Lift and pitching moment.- Figure 6 shows that the winglets produce small increases
in the model liftcoefficients.

Figure 7 shows that at the cruise liftcoefficient of 0.53, the pitching-moment coef-

ficient is 0.008 more negative with the winglets on. This change corresponds approxi-

mately to a shift in center of pressure equal to 1.5 percent of the mean geometric chord.
Calculations indicate that the change should increase the trim drag coefficient less than

0.0001. There was a small positive change in the zero-lift pitching-moment coefficient

Cm,o) caused by the addition of the winglets since the winglets reduce the liftat the wing
tip for low liftcoefficients. The addition of the winglets had an insignificant effect on the

"pitch-up" characteristics of the wing.

 Wing bending moments.- As shown in figure 7, the winglets increase the wing
bending-moment coefficient at the wing-fuselage juncture by no more than 2 percent for
lift coefficients up to 0.6. At the design condition of Moo = 0.80 and C L = 0.53, this
bending-moment coefficient is increased by only 1.4 percent. For the configuration of
reference I, this bending-moment coefficient was increased by about 3.5 percent. The
difference exists primarily because, for this investigation, part of the wing tip was
removed before the winglets were added.

Loads

Wing and winglet pressure coefficients.- The pressure data measured on the model
are presented in figure 8. The first three upper surface orifices of the upper winglet
Y
pressure row at _ = 0.991 (near winglet root) were damaged during the investigation

and were not used. To provide a reasonable pressure distribution for integration pur-
Y = 1.003 was used for the three
poses, the pressure coefficient at Xc= 0.02 for b-_

missing coefficients and is presented as a dashed line. The distributions of pressure

are typical of those for supercritical airfoils.

The inboard wing station If ig. 8, Y

2/b - 0.2611 shows essentially no effect resulting
\

from the addition of the winglets. At the wing station of Y - 0.907 the pressure coef-
b/2

ficients over the rear portion of the upper surface of the wing are slightly more negative

under the influence of the upper winglet. The outboard wing station Y = 0.963 shows
Z

a much Iarger negative increment in the aft pressure coefficients, a resuIt of the pres-
ence of the upper winglet. The influence of the lower, forward winglet can be seen in the
increase in the pressure coefficient in the 20- to 50-percent chord region. The second
pressure peak at 65-percent chord is approximately opposite the 35-percent chord peak

measured on the winglet at station 0.991. ote that the tick mark at _-

represents the projection of the upper winglet leading-edge intersection with the wing tip.)

Spanwise loadings.- Figure 9 shows the load distributions across the wing span.
The section normal-force coefficient, weighted by C/Caw is presented against exposed
wing semispan location where 0 is the wing-fuselage juncture and 1.0 is the end of the
wing with the basic tip. The curve shown in the figures represents an elliptical load dis-
tribution which is forced to go through the measured data point for the basic wing-tip con-
figuration at semispan station 0.261 and through a zero load point at the tip. The figure
also shows the section side-force coefficient of the upper winglet, also weighted, presented

I0
against the vertical height along the winglet. The section normal-force coefficients for
the lower winglet are unknown.
The data showthat the basic wing-tip configuration has reasonably goodload dis-
tributions, essentially elliptical at and near the design condition of M = 0.80 and
C L = 0.53. The addition of the winglets results in a significant increase in the section

load at the outboard measurement station Y = 0.963 / but relatively little change in the
/

loads at the Y - 0.907 station. The measured increases in section loads on the out-
b/2

board region of the wing are about one-half of those indicated as optimum in references 8
and 9. As noted in reference 1, such a variation from the theoretical optimum results in
a significant reduction in the added bending moment imposed on the wing structure. For
near-design conditions the loads on the upper winglet are about two-thirds of those indi-
cated as optimum in references 8 and 9.

Ratios of the normal-force coefficients for [he upper winglet to the total lift coeffi-
cients are presented in figure 10. At near-design lift coefficients the normal-force coef-
ficients for this surface are somewhat greater than the lift coefficients.

Downstream Crossflows and Discussion of Phenomena

The crossflow velocity vectors measured behind the wing with the basic tip and the
winglets added are presented in figure 11. The vectors for the configuration with the
basic wing-tip configuration suggest a typical vortex circulation. The center of this cir-
culation appears to be inboard from the tip and above the wing as indicated by the cross.
Unpublished data taken in the vortex research facility at the Langley Research Center and
photographs of smoke emitted from the tip of a transport aircraft in flight confirm that the
wing-tip vortex core rises above the wing before finally moving down.

The addition of the winglets spreads the vorticity behind the tip to such an extent
that a discrete vortex core is not apparent. The crossflow velocities in the region where
the core had been located are as small as 25 percent of the former velocities. In partic-
ular, the winglets have drastically reduced the inflow above the wing. The upper winglet
causes a small increase in the velocities, behind the tip of that surface.

Induced drag is, of course, directly related to the total energy of the crossflow cir-
culation. Thus, the induced drag reduction caused by the addition of the winglets must
result from a diminishing of this energy. (See ref. 10.) This energy reduction is associ-
ated primarily with the marked reduction of the measured high crossflow velocities near
the vortex center for the configuration with the basic tip. Analyses indicate that the pri-
mary mechanism by which the reduction of the drag force on the model is accomplished
is the forward inclination of the side-force vectors on the winglets resulting from the

11
local crossflows. The reduction is also conjectured to be caused by a small decrease in

the downwash of the flow approaching the wing.

Comparisons With a Wing-Tip Extension

As indicated in the "Introduction," the primary objective of the research program

on winglets is to achieve reductions in drag coefficient, at lifting conditions, substantially

greater than those obtained with wing-tip extensions which impose the same bending-
moment increments on the wing structures. In the present investigation no attempt was

made to arrive experimentally at such a tip extension. However, calculations have been

made to determine the approximate size and effect of such an extension at the design con-

dition of Moo = 0.80 and C L = 0.53. In these calculations, it has been assumed that the
spanwlse distribution of load on the wing with such an extension is the same as that with-

out the extension, that is, essentially elliptical.

These calculations indicate that for the design condition, a tip extension of 1.5 per-

cent of the reference semispan would produce approximately the same total bending-

moment increments as those produced by the winglets. The bending-moment increments

along the semispan caused by the addition of the winglets are compared with those for the

1.5-percent wing-tip extension in figure 12. After accounting for differences in skin fric-
tion and wing loading, this assumed tip extension would reduce the drag coefficient by
about 0.0003 for the design condition compared with 0.0015 obtained with the winglets for

the same condition. Hence, it is apparent that when compared on the basis of equal effects

on wing bending-moment coefficients, winglets produce substantially greater reductions in

the drag coefficients at near-design conditions than would a simple wing-tip extension.

It should be noted that the dffference between the drag-coefficient reductions result-

ing from the addition of winglets and the reductions provided by a tip extension for equal
total bending moments is markedly affected by the amount of span removed from the basic

wing tip before adding the winglets. As indicated in the description of the model, 2.5 per-
cent of the reference semispan was removed for the experiments described herein. Cal-

culations similar to these just described indicate that if none of the wing tip had been

removed before adding the winglets, the total bending moments would have been about the

same as a 3.8-percent wing-tip extension. The drag coefficient reductions would have
been about 0.0020 for the winglets and 0.0008 for the wing-tip extension. The ratio of

these reductions is roughly the same as that determined experimentally for the configura-

tion of reference 1.

Calculations indicate that the addition of a 1.5-percent semispan tip extension would

increase the negative pitching-moment coefficient at the design condition by a greater

increment than did the addition of the winglets (fig. 7).

12
 CONCLUSIONS

The results of a high-speed wind-tunnel investigation of the effects of winglets on a

representative second-generation jet transport wing indicate the following conclusions:

1. The winglets significantly reduce the induced drag coefficient with a resulting
reduction in total drag coefficient of approximately 0.0015 at the design condition of a

Mach number of 0.80 and a liftcoefficient of 0.53.

2. The winglets produce small increases in the liftcoefficients and small negative
increments in the pitching-moment coefficients at the near-design conditions.

3. The winglets significantly increase the wing normal-force coefficient at the wing

tip near the design liftcoefficient. Also, the normal-force coefficients for the upper
winglet are somewhat greater than the wing liftcoefficients. These loads result in slight

increases of the wing bending-moment coefficient at the wing-fuselage juncture: about

1.4 percent at the design condition.

4. The reductions in induced drag are associated with a spreading of the vortex

crossflows behind the wing tip.

5. Theoretical calculations indicate that when compared on the basis of equal effects

on wing bending-moment coefficients, winglets produce substantially greater reductions in

the drag coefficients at near-design conditions than would a wing-tip extension.

Langley Research Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Hampton, Va. 23665

June I, 1976

13
 RE FERENCES

I. Whitcomb, Richard T.: A Design Approach and Selected Wind-Tunnel Results at High

Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted Winglets. NASA TN D-8260, 1976.

2. Jacobs, Peter F.; and Flechner, Stuart G.: The Effect of Winglets on the Static Aero-

dynamic Stability Characteristics of a Representative Second-Generation Jet Trans-

port Model. NASA TN D-8267, 1976.

3. Mechtly, E. A.: The International System of Units - Physical Constants and Conver-

sion Factors (Second Revision). NASA SP-7012, 1973.

4. Schaefer, William T., Jr.: Characteristics of Major Active Wind Tunnels at the

Langley Research Center. NASA TM X-If30, 1965.

5. Braslow, Albert L.; and Knox, Eugene C.: Simplified Method for Determination of

Critical Height of Distributed Roughness Particles for Boundary-Layer Transition

at Mach Numbers From 0 to 5. NACA TN 4363, 1958.

6. Blackwell, James A., Jr.: Preliminary Study of Effects of Reynolds Number and
Boundary-Layer Transition Location on Shock-Induced Separation. NASA

TN D-5003, 1969.

7. Patterson, James C., Jr.; and Flechner, Stuart G.: An Exploratory Wind-Tunnel

Investigation of the Wake Effect of a Panel Tip-Mounted Fan-Jet Engine on the Lift-
Induced Vortex. NASA TN D-5729, 1970.

8. Weber, J.: Theoretical Load Distribution on a Wing With Vertical Plates. R. & M.

No. 2960, British A.R.C., 1956.

9. Lundry, J. L.: A Numerical Solution for the Minimum Induced Drag, and the Corre-

sponding Loading, of Nonplanar Wings. NASA CR-1218, 1968.

I0. Cone, Clarence D., Jr.: The Theory of Induced Lift and Minimum Induced Drag of
Nonplanar Lifting Systems. NASA TR R-139, 1962.

14
 tfD
v-4
•sqd_:t_o_oqd IopoIAI -'I o:m_TcI

•iopotu u_ds!tuos _oI_U!PA (_)

"pepnIouoo -'I e:m_TeI

"s_eI_UT_ Io dnesoID (q)

¢JD
 99.09(59.01) _[= 71.52 (28.08)--_

/ I / I / / / / . , / / / " / .' _ I. / / / I .I /. / / / / ._ / / / I / I I / / /" / / / / / / / / /[.//"

\ ",
Spacer -__ \ - , //
\ [-_---_-- 75.44 (29.70) _-_-_
_

166.85(65.69) \_\ -I \\

Vortex generotor

\ .8I(.52)

Wing upper surface--

,2 I.5ol -lT
1.19(.47) _
Trailing edge Basic tip

.55)
View A--A

_6.z6:6.4o_-1 L2

520.04(126.00)

---__._ Rodius--, 9.68 (7.75)_-_

(a) General layout of model.

Figure 2.- Drawing of winglet model. All dimensions are in centimeters (Lnches).
O0

3.8(I.5)_ 1
Section A-A

h
//,_ Z-

/
/ / /
,/
/
/ 19.1(7.5)
---- 38 ° /
/ /
-,,,/ /
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/
__ 9.7(3.8) _'_=./
3.5 ( I .3)
h=O 0

56
-_6.4(2.5)
\
\
---5.8(I.5) 6°dihedral
/
A j

(b) Winglet details.

Figure 2.- Continued.

 w4

•peprtlaUO D -'g ezn_T_I

•pzoq9 I_aOl )ueaaed UT sed'_qs ITo_,IT_ _UT_ ptm )eI_UT_ ,leddI'I (o)

_lq 5uIAA
OZ6"O = T "

uDdsp!Lu-J,
alBUlm jadd£1
o

\
\
\
Wi ng- fuse lage
iuncture

/.15c
Grain slz_
No. I00
\
No.120

No. 120

No. 150

Upper
surface

Figure 3.- Details of wing boundary-layer transition-strip patterns.

All dimensions are in centimeters (inches).
 g'q

•iapotu puTqaq o_I_a p_q A_ tO qd_z_olo_teI -'lz azn_T_I

 .001

0
Mco=0.70!

-.001

.001

0
,L_ :_ i__iii

-.001

AC D
-.002

-.005

°001

-.001

-.002

-'0 03
I-. 0 .I .2 ,3 .4 ,5 .6 .7
CL

Figure 5.- Variations of incremental drag coefficient with lift coefficient;

_CD
--(%)
" winglets on
-(CD)
basic tip
•

22
 C_
00

b.-

...... i ............

co

t_
[

.......... 4........ !.............. L ......

I !
, [
o
__.1 _-

II ©
t_
c- 0 0 , . _ I !
- .......... !...... - ....... 4....... :...... 4........ -- -

t '
ca I i " ©

0 [] .........................................
_............
\i ......._.............
!
I

.................................... i ................................

0 b_
o,-i

i t

1_- CO LO _- 19 Ckl -- 0 I I I I I
..................................................................................... OC)

_5
_J

o =
°_

o o
II _I

N _

o,.-i

]
l

o
l

q;
 LC'a

-d
{D

gY'a
I co _o
©

g I,

(D

] v bO

o
I

i__

m (M '¢I"
I I I I
 rn
0
0
co m- 0
-- 0 0 0

I O0
i 1

' I
1 .......

0 °_

o .._

,5 =_'=
o

_1 o "_

o
0

o _
Od _ o
.° _
0 []

0 ,q- c0 0a I"
0 0 0
I

E
0
 3
I
b b b
0

_" ...-..
v

, 8

0 o

............. f ...............

...... ii ...... i ........ t ..................i

_ . ] ....
.... [-

__ I i
I

b b "o - - o9
0 _ Go _o o_ 0
c)
 nn
(D

_I" 0
oa (Xl od - - o o o
I"
oO

b-
I

o
\
._J
0
C/)
\
\ d_

I
0 0
v b_
1
r_

0 []
.... I.......... i

0
1

0
0 0
o
i° I I

E
0
 •IoI_UTA_ _oddn pu_ 2uTA_ nO suoDnq_srp o_nssoad OSI.A_paoqo -'8 oan_hl

"6I'0 = xO '-OOL,'O = _I_ (_)

D /X
0"l g" 9" 0 0"I g"

G I0"I: _q 166"0 =_/q

-% A \
% % 0
\
,@ \
O\ \ \0-
/0 _0_
"_o.... o- k,o- -o__.@_ _8/

dD
oluos'd 3 _

J,alOU!_ Jaddl"t
##0 [] []
uo @ o
sJ,alSU!N_ "S'q "S'N

_/q
Z06"O= 19Z-O=Z/q
t X

m_ _g

-I_ _ _
h'- dD

:)Ju°s'd3- _-L ......

_-_-

5u_

_ :r .
¢,0
0

Wing

- Cp,somc

DO'I )'0- I... --[3-- --FI_ jO -O,

Cp _ .4 _O - --U" _Eq
""El% %....,

=f_
"% _R.. bo.. "o\
w

f
_-- _2=0.261 _//2=0-907

.8
I
U.S. L.S. Winglets
o • On
-I .6 [] [] Off
Upper winglet

-I ,2

J_ _ Cp,son, c
-.8

Cp
"0- --0_ _0\
_0- -0_
_0_
_0_
\
\0.
u-- _0. U _-- --u- -0_
_0_
""0
_0_ . /--E}\I, _-0\

.e- -e_ _ "7 \

t_) f
"-@ % Il \
/
Y Y = 1.015 \_)"
Y =0.991
\_).,
-=,.oo5 \
b/2 b/2 \@- b/2 "--_,_ -e
,4
0 ,2 .tt ,6 .8 t .0 0 •2 ._ .6 .8 t,0 0 .2 .'_ .6 .8 .0
x/c x/c x/c

(b) Moo = 0.700; C L = 0.34.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 /
d d
o/ d

'//i
oc •
1_
N3
kO

ii'
..... c

_d

i I,f
............... (..) :_
©
d J ti) /
o

l d A
ea

.........
0

0
u
7
"S"

I I

.s,_
/ i
° T
r
Od
o 0
u
I.

Ii o
::t- "_' Om
_ _o as

cu cu _ "7
r-,
rj

31
 I
• Wing :
I
• i L

r ! i

-i ,6 ' I
I i I
i

-1.21
q i

_- Cp,soni c ]
Cp _.8 I
I
_-I )'0. [
-.4
i
L

T L
' i
i
y I I

I I i
U.S. L.S. WingleTs
o On
Off
-i ,6
h ] Upper wlnglet

-I -2 - -\ \ , _ |
[, 1

-,8 ..... j- Cp,soni c

I
o.I I
Cp
I I _ "bo--_.o...oL _--
o. -_'%
_0"-_0 _

%,! °
-I .oos _-- _--
{ b12 t
I i • 6 .8 i .0
.6 1.0 0 •2 ._ .£ .8 1.0
X/ C
x/ c

(d) Moo = 0.700; C L = 0.53.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 i
-2 ._ i ] Wing

-2.0 _q_

I
L
o
-1.5

-1.2

Cp _ .e
t /_ Cp,sonic
\ I.

.... 5_ - %,-_._ , /% \
,o__-.e" %
xr_ x \

T
m_ _m ......

m
?
_ _2=0.907
L b_ =0.261
I

U.S. L.S. Winglets

o @ On
-1.6 [] E Off
Upper winglet

\
-1.2 \
\ \
%
,\ Cp,sonic \ \
- ._ ...... O< u\ 'o_
-0_
"-O,
Cp LJ_
"_o_ _0_
Ox _N _rh
-,4 _0_
"0\
_0_ _'0
_o_, /
_0 / \ \o
_)/

/
Y =0.991 Y = 1.005 m/ Y=I.OI5
®" b/2 b/2
d 2" b/2
0 .2 ._ .6 .8 i .0 •6 ,8 t .0
0 .2 •1 .6 •8 [ .C
x/c x/¢
x/c

(e) Moo = 0.700; C L = 0.63.

Figure 8.- Continued.

Go
 " . -.

-1.6
Wing

-1,2

Cp
_.8 _sOnlC

,k

.. _u..
_ .= "_. 7o,.

{r y

.8
b/2 =0.26l b- -2 - I
U.S. L.S. Wing lets
0 @ On
-1.6
Upper winglet
[] [] Off

-1.2

-,8

/- Cp,sonic
Cp
/ .o,. n- -N.
-.4 f
_o_ _0_
- -o-
/
-o_ "O_
_0_ _0 _00- _0/_ >_ _-0_ LO_ --0_ -o,
C,\
"o --_ _o
\ \

\ %
b--_2 =0,991 'b--_-2 = 1.003 "£_- -0
\O_ -o

•2 ._ .6 .8 0 .2 .4 .6 •8 t ,0 0 .2 .4 •6 .8 t .0
x/c x/c x/c

(f) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.18.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 ¢¢0
"panuDuo3 -'8 aan_!5

"gg'0 = qO '.008"0 = oo (_)

D/X
D/IX
D/X
_" 9"
g' 9" L. 8" 0 0"I 9" h" 8" 0 0 •
O"
/
®- ® _ -0..
(9- _O... | glq 200"1- g/q --
-®
q glO'l = --
® /
-%
%
!
%. %x.,\
O\ "@-,

0.,, \0 - -0 / \©_
_0_
"0- o<
"_¢'3 _

- ----7 '
_"0_ _0\

_0" ""'L dD
"_0 a!uos'd3_ j

.lal6U!M Jaddl-I
jd.O []

uo e 0

S_al6U!kA"S-I "S'C_
_°

I
i06"O =g/q 19g'O =-_-_ _

J
d"

"-o" "f-I °_ _B-.

"O "O\
--%,
% .0 / "(:3- -[3 _ _I_ _'0. _.
C 7
a!uos'd::) _//

6u_M 9"'_-

.7
 -1.6
Wing

-1.2
%!

-.8
f_ Cp,sonic
/
}'0..
C
_ _ I_
Cp _._ \

o f

.4
P
Y
-- -bT_ =0.261 - b_=0.907
.8 I
U.S. L.S. Winglets
o © On
-I .6 E [] Off
Upper winglet

-1.2

-0\

-,8 _0.
"%
Cp,sonic 7"-o,,
Cp \ _0_.
"o,, O_ "0-

_or{ v_ G...
"-0
_0_ -%
\
.®- 0
_'0
0 \ J -\
Z. y
/ y _, _L___ Y
=1.015
b/2 =0.991 b/---2-1.005 b/2
"--@_
.4
0 •2 .4 .6 ,8 t.O 0 •2 .4 .6 .8 t.O 0 •2 .4 .6 .8
X/¢ x/c x/c

(h) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.44.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 ¢0
•ponuTluo D -'8 oan-_t.zT

"f7£'0 = rio :008"0 = °°IAl

3,,/X 3 /X
3/X
h" _" O 9" {n" _" 0 0"I 8" 9" 0

G
-®.. _/q / z/q
£oo1=-7-- / ' "®\ 166"0 = /_
m/ --.., / \ 0
%., / O_
--._.
O_
\® I---- _TJ
"0_ 0_. _o...
_0_ _'o_ --- _1 °-
o\
\o N
dD
"0 'o
\ % \ o!uos'd 9
\
\ \
b" \
ic

_,alOU!MJaddrl
_;0 [] [] 9"[-

uo • o
S;allSU!N_ "S'7 "S'Pl
8"

J z/q z/q
19_'0=
7-96"0 = /£

_ _-m- --O_ -_ 0
,,_. =_-_ t'_

o!uos'd 9
\ _-- dD
U_ C_1 IOU_ |_O. i=_,,,, _-- ....
u---%
o\ Ii

\ ¢
o

6u}M
 : . -

oo
-1.6
Wing
-_=
-1.2

.8 t \ \
0 P,
\
% f--
Cp, son IC \
/
\
Cp _ .4 \ _0
"o. _X
_0,.. 'o
[3_ "0_,.
m'> "o."

_y b_=O Z6t
Y
=0.907 =0.965

.8
I
U.S. L.S. Winglets
o • On
-I .6 [] m Off
Upper winglet

_-q
-I .2 \
\

\0- \
-.8
-% \ _0_

\ f- Cp,soni c o._ \o\

Q
Cp \ "0_

./
_ L} ---_----r .....
-U.,. _o.
_0_
_0_ "_o
L).
_'0
II _0 --.f_
_e.. \
O ,®/
\_). / Y --..., Y =1.015
_/ b-_2=0.991
-® /
®
b/2 =1.003 "e- -® 7 b/2

•2 ._ .6 .8 l.O 0 •2 ._ .6 .8 .0
0 .2 ._ •6 .8 1.0 0
x/c x/c x/c

(J)Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.61.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 -1.6
Wing

-1.2

%
.[3- _E3_
Cp _._ _
Oobt
...... Z3COC
IO0"c)" O" C_""- "<1; _ .... Cp's°nic
\_\ %.
/ _'@_.
_o_
l$ie
3
0

,½

-- b_=0.261
.8
I I
U.S. L.S. Wingtets
o e On
-1 .6 [] [] Off
Upper winglet

-1.2

-.8

Cp
'Cp,sonic
.0-- -0_
_O_ -0_ _0 - _<)_-0_ _..
__-_ L_ 7_---I-"- _ - - -'o. -62 -
_0_
_%--z__ -®. #
"-,, \

o-_. _o/ \
o
\ffl
\
\o \. _(_. _'_)\,

\
b-_2 =0.991 _(_ b--_2=1.005 -®
.tt
.2 ._ .6 .8 t .0 0 .2 .H .6 .8 t.O
.2 ._ .6 •8 1.0
X/ c x/c
X/ C

(k) Moo = 0.830; C L = 0.19.

Figure 8.- Continued.

o
-1.6
Wing

-1.2

R
-.8

q
?-
/-- Cp,soni c
Cp _ ._,)-

J_

#
=0- 963
.8
b--_2 =0.261 =0.907
I
U.S. L.S. Winglets
o e On
-I .6 [] Off
Upper winglet

-I .2

_0 _ O-- -0- --0_

\
,0_
0... 7 Cp,soni c O, ,,,0// _'0_
_0...
_0_ _c__ I _o
0..,
_0- "0
_0_ -o,
\
-o. / \
J
""0 f o
\ /

Y =0.991
/ Y - 1.003 Y =1.0t5
b/2 b/2 b/2
"E)- _® \®_

•8 1.0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 0 •2 .q .6 .8 .0
0 •2 .q .6
x/c x/c X/C

(1) Moo = 0.830; C L = 0.36.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 -1,6
Wing

Q
-1.2
o_

-.8 \ f,
/
bl_ _'[ _'0._ Cp's°nic 0
\
Cp _ ,_ ............. L- \
b. /
O_ _0 \0\ %
\
_{_-
J_ cD_.
\D_. 'o
_E) _ _1_- D,,_
_o,, v
0

m b--_-2 =0.907 b--_-2 =0,965

.8
I
U.S. L.S. Winglets
o @ On
-I ,6
Upper winglef
[] [] Off

-i .2

_o
\ 3% \
"o
\
Cp %, \ \

o, \
0...
Cp,sonic-\ \ \
U_--O.
_ -- _ .... \ (9...
_0... _o

_0... _®- -®.. %

0
Z! / ®1 Y =1.003
- k __ b--_-2 =0.991 b/2 -@
-® -®
.u_
.8 1 [0 o .2 ._ .6 .8 t.O 0 .2 ._{ .6 .8 1.0
0 •2 .-_ .6
x/c x/c
X/ C

(m) Moo = 0.830; C L = 0.46.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 • k .
"5

4_

-i .6 Wing
I
f
\ O"
/O

F Cp,sonic
/ \
Cp _.____ _
_<- Q_
_o_ _U._,

"[3.
\
._).i
mC 5_
f
o _,]-

i b-_-- 0.965
D _ b___/=0.261 5-_ =0.907
I
.8
U.S. L.S. Winglets
© @ On
[] _q Off
-1.6
Upper winglet

-i .2

0 /
A
-.8
"-
[_)
Io
\ \
Cp
\ \
O_
/_Cp,sonic o\
\ -o_
__J .... o_ -0_
"0

_9---®\ ¢T)_ _)_

%
"o /
0 /
/ ®/
%,
.u_
Y
b/2
=0.991 / Y
b/2
= 1.003 "_'
"

•2
y
-672=1.ol5

._t .6 .8 .0
•6 .8 l,O 0 •2 ._ .6 .8
o •2 ,-t
x/c
x/c X/C

(n) M_ =0.830; C L =0.53.

Figure 8.- Continued.

 -1.6 Wing

-1-2

-.8
9
\
\ /o.
/

Cp _ ._
S Cp,sonic
O._ \b

_'=ca :_#

Y = 0.907

.8
I
U.S.L.S. Winglets
0 @ On
-1.6 [] [] Off
Upper wingiet

-1.2
-q ,%
0 /
x J_ _o / \o
x
\
%
Cp
N
D...
\
o.
/--Cp,sonic "-f)_
"0_
_ J___
_0_ "o -0
_0_ \

\o
""0
\

\®. _/ Y -1015
(4) f Y --1.003
/ b/2 V---- b/--2-
\®- -_

•2 ._ ,6 .8 1.0 0 .2 .= •6 .8 .0
•6 .8 .0
x/¢ x/¢

(o) Moo=0.830; C L =0.60.

4_ Figure 8.- Concluded.

 1.0 Winglets
Wing 0 On
[] Off
.9

,8

.7

.6

c C
n Cav .5
Wing-winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper winglet
.2 .2

C
CY--_av .I _
_ Tip
-0 0 1
']'III I Ilil 3_11tll III

0 . .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 o ,1 .2
h
Y b/2
b/2

(a) Moo = 0.700; C L = 0.19.

Figure 9.- Spanwise load distributions. Elliptic load distribution for basic wing also shown.
 .0
Winglets
Wing o On
[] Off
.9

.8

.7

.6

c c
n Cav .5 Wing-winglet iu ncture

.4

.5

Upper wmglet
,2 ,2- -

Cy c Coy .I

-° ° I ITip
_111111t1111111111tl

.I ,2_
0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1,0 0
h
y b/2
b/2

(b) Moo = 0.700; C L = 0.34.

Figure 9.- Continued.

 Q_

I--

Q.
e- 0-
0

IIIIIIIIl IIIIIIII_

_ 0

o.
f v --

O_

_5 o /

-co

C)L7
/

/ -
_D O

II
0

_)

- tC) :_ ('J

-- ) _
D

('d

IIIIIIill ilILIiIl IIliIIIi LIlllllIl IIIIilIl llillll lllllllli lllllllillilli IIII IIIIIIiii

(.)

46
 C

© -

lilt[lit IILIIIIL_

r-

I
Q.)

Y
/

/
¢0

©0

/ Z

_
0
©

r..)
i

/ _. ¢,,j

IIIILISll • ILIILIll IILIlllll I[llLIIIL I

LILLIIIL IllLIILI ILllLILIL IILIllLI ILL[IILI ILllillL_"

0
Q o_ ¢o _ _ _ '_. _ ¢_ -

47
 i...

e-

_ 111111111 iiiiiiIt
_ _ o
c

e-
q
U _ B
o_
J

C_ ¢- '+-
._-0 0

co ,-4

©D

- r..) _
o

J, i
- _ •

C .I _ _ _

r_

I
IIIIIIIII Illll[ IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIII[IIL IIIIIIII IIIIII1[ IIIIIllLII IIIIIL[ IIIIIl[I

o. m 0

o1_

48
 1.0
Wing lets
Wing © On
[] Off
.9

.8

.7

.6

c .5
Cn C-_v
Wing- winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper winglet
.2 .2

C c ,I
Y Cav E

-0
- 0 ] III
_llllllll III IIII

0 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 0 ,I .2
h
Y b/2
b/2

(f) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.18.

Figure 9.- Continued.

¢¢)
 • : : . - _ . •

1.0
Winglets
Wing 0 On
[] Off
.9

,8

.7

.6

c .5
C n C"_GV
Wing- winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper Winglet
.2 0'2

Cyc-
_ V
.I
• :)
_:o o Tip

0 .I .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 o .1 .2
_._h'
Y b/2

b/2

(g) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.35.

Figure 9.- Continued.

 1.0
Winglets
Wing 0 On
[] Off
.9

.8

.7

.6

c c .5
n Cav Wing- winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper winglet
.2 .2

c C -Q
y Cav . I _ 0

___ Tip
-tlllllll III I

0 .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 I .0 0 .I .2
h
Y b/2
b/Z

(h) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.44.

Figure g.- Continued.

 Winglets
Wing l 0 On
[] Off

.6

c .5
Cfl C%v
Wing- winglet juncture

Upper winglet

.4 .5 .6 .7 .8
Y
b/2

(i) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.54.

Figure 9.- Continued.

 1.0
Winglets
Wing © On
[] Off
.9

.8

.7

.6

c
Cnc---ov.5
Wing- winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper winglet
.2 .2

o o

Cy_ov.I _ I, Tip

0 .I ,2 .5 .4 .5 •6 .7 ,8 .9 1,0 0 .I .2
h
y b/2
b/2

(J) Moo = 0.800; C L = 0.61.

Figure 9.- Continued.

r,.Ti

Oo
 e,I
Z
Q.

I-- -

"8 0 -

Q. 0 -

II[l_[][I II[ll[ll_"

0,1 --, 0

.--_
.__0_
_ O0 T-I

OCJ

/ 00

d
I

r,o

Od

I
illiliili I]111111 IIIIIIIII I[1111111 IIIIIIIIII [llllll IIIIIIlll II IIII IIIIIIII 111111111

0 _ _ _ _ _ _ Od -- o

54
 Winglets
1.0
0 On
Wing
Off
fl

.7

.6

c c
n Coy .5

.4
ing- winglet juncture

+,

.5
I Upper winglet

.2

Cy'--_av. I

c .2_

.9 .0 o .t .2
,8
.5 h
.I b/2

(i) Moo = 0.830; C L = 0.36.

Figure 9.- Continued..

r,..,Tl
¢..Tl
 c-- I-

<,.i O
t,,,,-
O

IIIIIllll IIIIIII1_

O
cyJ

o
_u

+.
o

0')

,-<23

/
OD
/ ,.e7

/ i,,- >--] <+

/ -
e..)
I::I
©

/
_ _ _ Io

e.-

iv")

Illllllll IIIIIIII Illllllll IIIIIIIII IIIlllll Illllllll*lllllllll IIIIIllll IIIIlll IIIIIIII

o. _ _ _ _o _ _ to oJ -. o

e-

50
1.0 Winglets
Wing On
Off
.9

.8

.7

.6

Wing- winglet juncture

.4

.5

Upper wmglet
.2
.2

o o
C C
y cav ,I
Tip

0 I .2
0 .I .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
h
Y b/2
b/2

(n) M =0.830; C L=0.53.

Figure 9.- Continued.

 o_
o.. -

23

_6 o. o
Q.
e-
_D o -
Illllllll IIIlllll_

c-"

&
.L _ • e.-
o.
/.._---_ _ --

,// Q - 0_
,'-00 J :

- e.D
0[3

/
/ r..) _

/ - _
O
r..)

/
"" I.D _'_

c-

-_._ # ._
_
-
o
_ '_.

ro

oJ
I
IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII Iflllll IIIIIllll [llllllll Illlllllll IIII1[11 IIIIIIIII 11111111"

0 (I_ _ N _D i_ ,_- 1,0 o,1 -- O

e'-
¢J

58
 1.4

1.5
//
/

1.2
\\
.o,f \
I,I ,/
b, _J
CN,upper winglet / /
/ \

CL 1.0
///
.9 / Moo
© 0.70
[] 80
.8 85

.7

.6
/ S
J
.5
,J//
CN,upper winglet
.4

.3

.2
9

0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 o8

CL

Figure 10.- Variation of upper winglet integrated normal-force

coefficient with lift coefficient.

59
 d

30.5 m/sec
I00.0 ft/sec

Scale d d
/
/

/
f

J
..4 /

d /

/
/

/
/ • i
d
/

g / ,

(a) Wing with basic tip; Moo = 0.700.

Figure 11.- Flow-field crossflow velocity vectors behind model; C L = 0.53.

6O
 30.5 rn/sec
I00,0 ft/sec
/

Scale

d
/
/-

/
/
/
/
i

(b) Wing with winglets; Moo = 0.700.

Figure II.- Continued.

61
 \

/. co
\ !
\

JF

_ o
°1--1

rj_ _
\ \
I
z _ T_
I //
\

.i--I

\
°_,_

L_ 0 _
 30.5 m/sec
I00.0 ft/sec

/
/
State

(d) Wing with winglets; Moo = 0.800.

Figure 11.- Continued.

63
<• " +iL .

50.5
m/se__ c
100.0 ft/sec d
L

Scale

f /
/

#
/ d j
d
/
J f

/
/
#y/
i#
d
/c_"

d _
d/ /

(e) Wing with basic tip; Moo = 0.830.

Figure 11.- Continued.

64
 \

¢Q
QO

H
£

o
o
o
I

\ o

&
b_

k
 Tip configurotion

4
-xlO-3 Winglets
1.5-percent wing-tip

_. _ extension

ACB,y, 2

I I I I I I I I I ---- _
0 •I .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
I

Y
b/2

Figure 12.- Comparison of bending-moment increments caused by adding winglets

with those for 1.5-percent wing-tip extension for C L = 0.53.

_q
c_

QO
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20546

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300 SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE 451

BOOK

If Undeliverable (Section 158

POSTMASTER : Postal Manual) Do Not Return

"The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be

conducted so as to contribute . . . to the expansion o[ human knowl-
edge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space. The Administration
shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination
of information concerning its activities and the results thereo[."
--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information

technical information considered important, published in a foreign language considered
complete, and a lasting contribution to existing to merit NASA distribution in English.
knowledge.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad
derived from or of value to NASA activities.
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a
contribution to existing knowledge. Publications include final reports of major
projects, monographs, data compilations,
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS:
handbooks, sourcebooks, and special
Information receiving limited distribution
bibliographies.
because of preliminary data, security classifica-
tion, or other reasons. Also includes conference TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
proceedings with either limited or unlimited
PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology
distribution.
used by NASA that may be of particular
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and interest in commercial and other.non-aerospace
technical information generated under a NASA applications Publications include Tech Briefs,
contract or grant and considered an important Technology Utilization Reports and
contribution to existing knowledge. Technology Surveys.

Details on the availability of these publications may be obtained from:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C. 20546