AlAA 90-1427

Results of Wind Tunnel Ground Effect

Measurements on Airbus A320 Using Turbine
Power Simulation and Moving Tunnel Floor
Techniques
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427

A. Flaig
Deutsche Airbus GmbH
Bremen, FRG

AlAA 16th Aerodynamic Ground Testing

Conference
June 18-20, 1990 / Seattle, WA
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024
 AIM-90-1427
RESULTS OF WIND TUNNEL GROUND EFFECT MEASUREMENTS
ON AIRBUS A320
USING TURBINE POWER SIMULATIONAND MOVING TUNNEL FLOOR TECHNIQUEs

A. FMg*
W
Deutsche Airbus GmbH, Bremen, Federal Republic of Germany

ALk3B.a
Wind tunnel test campaigns were carried out for the
AIRBUS A320 in the DNW wind tunnel to investigate
the longitudinal low speed aerodynamic characteristics
in the presence of ground.
New test techniques, such as Turbine Power
Simulators (TF'S) and simulation of a/c movement
relative to the ground (moving belt ground plane) were
introduced into these tests.
The first part of the paper deals with the given test
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
I Introducn'on
In take-off and landing, an aircraft is flying in the
proximity of the ground. For heights above the ground
less than one wing span, the presence of the ground
changes the circulation flow of the wing and the
downwash at the tail significantly. The effect of the
interference between wing and ground is similar to the
effect of increasing the aspect ratio of the wing. The
primary effects are an increase in lift, a reduction in drag
and a change of the effective angle of incidence at the

arrangement and procedures.
The evaluation method which finally leads to a useful
approximation of ground effect for performance,
stability and control computations, will be describd in
the second part.
In the third part, a comparison of the results measured
with powered and unpowered models, as well as a
comparison of results measured with fixed ground and
moving belt, will demonstrate the influence of these test
techniques on the tunnel results.
tailplane. These effects increase the closer the aircraft
comes to the ground. For performance calculations as
well as for stability and conuol assessments, it is
necessary to take this effect into account.
Theoretical ground effect estimation methods are not
accurate enough for the performance, stability and
control predictions of a projected aircraft. Therefore
wind tunnel tests have to be Carried out to determine the
ground effect on lift, drag, pitching moment and
downwash.

Nomenclature

aircraft
center of gravity
Through-Flow-Nacelle
Turbine-Powered-Simulator
height of CG above ground
h for A/C on ground
h - ho
wingspan
angle of incidence
free stream velocity
local velocity
free stream dynamic pressure.
dynamic pressure at horizontal tail Fig.1 A320 Model with TPS in DNW
downwash angle
lift coefficient
drag coefficient DEUTSCHE AIRBUS has carried out two wind
pitching moment coefficient tunnel test campaigns with an AIRBUS A320 model in
ground effect reduction due to height the DNW low speed wind tunnel in the Netherlands. New
horizontal stahilizer setting kxt techniques were gradually introduced into these
tests. In the first test campaign, the general ground
Subscripts testing technique, employing a dorsal sting model
00 freesueam suspension and a fixed ground plane with tunnel floor

-
H horizontal tail boundary layer removal scoop was successfuIIy
gr ground demonstrated. During the first test campaign, the engines
were simulated by through flow nacelles (TFN), while in
'Type Aerodynamicist the second campaign, Turbine Power Simulators (TPS)
Copyright 0 1990 American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 were introduced into the tests. Both campaigns covered air flow around the nacelle and the engine jet efflux; For
the whole range of take-off and landing configurations. the A320 model, two TPS of the TD1400 type were used.
Additional measurements with and without horizontal Both, TFN and TPS, are designed to represent the
tail were made to investigate the downwash and tail CFM-56-5 engines of the A320.
W
efficiency in the presence of ground. An additional test
campaign with the A320 model was carried out under
leadership of the DNW, the aim of which was to
demonstrate the practicability of a moving belt ground
plane. Moving belt testing was made only in one take-off
and in the landing configuration. Engines were
simulated by using TFN during the t a t campaign.
The test arrangements, techniques and ground effect
evaluation method will be described in this paper.

I1 Test Arrange-

kl.Qd.d Fig2 Engine Representation Techniques

The ground effect investigations were carried out
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427

with an A320 complete model. The model size was

adapted to the 8*6m2 test section of the DNW, which
leads to a scale factor of 1:7.5 (4.52 m model wing span). Wind-Tunnel
On a model of this relatively large scale the highly The size of the test section, suspension of the model
detailed representation of a/c geometry and thereby high on a movable support system and the moving ground
standard of model manufacture was achieved by using simulation (the latter of which became available for the
numerically connolled machines. third test campaign) made the DhW low speed tunnel
The model was designed for a wide range of low especially suitable for the intended ground effect tests.
speed investigations. Therefore it was fitted with slats,
Fowler flaps, ailerons, airbrakes, spoilers, fin with
rudder and horizontal tail with elevator. By using fixed
brackets for the high lift devices and control surfaces, a
good repeatability of all settings was guaranteed. The
horizontal stahilizer setting was set by remote control,
which saves time.
A removable undercarriage with detailed
representation of the doors and smts (Fig.1) was
available for U/C down configurations. The
undercarriage could be fitted with wheels of soft material
to prevent damage to the model in 'close to ground'
operations.
The model can support two different techniques of
engine reuresentation. TFN or TPS.
Fig3 Ground Effect Test Installation
- Through-Flow-Nacelles are double body nacelles,
where the fan cowling and nozzle are represented by
cylindrical bodies. The shapes of the fan cowling and the Model Susuension - The model was mounted on a dorsal
inner body are designed to simulate an air mass flow sting. The support system is computer controlled which
ratio of the a/c engines in 'flight idle' condition at Mach allows model movement with high positioning accuracy
= 0.2 at a pressure altitude of 5000 ft. during testing. The vertical position of the model can be
varied between 'close to ground' and tunnel center line
- For simulation of various power settings, within a normal range of incidence. Only in the 'close to
especially max. power, and simulation of engine jet ground' position, is the angle of incidence limited to
efflux, powered nacelles have to be used. For this avoid contact between the fuselage rear end and the
purpose, DEUTSCHE AIRBUS uses Turbine Powered tunnel floor. For evaluation of the ground effect, it is
Simulators (TPS), whereby a compressed-air driven important to know the actual height of the reference
turbine is installed in the nacelle to drive the fan of the point (C.G.) a b v e ground, and the model's angle of
v
TPS. This active fan, in combination with a careful incidence at each recorded data point during the test.
nacelle shape design leads to a realistic simulation of the The reference point's z-position is determined by the
 sting support computer within an accuracy of less than 4
mm, while the geometric angle of incidence is measured
by a fuselage installed inclinometer (iO.0lo tolerance).
!&!jms - When using a moveable sting support system,
an internal balance is needed for force measurements. A
six component strain gauge balance, built by
DEUTSCHE AIRBUS, was used in all the kts.The
balance is mounted in the fuselage, near the aerodynamic
center, and connects the model with the dorsal sting. The
long time repeatability of this balance is about i5 counts
in drag and i0.1% in lit, which is sufficient for the
intended investigations.
tation of the G r o d
Another impomit aspect in ground effect testing is
the representation of the ground in the wind tunnel. In
contrast to the real flight of an aeroplane in the proximity
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
of the ground, in wind tunnel testing there is no relative
motion between model and tunnel floor. If the ground is
represented only by the tunnel floor, without any floor
boundary layer control, there will be a thick boundary
layer with a velocity distribution as given in Fig.6. The
thick floor boundary layer will affect the flow around the
wing and tailplane as well as the jet efllux of the engine
simulators. This will then influence the evaluated ground
effect. Some efforts have therefore been made by the
DNW to solve this problem.
Fixed Ground - During the f m t two test campaigns, the
ground was simulated by a fixed ground plane. The
I
I-
Tendonin and
Tracklng h e r
Fig3 Ground Representation by Moving Belt
3
, ' L
T
Boundary Layer
Removal S o w p j-
0000
Bounder rayer
R.lnjeeti%n
v
Fig.4 Ground Representation by Fixed Ground Plane
length of this plane was double the length of the model.
and it's width was 1.5m larger than the model span. The
plane was placed below the model and was raised 200
m m above the tunnel floor, thereby providing a scoop for
boundary layer removal (Fig.2/4). The removed air was
reinjected into the tunnel behind the plane. Small trim
plates were fixed at the downstream end of the plane to
control the static pressure gradient in the test section
above the ground plane. The thickness of the boundary
layer of the raised ground plane was smaller than on the
tunnel floor without the boundary layer removal scoop.
Therefore the effects on the results were smaller. The
next step to improve the ground representation technique
was a moving belt ground plane, having the same
direction and nearly the same velocity as the tunnel air
flow.
Movine Ground - With a length of 7.6m and a width of
6.3m the moving belt ground plane of the DNW is one of
the largest and, with a design sped of 60mlsec one of the
fastest in the world. As a result of the size, operating
.----
 -
In General - The numerical approximation of the ground
effect on the aerodynamic behavior of the a/c , described
later, can be evaluated by analysing the increments
between incidence polars measured in the wind tunnel at
different heights above the ground. The range of heights,
where the ground effect exists, is defined by the 'close to
ground' position and a height equal to one wing span (h/
b = 1). However, this range could not be fully simulated
in the wind tunnel. The maximum height was limited by
the tunnel center line, (hlb = 0.62 for A320 model in
DNW). For heights above the tunnel center, the effect of
the upper tunnel wall superimposes the effect of the
ground. The lower limit was determined by the safety
margin which was needed to avoid contact of the model
with the ground.
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427

Incidence Polars at Constant Heiahts - The usual test

procedure involves measuring incidence polars at
constant height of the model reference point above the
ground. The incidence is changed by moving the dorsal
sting lever arm as shown in Fig.7. The resulting sting
rotation causes a vertical shift of the reference point,
which must be corrected by moving the model and the
support system up or down. After model incidence and
7
Boundary Layer Profile height are s t a b i l i i in the correct position, the overall
forces, measured by the internal balance, are recorded
by the wind tunnel computer system. Then the next
incidence is adjusted at the same height until the total
incidence range is completed. This procedure is repeated
at each height, which provides a set of polars, each for a
different height above the ground. The disadvantage of
this procedure is the time required to stabilize the
model's incidence and height for each data point.

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.o

VlV,
Fig.6 Effect of Ground Representation
on Boundary Layer Fig.7 Model Movement by Sting Support

Constant I n c i w - In order to shorten

All tests were carried out under atmospheric
conditions at a free stream Mach number of 0.2 (V =
70m/s) which leads to a Reynolds number of 2.6*106due
4'
to the model's aedynamic mean chord of 0.559111.
All TI'S measurements were made with max. take-off
power setting.
measurement time, another procedure was adopted
during the thud test campaign. The new procedure
started with the model positioned 'close to ground' at a
given incidence. After stabilizing, the model was moved
slowly but continuously upwards to the tunnel center
line at constant incidence. The measured data, including
the computed actual height were recorded during the

4
 upward movement at short intervals. These 'height
above ground' polars were repeated for each incidence.
With this procedure, more data points (intermediate
heights) can be recorded in shorter time. The enlarged
data base improves the accuracy of the evaluation.
Para Corrections
Due to interference of the tunnel walls on the model,
wind tunnel test results must be corrected to the free
flight case. This correction normally includes the effect
of all four tunnel walls. However, for ground effect
investigations only the effect of three walls must be
considered. The polars measured at the tunnel center
l i e were corrected in two ways, fmtly with the three
wall correction method, which leads to a polar in the
presence of ground at h/b =0.62, and secondly, with the
four wall correction method, to determine the free flight
reference polar, which is needed for computing the
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
ground effect increments between free flight polars and
polars in the presence of ground.
IV Analvsis of Ground Effect Measurements
In General
The analysis of the wind tunnel data. measured with
the procedures as described above, aimed to determine
numerical approximations of the ground effect, which
can be applied in performance, stability and control
computations.
lAci
ground effect analysis f o r e a c h part
ACiwmm
AE(,mgmnd)*X
'' Ag!=~~wcMIormnd)
AC,,,= a. +
Fig.8 Scheme of Data Preparation
*j
5
Before starting the analysis, the wind tunnel data had
to be prepared with regard to the requirements of the
different applications (Fig.8). For stability and control
investigations, the required ground effect on pitching
moment and tail-off lift can be evaluated directly from v
the wind tunnel polars, while the downwash and dynamic
pressure loss at horizontal tail, which are also required,
must be calculated before. With regard to performance
investigations, for which ground effect on trimmed lift
and drag has to be approximated, the wind tunnel polars
had to be trimmed to agreed reference conditions. For
the trim drag calculation, the downwash at the horizontal
tail had to be taken into account.
Ground Effect on Lift. Drag and Pitching Moment
In general, the numerical approximation of the
ground effect on lift, drag and pitching moment is split
into two terms. The fust term defines the maximum
ground effect which exists when the a/c is operated on
the ground (rolling on runway), while the second term
describes the reduction of this effect with increasing
height:
"i(a.h) = ACiground(a) * x i (Ah)
I = L tail-ofl and lrirnmed lift
D Wmrned drag
m pnchlng mmnnt
ACigrwnd(a) = max. ground effect. N C on ground
functlon of Incidence and slat/flap configurallon
W'
= effect of heigM above the round
Xi(&) functlon of heiphl and slaffiap conflguration
In this paragraph, an example is given which will
step by step explain the evaluation of the ground effect
approximation.
The evaluation starts with the computation of the
ground effect increments, calculated at constant
incidence, between the free air reference polar and the
polars measured at intermediate heights. These
increments are plotted in Fig. 9a versus incidence, each
curve for a constant relative height (hb)
of CG above the
ground. Because of the required safety margin between
model and ground, the minimum achieved h/b was 0.13,
while the 'close to ground' position is defined by a h/b
ratio of 0.095 in case of the A320. However, for the
determination of the maximum ground effect (a/c on
ground), the increments must k,extrapolated. to h/
b0.095 for each incidence. The extrapolation was done
by using numerical approximations, which were
generated by regression of the increments to the
following functions:
AC, = a.
A C ~ =a,
+
+
ai *(h/bj'l3 e a2* (h/bjv3
al*(h/bj'/3+
ai*In(h/b) +
a2*(h/bjv3
a,*ln(hlbf
d
 The computed ground effect increments for two sound Effect on Horizontal Tail
selected incidences together with their approximations The horizontal tail is affected by the ground in two
are shown in Fig.9b. The extrapolated values of the ways. Firstly due to the direct interaction between
'maximum ground effect increments' are given for each ground and tailplane, which is similar to the ground
v incidence in Fig.lOa. effect on the main wing, and sqondly due to the change
.15
of downwash and dynamic pressure at the tail. Together
they change the tailplane lift significantly and must be
*CL
considered in trimming calculations as well as in
.1
stability and control investigations. The change on drag
and pitching moment of the tailplane itself is small and
.05 can be neglected.
For trim, stability and control computations, the
0 tailplane lift for a given incidence can be defined by the
0 6 10 a 15 0 .' hlb following equation:
Fig9 Change of Lift Coefficient
due to Height above Ground
The next step, is to evaluate the function for the a H =( a , + i H - & )
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427

ground effect decrease due to the height. The influence

of the height on each data point can be determined by:
a-
aoH
iH
--
=~vcwof~h
e IM lncldence
~ l n p l ~ nzem
holllw atabnzw semno
A c t- 1 I e = angle d dammaeh at tallplane location
f o r a = const.
= ACLgr.""d With the incorporation of ground effect, which
affects the downwash, dynamic pressure, tailplane lift
Assuming, that the ground effect is negligible for gradient and zero lift incidence, the equation for the
heights greater than one wing span, it can be concluded tailplane lift in the presence of ground becomes:
that:
X = O for h = b
v
X = 1 for AJC on ground
a n = a, +iH-(&+A&,,,)
Incorporating this assumption, the function for the
ground effect decrease due to height can be The downwash, dynamic pressure and tailplane lift
approximated by regression of all xj to the following gradient are evaluated by analysing the pitching moment
function: increments between tail-off and tail-on configurations,
whereby several different tail-on settings are. tested.
By definition when tail-off and tail-on pitching
moments are the same then:

The resulting approximation is shown in Fig.lOb. a,, = aoH (tailplane zero lift incidence)

1 and this allows the downwash to be derived by the

X
equation:

.5
= a,-(ao+AaOD,d)H
+IH

Using the equation previously quoted the tailplane

0 lift and effective incidence can be calculated.
0 5 10 a 15
Fig.10 Ground Effect on Lift
The above described procedure for evaluation of the
approximation terms has to be done for each sladflap
-.,
configuration. The same procedure is also applied to the
pitching-moment, trimmed lift, and drag.
0 20 Ah4O The zero lift incidence of the railplane as used above
is defined beforehand by specific tailplane
investigations. The change of the zero lift incidence due
to ground has not been investigated: For this reason, the
evaluation of the downwash in the presence of ground is
simplified by using the same zero lift incidence as
defined for the free flight condition. Hence, the thereby
evaluated change of the downwash angle due to ground,

6
 includes the change. of the tailplane zero lift incidence
due to ground.
Furthermore, it has been found, that the change of the
tailplane lift gradient due to the ground is negligible
withii the incidence range of normal operation.
Hence it follows that the remaining ground effect on
the tailplane lift can be assumed as a change of the zero
lift incidence. This change in zero liftincidence due to
ground was included in the ground effect on the
downwash, as explained before.
The general function for approximating the ground
effect on downwash and dynamic pnwure loss is the
same as demonstrated in the previous %tion for the lift.
The jet effect of the engines on the tailplane, which was
determined by comparing the results of Tps and TFN
measurements, is included in the approximation as
follows:
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
V Discussion of Results
1
nd E Pi i n M m
The evaluated ground effect on lib, drag and pitching
moment is shown in Fig.11. Two rake-off configurations,
one with loo flap setting, the other with 2O0, and the
landing configuration (40°) were compared to
demonstrate the influence of the ground on the
effectiveness of the high-lit devices. Both take off
configurations were tested with TI'S, operated with max.
rakeoff power, while landing configuration was tested
with TFN, representing the flight-idle condition.
- The ground effect on lift versus incidence is given
in Fig.lla. It can be seen, that withii an incidence range
of normal operation, the proximity of the ground
increases the lift for all given configurations. The
variation of lift increment with incidence is also similar
for all given configurations. When increasing the angle
of incidence, the ground effect increments increase also,
up to a distinct maximum. The magnitude of the
maximum, as well as the angle of incidence where it
occurs, depends on the flap deflection. When increasing
the flap deflection, the maximum of the ground effect is
reduced and occurs at lower incidences. Furthermore it
can be stated, that the gradient of ground effect decrease
due to height becomes smaller with increasing flap
deflection (FigJlb).
In principle, the interaction between an airfoil and
the ground can be defied as a reduction of the m a s flow
between wing and ground when the airfoil is moved
towards the ground, which results in an increase of the
pressure below the wing (ram effect). The sectional
pressure distribution is changed in such a way, that on
the lower surface the higher pressure increases the lift,
whereas on the upper surface, a decreasing suction
pressure reduces the lit. The suction pressure decrease
-
on the upper surface can be explained by reduction of
the 'effective camber' due to the ground.
When considering this principle interaction, the
above described nonlinear variation of the lift
increments with incidence, can be explained, at the
lower incidences by a larger lift increase on the lower
surface, while at the higher incidences the lift reduction
on the upper surface becomes larger than the lower
surface lift increase.
.2 1
*CLV 7"
.I .5
0 0
0 5 10 c1 15 0 20 a h 40
.2
.1
O C
Rl
0 5
waprand
10 a 15
-.05
hCawMd
Effect of Ground
on Drao Coenlclent
0 5 10 a 15
Fig.11 Ground Effect on Lift, Drag
and Pitching Moment
Pitchine Moment - The evaluated ground effect on the
tail-off pitching moment is compared for different
configurations in Fig.llc. It is demonstrated, that the
proximity of the ground induces a nose up change in
pitching moment in all configurations. In contrast to the
aforementioned nonlinear variation of the lift
increments with incidence, a linear relationship
between pitching moment increment and incidence can
be seen. It has also been found, that the nose up change
in the pitching moment is larger with higher flap
settings. The relationship between the increments for
the ground effect on lift and on pitching moment, points
to a forward shift of the neutral point due to the ground,
which is caused by a change of the sectional pressure
i/
distribution to a more forward loading. This change in
the sectional loading is a combination of a general
 change in the pressure dis&ibution due to ground, and a
change of the loading on the flap.
Taking into account, that a higher flap deflection
increases the nose up change of the pitching moment,
and at the same time decreases the ground effect on lift,
u
an efficiency loss of the flaps due to the ground can be
concluded.
The evaluation of the function for the height effect on
the pitching moment increments has shown, that it can
be approximated independently by the flap setting,
which leads to only one function for all configurations.
&ag - The ground effect on drag of the trimmed a/c is
given in Fig.1ld. In the proximity of ground, the drag is
significantly reduced in alI configurations. The drag
reduction results from a change in the lift induced drag
(vortex drag) due to the ground. The magnitude of the
drag reduction depends on the total induced drag, which
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
is a function of the lift (and thereby a function of the
incidence) and the flap deflection.
Ground Effect on -H T '1
The downwash at the horizontal tail location,
measured in the presence of ground (Nbco.15) and for
the free flight condition, is compared in Fig.12a At
lower incidences, the reduction of the downwash angle
due to the ground is relatively small,but with increasing
incidence, the presence of the ground changes the trend
of the downwash to the opposite, which 1 4 s to large
v differences between free flight and 'close to ground' at
higher incidences.
In free flight, the downwash increases with incidence
(lift effect) and with flap deflection (camber effect).
When approaching the ground, the downwash is reduced
with d e c m i n g height. It has been found, that when
Horlzonlal Tall
t.k.-oll o m l l umtlon
0 6 10 a 15 0 6
#*
.I-
A 1.1
0..
-.l -
@ -
-.2.
Effect of Ground on
-3.- IC
d Fig.12 Ground Effect on Flow at
Horizontal Tail Location
'close to ground' and at incidences c 10'. the downwash
is independent of the flap deflection. The variation with
incidence, shown in Fig.l2a, for the 'close to ground'
case is primarily an effect of the engine jets on the
downwash, as seen in Fig. 12b.
The loss of dynamic pressure at horizontal tail due to
ground is given in Fig.12d.
The reduction of the ground effect on downwash and
dynamic pressure loss with increasing height is shown in
Fig.12~.
Effect of W S 0n Test R- I
The influence of the TPS on the ground effect is
obtained by compahg both the increments measured
with TPS and with TFN. However, the most significant
changes due to TPS occurred with the increments of lift,
and was observed for each configuration. A typical
example is given in Fig.l3a, showing a reduction of l i
increment over the whole range of incidence due to TPS.
The influence of the engine representation on the
ground effect can be explained by considering the effect
of the engines together with the ground effect principle.
As previously described, there is an increase in the
pressure on the lower wing surface when the a/c
approaches the ground ('ram effect'), which results in an
l i t increase. Using TPS instead of TFN, the pressure
between wing and ground is changed by the jet and by
the different flow around the nacelle.
When using TPS, the pressure gradient between the
simulated jet and the surroundings, due to the high
stream velocity of the jet, results in a local decrease of
the pressure.
Comparing the air mass flow through a ' I" (which
is designed to represent the flight-idle condition) to the
mass flow through a TPS (which simulates the 'real' and
much higher mass flow through an engine which is
Operating at max. take-off power) it is concluded that,
due to their different sheam tubes, the mass flow around
the TPS nacelle will be less than that around the TFN.
The reduced mass flow around the TPS nacelle results in
a smaller 'ram effect' between wing and ground in the
region where the nacelle is located.
Both, the reduced 'rameffect' and the effect of the jet
reduces the pressure on the lower wing surface, and
10 a 15 therefore reduces the ground effect on lift.
AGa
I .2 .15 !mad*p m g " ~
I / A%,
.I
.OS
\ 0 Effect of Ground on
CoePflclent
Re.sure Loas .o
0 6 10 a 15 o s 10 a 16
Fig.13 Influence of Engine Representation
on Ground Effect Measurements
8
 The basic change of the ground effect on pitching
moment (rail-off) with TPS ean be seen as a change in
the gradient for increasing angle of incidence (Fig.13b).
No differences were found for ground effect on drag,
between TPS and TFN measurements.
The effect of the engines jet on the downwash and the
dynamic pressure loss at horizontal tail location in
presence of ground is given in Figs.lP and 12d
--
respectively. A significant effect of the jet on the
downwash angle, varying linearly with incidence, has
been found, whilst the effect on the dynamic pressure
loss is relatively small.
The influence of both moving and fixed ground
representations, on the measured ground effect
increments for l i t and drag is shown in Fig.14.
It can be stated, that the moving belt ground
Downloaded by RYERSON UNIVERSITY on April 9, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1990-1427
representation leads to smaller ground effects, but in
general the differences are. small.
This confirms the results of earlier tests, carried out
in the sixties in the USA (e.g. T.R. Turner (1967)).
whereby a moving belt is recommended when testing
high-lift configurations close to the ground, provided
the ratio of lift coefficient (CJ to relative height (Wb)
exceeds 20. During A320 testing, this criterion reached
values below 17, and therefore the effect was small.
Fig.14 Influence of Ground Representation
on Ground Effect Measurements
Reus&&& ii
During the thiid test campaign, the landing
configuration was tested with belt moving and belt
Effect of Ground on
Uft CostRclent
0 5 10 a 15
Pig.15 Repeatability of Groud Effect Measuremmt
stoppxl. The results measured with belt stopped are.
comparable to the results ineasured in the f m t test
campaign (fmed ground). This comparison demonstrates
the repeatability of the ground effect testing (Fig.15).
With respect to the small values of the ground effect -,
themselves, a good repeatability can be stated.
VI Conclusion
An overview has been given of the wind tunnel
ground effect investigations on AIRBUS A320, carried
out by DEUTSCHE AIRBUS in close collaboration with
the DNW.
A description of the model, especially the different
engine representation techniques employed. and the
tunnel arrangements has been given before describing
the test procedures and the method of evaluation.
From the discussed results the following conclusion
can be drawn:
Due to the significant differences between TPS and
TFN on major ground effect parameters, the TPS
technique (a more realistic engine simulation) is
recommended in preference to TFN for future ground
effect testing, especially for take-off configurations.
However, when investigating landing configurations,
where engines operates on 'flight-idle', TFN is
-
sufficient.
The practicability of the DNW's moving belt ground
plane has been demonstrated, even at the tested high belt
speeds. Due to the specific test conditions, concerning
lift and relative height, the measured influence of the
moving belt on the ground effect is small. Further
moving belt testing, especially downwash investigations
in combination with TPS, will indicate when the
application of this technique is necessary.
The demonstrated repeatability of the measured
ground effect increments was brought about by
successful combination of model, balmie, suspension,
instrumentation and the tunnel with it's large test
section.
References
Kotschote, J., "A320 Wind Tunnel Test Dh'W8704. Ground Effect
Investigation With 'IPS E n g i n e h Simulation". MBB, TE-214-136/87.
1987 (unpublished).
Paul.E.,'Resultsof Measurements inlhe DNW8'6m'LSWon A320
Model 8D u) Determine Tailplane Charaneristics in the Presence of
Ground.", MBB,'I%Tf322217/87.1987 (unpblished).
Flaig, A., "A32b Gmund Effect on Lift, Pitching Moment and Drag
wilh TPN md WS". MBB. T!2223-225/87,1987 (unpublished).
Smmicky, P. V., "Engineering of the Moving Belt Gmmd Plane",
published in "Construction1976-1980" by the DNW,1982.
4
lhedatabaseforFig.6wasplaced st theauthor's disposal bytheDNW.