Laminar Light Plane, By B. H.

Carmichael (EAA 3133)

34795 Camino Capistrano
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

The Difficult Dream

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

THE PITCH
\a say ya want to fly 350 miles per hour on 130
horsepower? Ya say ya want to fly up to the transonic
drag rise on 200 pounds of thrust? Ya say ya want to
fly around the world without refueling? Tell ya what
I'm gonna do! I have on hand a limited number of con-
tours and boundary layer stabilization devices that
will almost do that for you. What's that you say? You're
worried about insect contamination of the leading edge?
You're worried about the effect of propeller slipstream
and noise and vibration from the powerplant? You
wonder how to get the pilot in and out, and what to do
about the landing gear? You think the weight penalty
of the required smooth, stiff skins may be excessive?
As Jerry Colona used to say: "Stop, you're spoiling
the illusion!" Seriously, I know only too well that those
of you who have looked briefly at the possibilities for
large improvements in light plane performance with
laminar flow think the title of this paper should be
"The Impossible Dream," yet some of you, particularly
from the soaring fraternity who have labored for years (Photo by Bruce Carmichael)
to build light, smooth, laminar wings may agree with A body of revolution (similar to the pod-type fuselages
my chosen title, "The Difficult Dream." on the proposed aircraft in this article) in a wind
Let us first take a broad view of the maximum gains tunnel. It has been painted with a transition detect-
we might achieve under ideal conditions. Next, let's ing chemical film consisting of kerosene and talc. The
look at specific drag data taken under ideal conditions, kerosene evaporates rapidly in the turbulent region,
followed by a review of the practical problems involved leaving a layer of talc powder. A little speck of ma-
in application, together with their solutions. We can terial was placed forward of the transition zone and
then project some configurations tailored for extensive this caused a turbulent wedge to form in the laminar
laminar flow and attempt a more realistic appraisal area. Anyone interested in more detail on the design
of possible performance gains. of laminar pod-type fuselages can purchase a paper on
the subject from the author. Cost is $2.00, postpaid.
THE GIMMICK — LAMINAR RATHER THAN A second paper by the author (presented at MIT a few
TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS years ago) on low drag, high altitude drones is also
available for $2.00. The latter would be applicable for
The induced drag or drag due to lift of a light plane those interested in an aircraft with extreme range.
at high speed and low altitude is very small. If we do
a careful job of streamlining and eliminate small drag
producing details and leakages, most of the drag is
associated with the friction of the air in contact with
the skin of our aircraft. This takes place in the region
next to the skin called the boundary layer. The intensity MAXIMUM SPEED OF LAMINAR VS
of the friction, and thus drag, can be drastically lower TURBULENCE AIRCRAFT
if the layer is laminar rather than turbulent. The lam- For the first broad look at the potential gains, con-
inar value will be 20'?, 15^, and 10^ of the turbulent sider the increase in maximum speed of laminar air-
value for length Reynolds numbers of 3.5, 8, and 25 craft over turbulent aircraft with identical geometry
million, respectively. The Reynolds number at a given and propulsion. Laminar flow achieved by shaping
altitude may be thought of as the product of speed and alone is possible over about 50^ of the wetted area.
length of surface in the stream direction. At sea level, The remaining 5Qf7< would require boundary layer
a 1-foot chord at 100 mph will have a Reynolds num- suction for laminarization. Figure 1 presents the ratio
ber of about 1 million. A 4-foot chord at 200 mph would of laminar aircraft speed to turbulent aircraft speed
give a value of 8 million. At constant true airspeed, (vs the weighted Reynolds number of the turbulent air-
the Reynolds number will be reduced by '20r/r at 9000 plane) for four cases including suction and non-suction
feet and by 50^ at 26,000 feet of altitude. Although craft, both jet and reciprocating powered. The speed
the gain from laminar flow increases with increasing ratio of jet aircraft will be equal to the square foot of
Reynolds number, the difficulties in attaining laminar the mean friction ratio while the speed ratio of re-
flow also increase. ciprocating aircraft will be equal to the cube root of
SPORT AVIATION 13
 A. Propeller Driven
suction airfoils. At a Reynolds number of 20 million,
U-4-—h
2.5
the profile drag coefficient including the drag equiva-
^-—- —'~~"w Ui| Fully Laminar by Suction
lent of the suction power is below 0.001. Even at a RN
2.0
.*• ^~~ as low as 3.5 million, the value would only be 0.002.
V L.n,u..}-'
V Turbulent
Extreme non-suction sections have not been used
itia« , 4
on aircraft to date because of the very limited angle of
1.2
Partially Laminar >y Shape
attack range for such extensive laminar flow and the
unacceptable penalties in maximum lift coefficient.
1.0
9 10 15 10 2*
Weighted Turbulent Airplane Reynold! Number
) I ,10* It was first demonstrated by Pfenninger 1 and explored
in more detail by Wortmann 2 that when a 17% chord
trailing edge flap is deflected through modest up and
down deflections, one can shift the low-drag bucket
B. Jet Propelled over a considerable lift coefficient range with zero
drag penalty compared to an airfoil without flap opti-
Wing Fully Laminar by S ctloo mized for that lift coefficient. This full-span, harrow-
chord flap can also be used as aileron, and the inboard
3.0

2.S half of it can be deflected 90 degrees for a powerful

glide path control and a nice large increment in maxi-
mum lift coefficient. This has been standard practice
V Turbulent in high-performance sailplanes for some years now.
The King Cobra flight tests of 1945 revealed the lowest
Partially Laminar by Sh*p<
profile drag ever measured in flight behind an active
1.2
curtain and rub strip sealed aileron. 6 Bikle has recently
repeated the experience on a production sailplane with
1.0
» 20 25 20% chord flap.24
Weighted Turbulent Airplane Reynold* Number

FIGURE 1. Speed Increases Due to Laminarization.

the fraction ratio. In the non-suction case, the lami-

nar friction has been set equal to the sum of 50%
of the turbulent value and 50% of the laminar value.
In the suction case, the laminar friction has been set
at 30% above the laminar plate value to account for
the cost of the suction power. A further refinement has
Profile Dr«|
Coefficient
been introduced through iteration in that the increase
in speed for the laminar aircraft requires us to figure
its friction value at a higher Reynolds number than
that for the turbulent aircraft. If we chose the smallest
single-place racing craft we could build around a 130-hp
reciprocating engine and a 200 Ib. jet engine, the
weighted Reynolds number of the turbulent craft might
be about 15 million and 25 million, respectively. A
fully laminar suction stabilized jet plane would go 3.9
times as fast as the turbulent jet if it were not for the
fact we would hit the compressibility drag rise first.
The reciprocating powered suction craft would only go
twice as fast, but accounts for the 350 mph pitch at the
start of the lecture. The gains for the non-suction
craft are much more modest, but still worth going after.
They amount to a 40% increase for the jet and a 25%
increase for the recip. As we shall show a bit later, it
is very difficult to arrive at a configuration which will
permit 100% laminar flow even with suction. Therefore,
the ultimate limits we have shown are likely to remain
unattainable. Chord Reynold. Number Iji Ullllcm.

FIGURE 2. Low-Drag Airfoil — Experimental Data.

AIRFOIL DATA
A collection 1 through 8 of the profile drag values
for laminar airfoils both with and without suction is
shown in Figure 2. The majority of the data was taken
in low turbulence wind tunnels with a few cases from
flight. I have selected extreme sections with minimum
pressure at 60 and 70%. Once the chord RN exceeds
3.5 million, it should not be hard to obtain a Crj n of
0.004 and at 15 million, a value of 0.003. It is my hope
that an optimum section of 15% thickness with laminar
flow to the flap hingeline at 83% chord on the lower
surface and laminar flow to 60% on the upper surface
would in flight yield a profile drag coefficient s= 0.003 at
about 10 million RN.
The data closest to the Blasius curve is for laminar
14 AUGUST 1976
BODY DATA
Data on the frontal drag coefficients of bodies of
revolution is summarized in Figure 3 as a function of
the length-to-diameter ratio. The upper curve repre-
sents completely turbulent bodies9 and the lowest coef-
ficient of 0.05 based on frontal area occurs at an L/D
of 3. The lower curve is for bodies with extensive laminar
flow. The minimum value of 0.013 occurs at a length-
to-diameter ratio of about 3.3. This low drag value
occurred" 12 at a length Reynolds number of 27 million
where the favorable pressure gradient required for such
extensive laminar flow is absolutely dependent upon
the low length-to-diameter ratio in the absence of suc- edge of the pylon is coincident with the wing leading
tion. Experimental data is available for a suction sta- edge. The possible drag increment from unfavorable
bilized body16 of fineness ratio 8, and here the frontal interaction of the wing and pod pressure fields would
area coefficient is only 0.006, but in the absence of be difficult to predict accurately without tests. Proper
strong favorable pressure gradient it is necessary to contouring in the high velocity regions can eliminate
start suction very near the nose, which is incompat- most of this intersection drag.
ible with pilot vision on our small aircraft.
While one could produce a test model with even
lower frontal area coefficient (by combining a low L/D FIGURE 4A. Wing-Body Interference.
non-suction laminar forebody with a suction stabilized
afterbody), the problems of pilot entry, landing gear ^ . . .
stowage, and wing-body intersection make a completely /
\ | Wmc Body Comb Cp 1.6'
/
laminar body unlikely in practical application.
-/Turbulf
x ^---•
^-f \
' ^ H
/v-
^

X
1. 2
•„-*"'
I' ^

-'cJocity distribution of x»dy

Velocity distribjtioii of *l!".^ 0 0.4 0.6 1.

I / -. ...1Velocity disiribuiioi-. ol
and lx>dv cor.i)>i;mliun

Drag ^~^ ^
V
Laminar
s^~ TP "C^~7~^
——

i
R . 3» ^__ __^—"
qS 1
52 X

AX
X O
0 20 40 ,. 60 80

Body of Revolution Shapr 2:

100

0.02 •
^fr

0
6 8 JO
Length,' Diameter
FIGURE 4B. Minimum Drag Wing-Body Junction.
Symb td ld\ Cj, ""VR Body

3.32 0.019 0.45 ,-——- ^ S H A M U

O 2.5
52 0.019 0.30

3.33 5.25 0. 0162 0.61 ^-"——-^polphm

O
27 0.013 0.60
NACA 133-30 Bod
A 5.0 4.4 0.022 0.70 <CZ3>SUS
3.0 0.037 0.82
O 9.0 8.5 0.049 0.50 <=*?*«•
30 0. 05« 0.20

v POD 5. 5 7.0 0.034 0.34 s---^ Alfman

X
P. 11 10 10 0.031 0.34

FIGURE 3. Laminar and Turbulent Body Drag. Transition Lines

WING-BODY INTERSECTION
The wing-body intersection can produce quite a
drag increment even on a non-suction aircraft. Upper
Figure 4 reveals that the drag of a laminar wing and
laminar body in combination was 33 to 57% greater
than the sum of the isolated wing and body of a sail-
plane at lift coefficients of 0.7 and 1.2, respectively.17
The culprit is flow separation caused by the severe
adverse gradient from the combined pressure recoveries
of the rear part of the wing and the rear part of the
pilot pod. At low lift coefficient on a racing plane, the
problem is reduced but still must be handled with care.
The deceleration of the fuselage boundary layer as it
approaches the leading edge of the'wing will cause a
turbulent wedge to form on both the wing root and the
fuselage with a half angle of 7 to 10 degrees. The data
in lower Figure 4 shows one method of eliminating this
turbulent wedge.18 If the leading edge of the wing is
coincident with the nose of the fuselage, laminar flow
will extend in the intersection to the minimum pres-
sure point. On conventional configurations this is not
practical because of the far forward location of the
aerodynamic center. If one tries to use wing sweep to
correct this, there is the possibility of leading edge
transition due to sweep.19 A possibility exists (not yet
proven in test) of putting the wing on a short pylon
either above or below the fuselage where the leading
40 60
% Chord
Velocity distribution in wing-nacelle junction
No turbulent wedges in junction
Laminar flow to wing and nacelle minimum pressure
LIMITATIONS UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS
Even under ideal conditions the laminar boundary
layer is prone to transition to turbulent flow due to
amplification of very small disturbances. The degree of
stabilization provided by the favorable pressure grad-
ients on the forward portions of typical, well designed
airfoils and low fineness ratio pilot pods has its limi-
tations. A Reynolds number will finally be reached
where the transition point will start moving forward
and the drag will begin to increase. Fortunately, on
our minimum size racers the Reynolds numbers will
be just sufficiently low under ideal conditions to retain
laminar flow back to the minimum pressure points as
confirmed by the data of Figures 2 and 3. For larger
aircraft, distributed suction can do the job out to any
Reynolds number we are likely to encounter and it
will also work in the adverse pressure gradients aft
of the minimum pressure points. Fortunately, in flight
the ambient turbulence is very low and one can often
get even lower drag values than in the best low tur-
bulence wind tunnels, as demonstrated by the King
Cobra experiments6 in which a profile drag coefficient
of 0.0028 was repeatedly achieved at a chord Reynolds
number of 18 million on a 66-216 airfoil.
SPORT AVIATION 15
 As mentioned earlier there is another type of
boundary layer instability due to sweepback.151 The
Reynolds number at which this occurs becomes lower
as the sweepback angle, thickness-to-chord ratio, and
leading edge radius increase. An indication of the
limiting Reynolds number is given by Figure 5. At 30
degrees of sweep the limiting chord Reynolds number
would be 11, 7.3, and 4 million for tic of 12, 15, and 217r,
respectively. Transition moves forward from mini-
mum pressure when these limits are exceeded, and in
the case of strong sweep and large leading edge radius,
it can jump rapidly to the leading edge. This tends to
discourage flying wing configurations for laminar
aircraft.
FIGURE 5. Reynolds Number Where Transition Jumps
Forward on Swept Wings.
SOME PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
AND THEIR SOLUTIONS
Although the turbulence level of the atmosphere
is sufficiently low to allow extensive laminar flow, the
turbulence introduced by a propeller slipstream is
sufficient to drive transition far forward. 2 ' 1 The entire
fuselage, tail, and an appreciable percentage of the
wing surface area is immersed in the slipstream of a
typical small tractor airplane. Jet propulsion eliminates
this problem, as do some pusher propeller configura-
tions. This consideration is fundamental to laminar
aircraft design.
Due to the thinness of the laminar boundary layer,
it does not take much of a surface imperfection to pro-
duce turbulent flow. Skin lap joints and improperly
set and shaved rivets arc thus not permissible. 21 An
even more insidious problem is surface waviness 21
which can occur where thin skins pass over spars, or
even by distortion of thin skins with aging or skin
buckling under flight loads. Fortunately, there are
now construction techniques which allow fabrication
of surfaces to laminar criteria without unacceptable
weight penalties.
The most serious problem for laminar aircraft is
16 AUGUST 1976
the impingement of insects on the nose and leading
edges. At 24 mph the average insect is heard to ex-
claim, "That's me all over!" so, as we know from experi-
ence, we can't take-off and climb above the bug level
at a sufficiently low speed to avoid the problem. Figure
6 shows a typical distribution of bug remains, height
vs chordwise location. 22 The adjacent plot shows the
allowable roughness height as a function of speed.
The bug remains are several times higher than allow-
able. At 26,000 feet the allowable height doubles
but still does not solve the problem with large bugs.
A combination of small insects and erosion with time
did result in laminar flow reinstatement at 25,000 feet
and 500 mph true speeds in jet flight test work which
I conducted some years ago with a laminar wing. Also,
one can use leading edge bug covers which are jetisoned
once you have climbed above the bug level. A simpler
solution is to take-off at dawn before the bugs are up.
One could make short, low-level speed record attempts
just at dawn, or take-off on long-range speed flights
at dawn and stay above the bug level for the remainder
of the flight.
Values of forward and aft facing skin laps, gaps at
butt joints without leakage, and surface waviness
which will cause transition are also presented in
Figure 6.
Critical Height at
26.000 Ft.
Location in It Chord
\
True Speed - MPH
Note: All value, ca*i be
< inrretied 25% at 9000
100% at 36, 000'.
\
\\
\ Wa c* Height Note: Cut h in half for weak
t>lf>
\"
)0 Chord Note: Cut h in half for four
wave* In »«rie».
\
\
M
\ h ^~^^
\ ^ "- t 1 >-i I
'X,
^ ^^Fo ward F.cin, St^^J/TTJ
^-^__ —___3»P Width/ 10 /7777JJ7T77I777T
A [t Facing Step 1 1 If M
( 10 5———^ 0
JO0 4 DO 400
FIGURE 6. Laminar Aircraft Tolerances.
An ingenious device to prevent the bugs from
splattering has been developed by Wortmann. 23 He
finds that covering the outer surface with a 3-mm layer
of silicone foam rubber completely eliminates roughen-
ing due to insect impingement. He points out that many
of the practical reasons one might think of to prevent
its use are really no problem. I have not heard of it
being applied to an aircraft yet, but this sort of solu-
tion should be diligently pursued since it would allow
laminar aircraft to operate at all altitudes and times
of day.
Recently Bikle has had the same experience as mine
of 1952-1959. Operating on the Mojave Desert he found
no trouble with insects in many early morning flights.
Later in the day he picked up a few with spanwise
spacing approximately equal to 2 inches with drag in-
creases on a laminar sailplane wing of 35^, compared
to increases of 80% with standard NACA roughness.
Laminar sailplane flight tests have just been re-
ported by Johnson 25 in which he simulated leading
edge bugs at 3-inch spanwise spacing. He found only
a 4% decrease in maximum L/D and an increase of 14%
in sinking speed for high-speed cruise.
It becomes apparent that an airplane with exten-
sive laminar flow is a very special purpose craft and
one could not attain full performance in everyday fly-
ing unless the Wortmann scheme is developed. One
will also lose laminar flow when flying through clouds
or rain, but about a minute after leaving such areas,
evaporation takes place and laminar flow is restored.
On rare occasions frost crystals may form with turbu-
lent flow resulting. If the aircraft surfaces are several
degrees warmer than the air, the boundary layer may
be destabilized26 and transition will occur earlier. An
interesting idea is to fill the forward wing with chilled
fuel and stabilize the laminar boundary layer to higher
Reynolds number than would otherwise be attainable.
Chances are that any temperature differentials will
be equalized in short order.
Noise and vibration are also potential trouble
sources. There is little hard data on this. What experi-
ence there is indicates that areas even small distances
from the engine or jet are not affected.27
(CONTINUED NEXT MONTH)
REFERENCES
1. Pfenninger. W., "Investigations on Reduction of Friction on
Wings. In Particular by Means of Boundary Layer Suction." NACA
TM 1181. August 1947.
2. Althaus. D. Stuttgarter Profilkatalog I Institut fur Aerodynamic and
Gasdynamik der Universitat Stuttgart, 1972.
3. Abbott. I. H , and Von Doenhoff. A. E . Theory of Wing Sections,
textbook, Dover. New York, NY, 1959.
4. Carmichael. B. H . "Profile Drag Measurements of the Pfenninger
10% Thick Laminar Airfoil," unpublished Northrop study. August 1958.
5. Marquardt. R. E . and DeVault. R., "Skin Friction — Its Cause and
Cure." Western Flying, November 1942.
6. Smith. F.. and Higton. D. J., "Flight Tests on King Cobra FZ-440 to
Investigate the Practical Requirements for the Achievement of Low
Profile Drag Coefficients on a Low Drag Airfoil", R&M 2375, 1945.
7. Pfenninger, W.. "Experiments on a Laminar Suction Airfoil of 17%
Thickness," Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 16. No 4,
April 1949.
8 Groth, Carmichael. White. Pfenninger. "Low-Drag Boundary Layer
Suction Experiments in Flight on the Wing Glove of an F-94A
Airplane. Phase II Suction Through 69 Slots. "Northrop Corp re-
port NAI-57-318. BLC 94. February 1957.
9 Perkms. C D.. and Hage. R E . Airplane Performance, Stability,
and Control, textbook. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.. New York. NY, 1956.
10 Groth. E E , "Boundary Layer Transition on Bodies of Revolu-
tion, Northrop Aircraft. Inc., report NAI-57-1162, BLC 100. July 1957.
11. Kramer. M. O, Carmichael B H, Knoll. W. A.. "Project Dolphin.
Phase I. Drag Measurements in the Pacific Ocean on a 5 6 Cubic
Foot Laminar Body at Speeds up to 45 Knots," NAA/SID 63-43,
December 1962
12. Kramer. Carmichael. Knoll, McNay. "Project Dolphin. Phase II.
Drag Measurements in the Pacific Ocean on a 5.6 Cubic Foot
Laminar Body at Speeds up to 62 Knots," NAA/SID 64-87, October
1963.
13. Carmichael. B. H . "Underwater Vehicle Drag Reduction Through
Choice of Shape." AIAA 2nd Propulsion Conference, Colorado
Springs. Colorado. June 13-17. 1966, AIAA paper 66-657.
14 Carmichael. B H. and McNay, D. E . ' SUS Experimental Program-
Phase 2." NAA/MOG BHC-DEM-102. 1 August 1963.
15. "Ten-Foot Luneburg Lens Development Program. Phase A Final
Report (U)," Confidential Report. North American Rockwell
C71-116/401. January 1971.
16. Gross. L. W. "Experimental and Theoretical Investigation
of a Reichardt Body of Revolution with Low Drag Suction in the
Ames 12 Foot Pressure Wind Tunnel. Northrop Report NOR
63-46. BLC 148. July 1963
17 Althaus. D.. "Wind Tunnel Measurements on Bodies and Wing-
Body Combinations." Soaring, March 1974
18. Alien, J.. and Frick, C , "Experimental Investigation of a New
Type of Low Drag Wing-Nacelle Combination." NACA ACR
19 Owen, P R . and Randall, D G.. "Boundary Layer Transition on
a Sweptback Wing," RAE technical memo. Aero 277. May 1952.
20. Hood. M. J. and Gaydos, M E . "Effects of Propellers and of
Vibration on the Extent of Laminar Flow on the NACA 27-212
Airfoil." NACA L-784. 1940.
21. Carmichael, B H, Whites, R. C., and Pfenninger, W.. "Low Drag
Boundary Layer Suction Experiments in Flight on the Wing Glove
of an F-94A Airplane Phase III — Laminar Suction Airfoil Tolerances,"
NAI-57-1163. August 1957
22 Coleman. W. S , "Roughness Due to Insects." Boundary Layer
and Flow Control, Vol 2. pp 682-747. edited by Lachmann, Per-
gamon Press, London, 1961.
23 Wortmann. F. X.. "Ubereine Moglichkeit zur Vermeldung der
Insektenrauhigkeit, 9th Ostiv Congress. February 1963, Junin
(Argentina).
24. Bikle, P., "Comments on Recent Laminar Airfoil Profile Drag
Measurements in Flight on a Sailplane." private communication
prior to publication in Soaring, February 1976
25 Johnson. R. E.. "A Flight Test Evaluation of the Standard Cirrus
B," Soaring, March 1976.
26 Wazzan. A. R . Okamura. T T . Smith. A. M. O . "The Stability
and Transition of Heated and Cooled Incompressible Laminar
Boundary Layers." Proceedings of 4th International Heat Transfer
Conference. Vol II, Paris, 1970.
27. Rooney. T R . Carmichael. R. F.. Eldred, K. M . "Investigation of
Noise with Respect to the LFC, NB-66 Aircraft," Report NOR-61-10.
Northrop Aircraft, April 1961.
This sharp Cessna 170B was re-
furbished by Bill Rigsby (EAA
93469), c/o Continental Oil Co.,
Exploration Research Building,
Ponca City, OK 74601. The picture
was taken at the Newkirk, Okla-
homa Sky Park — which is also
the Newkirk golf course. The No. 2
fairway serves as the runway and
has a sign posted that aircraft have
the right-of-way. Bill is also re-
storing a Luscombe 8E.
SPORT AVIATION 17

SPLICE CARMICHAEL S
LAMINAR LIGHTPLANES
PART II
By B. H. Carmichael (EAA 3133>
34795 Camino Capistrano
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
CONFIGURATIONS FOR EXTENSIVE LAMINAR FLOW
For our first example, let us look at a propeller
driven, single-place ship with 66 square feet of wing
area and the Continental 0-200 130-horsepower engine
typical of the Formula I racers. A design empty weight
of 500 pounds might be reasonable.
The first goal is to try to keep the propeller slip-
stream away from any of the surfaces. The second goal
is to enclose the pilot in a low-drag pod of low length-
to-diameter ratio and to avoid any intersections with
other components in the forward 60^ where laminar
flow is a possibility. The third goal is to keep the wing
and tail surfaces free from any surface blemishes, in-
cluding control hingelines in the forward 70rr. A pos-
sible configuration is shown in Figure 7. The propeller
is placed behind the trailing edge of the wing and pod
so that, although this ship will not fly faster than
sound, it will sure as hell sound faster than it flies. A
U-shaped tail mounted on a low-set boom should keep
the tail out of the propeller slipstream at high speed.
The low surface area of the boom helps to keep the tur-
bulent wetted area minimized. The forward 60*7f of
the pilot pod is one unbroken unit with the plexiglass
canopy and fiber-glass sandwich remainder constructed
integrally in a female mold. The pilot support, con-
trols, and instrument panel are mounted on a low-keel
structure to which the boom, wing, and engine pylon
mount are attached. The entire forward pod slides for-
ward on rails for entrance and exit of the pilot.
The wing has a span of 26.4 feet, root chord of 40
inches, tip chord of 20 inches, and a thickness-to-chord
ratio of \5T/<. The aspect ratio of 10.5 is higher than one
is accustomed to on powerplanes much less racers, but
it is desired to keep the chord Reynolds numbers down
to a value which will still permit maximum laminar
flow at the higher speeds now possible. With the ex-
ception of the central part intercepted by the engine
nacelle, there is a full-span l7r/> chord trailing edge
flap. This allows shifting the lift coefficient for mini-
mum drag over a reasonable range, allows some fixed
camber, and eases the take-off and landing problem.
They also serve as ailerons. The airfoil section would
probably be optimally designed to have laminar flow
on the bottom surface to the hingeline at 83^ chord.
On the upper surface, the extent of laminar flow would
be governed by the separation criteria which, with the
help of a Stratford pressure recovery, might allow upper
surface laminar flow to about 60^ chord. The hinge-
lines on the tail would be at 70^ allowing laminar flow
forward of this if the tail lift can be kept low at high
speed. The wing must be placed on a pylon to provide
clearance for the 54-inch-diameter prop. This also al-
lows the central wing to remain laminar back to the
start of the engine nacelle. The ship is a tail dragger
to avoid losing some of the laminar flow on the pilot
pod, but then racing pilots have seldom had the luxury
of a tricycle gear. It will be a neat exercise in kinematics
to retract the two 10-inch-diameter wheels and legs
into the small space available and seal them up. Of
course, this is in a turbulent flow region. I therefore
show a fixed gear with streamlined legs28 and clamshell
covers over the wheels. The most optimistic division of
laminar and turbulent regions is shown in Figure 7.
(The area in yellow is laminar.)
This may not be the optimum configuration, but it
is a starting point. The Lesher Teal and Taylor Imp ar-
rangement are good ones if one is w i l l i n g to buy the
extra shaft weight and complexity and a more serious
landing gear problem. A twin boom would probably
come out draggier than a single. Tailless designs force
one away from optimums on wing design. Canards cause
additional losses in laminar flow on the pod. It should
be pointed out that the design shown is conceptual and,
although based on much more background information
than can appear in this paper, a great deal of trade-
off study would be necessary to finalize it. If, for exam-
ple, one sets a given take-off and landing performance,
it may be possible to use a wing of smaller area with
considerably less laminar flow and wind up with the
same wing drag area. One must also keep in mind any
penalties associated with the special propeller arrange-
ment such as mutual interference of the wing, pod, py-
lon, and engine nacelle.
The engine nacelle was originally drawn with a typi-
cal under-wing air entry. In the interest of reducing
interference drag, it was decided to fair the forward
nacelle smoothly into the lower wing surface and try
to contour it for constant flow velocity in the intersec-
tion. One can then take the cooling air in through the
pylon leading edge. This can be done without disturb-
ing the laminar flow on the exterior. 29 3U
(See Figures
8 and 9.)
The jet design is cleaner and simpler (Figure 10).
The little 200-pound-thrust jet engine fits in the after
pod without necessity for a nacelle. Thus, one drag item
is eliminated. The 120 pounds of weight saved over the
Continental 0-200 can be put back into fuel. The lower
vibration level removes one more possible source of dis-
turbance to the laminar boundary layer. The wing area
has been kept at 66 square feet for this study: now the
SPORT AVIATION 49
 cruise flap can run along almost the complete span. The
pylon mounted high wing arrangement is retained as
is the pylon leading edge air intake. The boom is now
in the high position and the U-tail is inverted. The area
of the tail has been increased from 19 to 21% of wing
area to make up for the loss in directional stabilization
caused by removal of the propeller. Due to the very high
speed of this craft, it was highly desirable to retract the
landing gear. A short monoped gear will be easy to re-
tract and seal up. Twin tail wheels at the tips of the
vertical tails complete the story. This type is not with-
out precedent, but will hardly be popular for anything
but a special racing machine. All other features and

Ixtt

r With
/ Inlet
0.012
65.; -215
Drag 0008 \ / / ^3
Coefficient
-v.
j/ w et
0.004

FIGURE 7
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Lift Coefficient

Inlet produces little increase in drag

Inlet gives higher critical speed
Streamline Body t/d = 5 Optimum inlet height 32. 5*0 maximum thickness
Inlet Exit C

Internal Flow: Caused no increase in drag

Caused no change in transition location
Caused no reduction in critical speed

FIGURE 9 —
Low-Drag Air Inlet And Exit In Low-Drag Wing

0.05
V / knletlC /Out let C
0.04
0.03 \ Stre imline Be dy
construction details are identical to the propeller driven
version. While this design is very appealing, the $18,000
cost of the jet engine will eliminate it from considera-
0.02 tion for most of us. The greatly increased speeds possi-
Vr 7 - 5 xlO" ble also make it a more formidable design problem.
0.01 Laminar regions are also shown in yellow in Figure 10.
n
0 DRAG ESTIMATION — PROPELLER DRIVEN
Flow Coefficient eQ/p FV A combination of low span loading and very high
speed results in the induced drag at top speed being
p = free stream density Q = volume flow ~ ft /sec less than \ck of the total. The remaining drag is pre-
p = density in duct F = body max. cross-sectional area sented in terms of drag area which combines both the
effects of cleanliness and absolute size. Drag area is the
V = free stream velocity drag in pounds divided by the dynamic pressure of flight
p
FIGURE 8 — Body With Low-Drag Air Inlet And Exit — V2. It has the dimensions of square feet. Each com-
2
ponent of the airplane is figured as the product of the
50 SEPTEMBER 1976
most convenient coefficient for that item and the area
on which the coefficient is based. They can all be added
up directly to get the total drag area. Each component
is estimated based on the Reynolds number and the
degree of laminar flow expected. Two cases are worked
out where the only component that changes is the wing.
In the second case it is assumed that boundary layer
suction is applied to the aft portion to retain laminar
flow at the trailing edge. (See Table I.) Span
Area
Although the racing plane designers are used to Weueo Area
AR
132 sq tt"""""

thinking in terms of drag area, I shall convert this to TR . .. 05

10

drag coefficient based on wing planform area and ef-

C
«00t ......... 40-n ————————

fective wetted coefficient based on the total wetted area Flap

Flap
17-- C
96'- D *•——————•———
so everyone will have a number he is comfortable with. ENGINE
TAIL TRS 18 Microjel — Thrust ?QO IDS

Root Chord 20 m
Drag Without Suction With Suction Intersection Chord 15 in

ft 2 0.3083 ft2
Rudder Tip Chord 15 in
Drag Area 0.4093 HT Span
Each v T St>an
72
25 m
0.0064 0.00466 Total Wetted Area
Control Chord 30
27 s jq ft
Tail Chord
A.rlon NASA 67QI2

•'w 0.00156 0.00117

The zero lift drag coefficients are well below the old
magic goal of 0.01. The wetted area coefficients at their
respective weighted Reynolds numbers of 14.5 x 106 and
21 x 106 lie between the fully turbulent and fully laminar Lengli
W'dlh

friction curves corresponding to about 5CK?- laminar with- Height

Cross Seci'onai Area
Empty Wl
Gross Wl
500 IDS
'90 IDS
out suction and 65% laminar with suction. Side Area
Welted Area
WS
Thrust We ghl
12 IDS f t *
0254
Shape • Parson Goodson 8 Parameter

DRAG ESTIMATION — JET PROPELLED

A similar drag buildup for the jet propelled plane
is shown in Table II.
The wing profile is 59% of the total without suc-
tion and only 38% with suction.
PYLON

Cnoro
Drag Without Suction With Suction Thickness
BC-4 Laminar M.n.^t
8 H Ca'm-cnaei
ft2 ft2
Side Area
Drag Area 0.339 0.227
1 73 W I
Wetted Area 3550 I 31076

CD 0.0051 0.0034
-'W 0.00138 0.00093

Since the parasitic drag items of nacelle and land- FIGURE 10

ing gear do not exist on the jet powered airplane, the
drag coefficients are phenominally low!

TABLE I — PROPELLER DRIVEN DRAG BUILD-UP

No Suction With Suction

Number 7f
Characteristic Characteristic In Drag Drag % Area Total
Item Length Area Millions Coefficient Area Total With Suction
Wing 2.5 ft. • 60.3 ft.' 8.3 0.003 0.18 44
9.0 0.0013 0.079 26
Tail 1.25 ft. 12.5 ft.' 4.4 0.004 0.05 12 0.05 16
Pod 10 ft. 3.5 ft.2 35 0.013 0.0455 11 0.0455 15
Boom 8 ft 13.4 ft.' 28 0.002 0.0268 7 0.0268 9
Pylon 4.16ft. 2.43 ft.' 14.5 0.006 0.0194 5 0.0194 6
Nacelle 2.84 ft. 16.6 ft.' 10 0.003 0.050 12 0050 16
L.G. Legs 0.5 ft. 0.7 ft.' 1.75 0.028 0.0196 5 0.0196 6
Pants 2.5 ft. 1.0 ft.' 5.25 0.018 0.018 4 0.018 6
TOTAL DRAG AREA 0.4093 0.3083
• planform area
• frontal area
V wetted area

Note that the wing profile drag is 44% of the total zero lift drag without suction and only 26* of the total with suction.

SPORT AVIATION 51
 TABLE II — JET PROPELLED DRAG BUILD-UP

No Suction With Suction

Reynolds
Number
Characteristic Characteristic In Drag Drag Drag •',
Item Length Area Millions Coefficient Area Total Area Total

Wing 25 ft • 66 ft2 112 0003 0 198 59

13.8 0.0013 0086 38
Tail 1.38 ft. • 1378 6.9 0004 0055 16 0055 24
Pod 10 • 35 50 0.013 00455 13 00455 20
Boom 78 T 13.4 39 0002 00268 8 00268 12
Pylon 4.16 • 1.73 7.2 0.0008 00140 4 00140 6

TOTAL 03393 0227

TABLE II

DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM SPEED .44

Propeller Driven Craft
The Continental 0-200 will deliver 130 shp at racing
rpm. The propellers used on Formula I racers give about
85r/< efficiency. The cooling drag is assumed to con-
sume 5'v of the engine power. The remaining thrust rag Area Allowed by
horsepower can be converted to allowable drag area by 130 SHP
dividing by a constant times the (speed)-'1. This is the 5% Cooling Loss
85% Propeller Efficiency
limit line shown in upper Figure 11. We can now com-
pare our computed drag area to determine the maxi-
mum speed.
We find the non-suction craft to top out at 332 miles
per hour and the suction craft to top out at 364 miles
per hour. The drag breakdown for each ship is also shown
in Figure 11.

Jet Propelled Craft

We assume the little jet engine will deliver a net
thrust after all losses of 200 pounds over the speed range
we are interested in. This thrust divided by the dynamic
p
pressure of flight — V2 then gives the allowable drag
2
area seen as the limit line on Figure 12. Comparing now
the drag area of our very clean jet planes we find they
top out at 480 mph without suction and 586 mph with
suction. The lower speed is not critical from the com-
pressibility standpoint, but the suction ship at M = 0.77
may encounter a drag rise with a 15'/f thick wing. Again,
the drag breakdown by component is shown in Figure 12.
A word should now be said about the landing and
take-off problem. The wing loadings are not likely to
exceed 12 pounds per square foot. A trimmed lift co-
efficient of even 1.0 would give us a stall speed of 69
mph. With the cruise flap deflected down 6" for take-
off, we should get a CL of at least 1.4 with very low 420
300 320 340 360 380 400
drag. This will pull the stall speed down to 58 mph. A Speed in M i l e s Per Hour
90" deflection of the inboard flaps will provide excel-
Speed Potential of Laminar Propeller Driven
lent glide path control and a further reduction in land- Plane With and Without Wing Suction.
ing speed.
FABRICATION METHODS FIGURE 11
Forward Pilot Pod
The forward portion of the pod from the nose to the
back of the pilot's head must be a smooth, unbroken,
integral unit. The juncture of the plexiglass with the
remainder must be free of leakage, steps, and wavi-
ness. This can most safely be done if the remainder is
52 SEPTEMBER 1976

>J»—Drag A r e a Allowed by
> ^/ 200 Pounds of Thrust
Drag Area
440 410 520
Speed in Miles Per Hour
Speed Potential of Laminar Jet Propelled Light Plane
With and Without Wing Suction.
FIGURE 12
of fiber-glass so that the thermal expansion will be
close to that of plexiglass. The whole unit must be stiff
and light, which makes a sandwich construction at-
tractive. It might be possible to lay this up over a male
plug and use filling and spline sanding techniques on
the non-plexiglass portion. It would seem wiser to pull
female splashes off the male plug, and drape form the
plexiglass inside the female mold. The edge of the plexi-
glass would be scarfed at a shallow angle and the outer
fiber-glass firmly attached after a gel coat was first
put in the remainder of the mold. Constant-thickness
foam would then be epoxied to the outer fiber-glass
followed by the inner fiber-glass skin of the sandwich.
The rear bulkhead ring with its O-ring pressure seal,
mating pins and latches, plus internal slide guides,
would be installed next. The evolution of fiber-glass
foam laminar skins in Germany is beautifully described
in reference 31.
The aft part of the pod will have a turbulent bound-
ary layer due to the adverse pressure gradient so it
could be fabricated by any of a number of processes. It
would probably be laid up in a female mold as a fiber-
glass foam sandwich since it is also a nonstructural
fairing.
Remainder of Aircraft
The boom can have even looser tolerances on sur-
face finish and waviness. Its prime requisite beyond
the required strength is stiffness. The root end will
probably have to be some sort of a sandwich to provide
this at reasonable weight. The pylon internal struc-
ture which supports the wing and engine would probably
boil down to a tradeoff study between aluminum and
steel tubing.
The wing and tail skins could be made to the required
laminar tolerances by any of several methods. Wood
has established an honored tradition in both racing
plane and sailplane history. If solid plywood is used,
the gauge must be at least 3/32 inch and the rib spacing
no more than 5 inches, even on the short chords con-
templated here. Even so, there is a problem with a wave
developing with time over the spar. It is also a constant
maintenance headache through the years, so could only
be considered for a short lived record attempt prototype
craft. A quarter-inch sandwich of two '/32-inch-thick
Finnish plywood skins with a foam core would be stiffer
and retain shape better if tests show adequate mechani-
cal properties. Traditional metal construction has been
successfully used in some sailplanes. A flush-riveted
aluminum skin 0.032-inch thick over 5-inch spaced ribs
will still require some filling with microballoons, and
of course the basic metalwork must be of the very first
caliber. The homebuilt metal bonding process of Schreder
or the more complex system of the Laisters using a large
autoclave are also likely candidates. The methods dis-
cussed so far are all in the form of building from the
inside out. It would be best to construct accurate fe-
male molds and build from the outside in as in all modern
European sailplane construction. Here the fiber-glass-
foam sandwich is the most likely candidate.
DEVELOPMENT FLIGHT TESTING
One cannot expect to push any prototype aircraft into
the air and immediately obtain the ultimate performance
from the configuration. One must carefully study the
ship (as originally fabricated) along the following lines
as pioneered by Raspet many years ago:32 33
1. Determine how closely the design aerodynamic
goals have been reached.
2. Determine how closely the design propulsion goals
have been reached.
3. Determine the most logical trouble areas leading
to goal slippage.
4. Confirm these suspected trouble spots with flow
visualization and wake survey methods.
5. Apply simple geometric changes in an iterative
manner checking the incremental effects in flight
until an improvement plateau is reached.
One first seals up the internal flow passages, re-
moves the propeller, tows the ship aloft as a glider, and
makes long, steady glides. The total lift drag polar can
be resolved from the flight speed, sinking speed com-
binations, and the wing loading. The wing profile drag
can be determined with a wake survey device.34 At
high speed (low lift coefficient) the difference between
the total drag and the wing profile drag is the parasite
drag. One can next unseal the internal flow passages,
resume the glide tests, and find the incremental loss
due to cooling flow. Finally, powered flights are made,
and the power used at each speed is compared to the power
equivalent of the sinking speed in the glide at that speed
knowing the aircraft weight. One can thus see whether
he is throwing 40Cf of the engine power away, as is
typical of many production small aircraft. 32 33
Chemical films can be sprayed on the surface to
paint a picture of laminar-to-turbulent boundary layer
transition regions. Wool tufts can be used to detect
regions of flow separation. It is incredible that the in-
dustry does not use these techniques. Of course, very
large airports or dry lakes should be employed, as well
as experienced test pilots with extensive sailplane ex-
perience.
SPORT AVIATION 53
 CONCLUSIONS
This preliminary design study indicates that using
the best data available for low-drag wings and bodies
without boundary layer suction, a top speed of 332
miles per hour is predicted for a single-place racer with
the Continental 0-200 engine pulling 130 horsepower.
A similar design powered with the 200-pound thrust
jet as used in the BD-5J has a predicted top speed of
480 miles per hour. Stalling speed should be about 58
mph with 6-degree flap, and 50 mph with 90-degree
deflected inboard flaps.
If the remainder of the wing is laminarized by dis-
tributed suction, the top speeds go up to 364 mph and
586 mph for the prop driven and jet propeller versions,
respectively. The details of the suction system is beyond
the scope of this paper, and will be saved for another
time as will the design for flying around the world with-
out refueling.
An honest appraisal of the practical problems has
been made, and although these craft may be initially
limited to peak performance under limited, ideal flight
conditions, there is reason to hope that their operation
can be extended to the more general case with the de-
velopment of the Wortmann idea for prevention of in-
sect impingement.
It is the author's hope that this study will trigger
the cautious development of these ultimate light air-
craft. While one cannot hope to arrive at the ultimate
performance immediately, there is reason to believe
that we may travel hopefully toward these goals.
In conclusion, I would like to dedicate this paper
to the great teachers in my life. Professor Edgar Lesher
of the University of Michigan who was very patient
with his enthusiastic but erratic student of the early
ZS-UHX is tne first T-18 to be built in South Africa — by W. K. "Bill" Campling (EAA 65010), P. O. Box
222, Empangeni 3880, Natal, South Africa. Powered by a Lycoming 0-320, the aircraft first flew on
June 9, 1976.
54 SEPTEMBER 1976
40s; the late Dr. August Raspet who first introduced
me to the mysteries of the boundary layer and the im-
provements possible by systematic flight tests of a pro-
totype; Dr. Werner Pfenninger who helped me carry my
studies to the stratosphere and high subsonic Mach
number, the man responsible for more innovative de-
velopment of laminar flow technology than all the rest
of us put together; and Dr. Max Kramer who worked
with me in the development of low drag bodies of revo-
lution using the ocean and taught me how to design
simplified and cost effective experiments. Finally, this
concept is dedicated to the wonderful homebuilders
who now, as in the past, will be the first to appreciate
and capitalize on these exciting research results to
produce the aircraft of tomorrow.
REFERENCES
(Numbers Continued From Last Month's Part I)
28. Carmichael. B. H.. and Meggitt. D.. 'Two Dimensional Airfoil
Literature Survey." Autonetics Report C6-1796/020, August 1.
1966
29. Becker. J. V.. 'Wind Tunnel Investigation of Air Inlet and Out-
let Openings on a Streamline Body." NACA R1038. 1951.
30. von Doenhoff. A. E.. and Norton. E. A., "Preliminary Investiga-
tions in the NACA Low Turbulence Tunnel of Low Drag Airfoil
Sections Suitable for Admitting Air at the Leading Edge."
31. Hanle. U.. "The Story of the Fiber-glass Sailplane." OSTIV Pub-
lication XI, Alpine, Texas. June-July 1970, NACA ACR.
32. Raspet. A., and Lambros. G.. "Flight Research on a Bellanca
Personal Type Airplane." SPORT AVIATION. February 1957
33 Raspet. A., "Determination of the Drag Polar of the Cessna 120
Airplane in Gliding Flight." The Journal of the Aeronautical
Society of India. Vol. 4, November 1952.
34. Bikle. P. F . and Montoya. L. C.. "Use of a Pilot Probe for Deter-
mining Wing Section Drag in Flight." reported by Edwin Saltz-
man of NASA Flight Research Center at the July 1975 Symposium
on Aircraft Drag Reduction at Wichita. Kansas.