Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351 www.elsevier.

com/locate/aescte

Aerodynamic design assessment of Strato 2C and its potential for unmanned high altitude airborne platforms Bewertung der aerodynamischen Auslegung von Strato 2C und dessen Potential fr hochiegende unbemannte Fluggerte
Dirk Schawe , Claas-Hinrik Rohardt, Georg Wichmann
DLR German Aerospace Center, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108 Braunschweig, Germany Received 2 August 2001; revised and accepted 15 October 2001

Abstract Currently, there is a large interest worldwide in the development of High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for a number of civil and military missions, such as routine weather reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance (forest res, etc.), earth observation, border patrol and monitoring, sheries and wildlife refuge management, chemical and biological agent detection, law enforcement, disaster assistance and monitoring, telecommunications relay, movie production, agricultural surveying and control, and provision of targeting information. Passenger and transport airplanes operate at cruising altitudes of maximum 12 000 m where the density is about 25% compared to sea level. HALE-UVAs are foreseen to operate in the stratosphere at altitudes of 24 000 m, twice as high, where the density drops to about 3.6% of the sea level value inuencing the lift of the aircraft strongly. The environmental conditions in such altitudes pose strong requirements for the aerodynamic layout and the power plant of an aircraft. In Europe Strato 2C a manned civil research aircraft was until nowadays the only aircraft which reached altitudes above 18 000 m. In this paper Strato 2Cs aerodynamic design and propulsion layout will be presented and critically reviewed for its suitability for these high altitudes. 2002 ditions scientiques et mdicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved. Zusammenfassung Derzeit gibt es weltweit ein grosses Interesse fr die Entwicklung unbemannter Fluggerte fr zivile, als auch militrische Missionen, die in grossen Hhen und ber einen langen Zeitraum operieren sollen (HALE-UAVs High Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles). Angedachte Missionen sind Wetterbeobachtung, Umweltberwachung (Waldbrnde, etc.), Erderkundung, berwachung und Schutz der Staatsgrenzen, Kontrolle von Fisch- und Tierschutzgebieten, Nachweis chemischer und biologischer Stoffe in der Atmosphre, Strafverfolgung, Katastrophenschutz, Telekommunikation, Filmproduktion, Kontrolle und berwachung der Landwirtschaft und militrische Aufklrung und Zielerfassung. Passagier- und Transportugzeuge operieren in Reiseughhen von maximal 12 000 m. In diesen Hhen hat sich die Luftdichte auf ungefhr 25% des Druckes in Meereshhe reduziert. Die hochiegenden unbemannten Fluggerte sollen in der Stratosphre bis in Hhen von 24 000 m betrieben werden. Hier sinkt die Luftdichte auf 3.6% des Druckes in Meereshhe, wodurch der Auftrieb des Luftfahrzeuges stark beeinusst wird. Die Umweltbedingungen in solchen Hhen beeinussen damit sehr stark die aerodynamische Auslegung des Flugkrpers und die Auswahl und Auslegung des Antriebes. Bis zum heutigen Tag war das zivile bemannte Forschungsugzeug Strato 2C in Europa das einzige Fluggert, das Flughhen oberhalb 18 000 m erreichte. In diesem Artikel werden die aerodynamische und antriebsseitige Auslegung von Strato 2C vorgestellt and kritisch auf ihre Eignung fr grosse Flughhen berprft. 2002 ditions scientiques et mdicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Airfoil; Aerodynamic design; Flow separation; UAV Schlsselwrter: Traggelprol; Aerodynamischer Entwurf; Strmungsablsung; Drohne

* Correspondence and reprints.

E-mail address: dirk.schawe@dlr.de (D. Schawe). 1270-9638/02/$ see front matter 2002 ditions scientiques et mdicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved. PII: S 1 2 7 0 - 9 6 3 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 2 7 - 0

44

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

Nomenclature A cd CD CD0 cl CL cm0 CP d D e g H L m Aspect ratio [] Airfoil section drag coefcient [] Drag coefcient [] Zero-lift drag coefcient [] Airfoil section lift coefcient [] Lift coefcient [] Pitching moment coefcient [] Pressure coefcient [] Diameter of the propeller [m] Drag [N] Oswalds efciency factor [] Acceleration of gravity [9.81 m s2 ] Altitude [m] Lift [N] Takeoff weight [kg] Ma n p P r/R Re S T v x/c Mach number [] Revolutions per minute [1 min1 ] Pressure [Pa] Power [W] Relative propeller radius [] Reynolds number [] Wing area [m2 ] Thrust [N] Velocity [m s1 ] Relative chord length [] Angle of attack [ ] Geometric blade pitch angle [ ] Propeller efciency [] 3.1416 [] Density [kg m3 ]

1. Introduction Condor [4] rang in a new type of unmanned aircraft ying fully autonomous from takeoff through landing in high altitudes over long endurances. On 9 October 1988 Boeings Condor took off the runway for its rst ight. During seven more successful ights Condor achieved two

world records, one for an altitude of 20 416 m, and one for an endurance of 58 hours 11 minutes. Condor was an all-bonded composite aircraft with a 60.96 meter wingspan of aspect ratio 36.6 and a lift-to-drag ration (L/D) of 40 operating continuously at lift coefcients up to 1.35 with laminar ow over 50% of the upper and lower wing surfaces at Reynolds numbers of 1 million. Condor is powered by two

Fig. 1. History of manned and unmanned high altitude and long endurance aircrafts.

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

45

130.5 kW turbocharged and liquid cooled six cylinder piston engines. Condors as well as other aircraft designs show that aerodynamics plays an important role for operating manned or unmanned aircrafts in high altitudes for extended periods of time (Fig. 1). The aerodynamic design of such a vehicle is greatly complicated because of the dramatic atmospheric implication at an altitude of e.g. 24 000 m (see Table 1). Ambient density and pressure are just a vanishing fraction of their sea level values. The lower speed of sound increases local Mach numbers, and higher kinematic viscosity decreases Reynolds number. This denotes, that airfoils for HALEUAVs operate on fairly high lift coefcients (CL 1.21.5) at relatively low Reynolds numbers ( 1.0 106 ) and relatively high Mach numbers ( 0.4 0.6). For these conditions we are not able to draw upon already in the past developed airfoils. Sailplane airfoil data are very near, but are designed for operating on low Mach numbers ( 0.050.2). They might serve as starting geometries for computational airfoil design and optimization procedures ([1,2]). Another important issue for operating aircraft in the stratosphere, is the selection of the power plant. Turbofan engines are reliable, of compact size and therefore easy to integrate into the aircraft airframe, with high acquisition costs, low maintenance efforts but moderate operation costs and high climbing performance. Unfortunately the thrust decreases proportional with the density, i.e. unmodied turbofans are limited to about 20 000 m. On the other hand piston engines with all their accessories (compressors, turbochargers, heat exchangers, two-stage gear box, propeller, etc.) have a low but constant performance with increasing altitude but are much more difcult to integrate. The maximum altitude for turbocharged and liquid cooled piston engines is about 26 000 m. The propeller layout for high altitude operation must provide the aircraft with enough thrust till density ratios of 1: 28.

Table 1 Parameters of the International Standard Atmosphere for an altitude of 24 384 m (80 000 ft) Variable Altitude Density Pressure Temperature Speed of sound Kin. viscosity Value 24 384 km (80 000 ft) 0.04353 kg m3 2716.62 Pa 221.03 K 298.04 m s1 3.26 104 m2 s1 Comp. to S.L. 3.6% 2.7% 76.8% 87.6% 2 227%

Fig. 2. Dimensions of the Strato 2C.

2. Strato 2C introduction
Fig. 3. Strato 2C on its maiden ight on 31 March 1995.

Strato 2C is designed as an instrument for ozone and climate research which was a programme of the German Ministry of Education and Technology (BMBF). The project coordinator was DLR (German Aerospace Center) who was responsible for the project management, the ight operations and the scientic instrumentation and mission preparation. The construction was commissioned 1992 by the German company Grob. Its main capabilities have been devoted to: research of the dynamics and chemistry of the atmosphere; environmental research (e.g. pollution produced by air trafc); exchange process between troposphere and stratosphere;

observation of land, ocean and polar icecaps from high altitude. The aircraft was designed for altitudes up to 24 000 m and long endurance and range operations (18 000 km) in the stratosphere. It was supposed to carry a scientic payload of 800 to 1 000 kg depending on the ight mission. Strato 2C is fully built of ber composite materials with a takeoff weight of about 12 000 kg and a wingspan of 56.5 m and a length and height of 23.98 m and 7.76 m, respectively (see Fig. 2). The rst successful ight was on 31 March 1995 (see Fig. 3). 29 test ights were scheduled successfully until August 1995. At the last ight Strato 2C reached its maximum ceiling at 18 500 m.

46

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

Fig. 4. (a) Altitude design mission; and (b) long endurance mission.

3. Stratos missions The aircraft was designed with regard to two main mission proles. The high altitude mission intended for stratospheric research has a range of 7 000 km with a cruise endurance of 8 hours at an altitude of 24 000 m and 800 kg mission payload (see Fig. 4(a)). The long endurance mission has a total time of 48 hours over a range of 18 100 km in 18 000 m ceiling (see Fig. 4(b)).

Fig. 5. Experimentally determined lift coefcient versus angle of attack for Ma = 0.39 and Re = 1.1 106 .

4. Aerodynamics of Strato 2C For Strato 2C an airfoil for operating in high altitudes was designed without disregarding the requirements for start, climb, descent and landing. The design Reynolds number of 1.0 106 combined with a fairly high lift coefcient at relatively high Mach number of Ma = 0.43 causes normally laminar separation bubbles with turbulent reattachments on smooth surfaces which produce additional pressure drag. These unusual design criteria yield to a laminar airfoil named LH37 [7] of 17.5% maximum thickness located at x/c = 0.354 and a maximum camber of 0.040 located at x/c = 0.385. The pitching moment is cm0 = 0.13, and for lift coefcients between 0.3 and 1.5 low drag is achieved. The relatively high airfoil thickness affects the structural weight positively and enlarges the torsional stiffness of the high aspect ratio wing. The main goal of the airfoil design was to achieve high lift coefcients while the drag remains rather low. High lift occurs from high pressure differences between the upper and lower surface of the airfoil, i.e. the upper surface of the airfoil features high suction and the lower surface overpressure over the whole chordlength. A low friction drag will be reached by large laminar extends even at high lift coefcients. The drawback of such a design goal is that the airfoil will respond very sensitively on a poor nish qualtiy and/or slightest contamination of the wing. This effect is demonstrated in Fig. 5. The subsonic wind-tunnel MUB located at the DLR in Braunschweig (Germany) was equipped with a smooth and clean LH37-wing of constant

chordlength in order to realize quasi-2D conditions. The upper curve shows the lift coefcient distribution versus the angle of attack for the unchanged wing. In a second experiment the point of transition was set to 7% of the chordlength on the upper and lower surface in order to simulate a poor quality and/or contaminated wing. The result was a signicantly reduced performance of the airfoil caused by fully turbulent ow and additionally by the beginning of a trailing edge separation for angles of attack of = 7.5 and higher. The maximum difference gained by laminar ow in units of the lift coefcient is 0.4 at an angles of attack of = 10 . The airfoil is non-critical because for increasing angles of attack the lift does not breakdown. The performance of the airfoil was calculated with the two-dimensional viscous aerodynamic design and analysis code ISES of Drela/Giles [1] and experimentally veried in the subsonic wind-tunnel MUB. For a Mach number of 0.3, cl = 1.5 and 7.5 angle of attack we received a very good conformity in the cp -distribution of computer simulation and experimental measurement. In this case transition through a laminar separation bubble occurred on the upper surface of the airfoil at x/c = 0.38 and on the lower surface at x/c = 0.79 (see Fig. 6). Keeping laminar ow on the airfoils upper surface till 38% chordlength at such high cl s is a reasonable value. If the lift coefcient will be reduced to cl = 1.25 the laminar extend could be held up till 45% chordlength. Airfoils where the ow remains laminar over a wide chordlength at high lift coefcients produce low drag over a wide cl -range as shown in Fig. 7. The drag increase of the airfoil LH37 received from wind-tunnel experiment compared with a computer simulation for Ma = 0.39 and

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

47

Re = 1.2 106 is pretty small until cl = 1.5. For higher lift coefcients the drag increases signicantly but without cl -breakdown, which indicates too that the stall behaviour of the airfoil is noncritical. The shapes of both polars are very similar although the simulated one achieved lower drag. The lower drag values of the simulated one is caused by the restricted mathematical description of the ow physics on which the computer program is based.

Strato 2C has a slight dihedral (1 ) triple swept wing with a straight trailing edge and is equipped with an aileron and a conventional SchemppHirth ap. For the empennage symmetric laminar ow Eppler airfoils were selected. 4.1. Wing-engine nacelle interference The engine-nacelle is bluntly mounted on top of the wing without llets/fairings. In such regions ow separations occur because of an appearing cross-ow caused by the pressure differences between the ow around the nacelle and the suction side of the airfoil. Due to the pressure gradients a cross-ow from nacelle to wing is caused. The boundary layer of the wing in the near region of the nacelle will be thickened and therefore susceptible to separation, especially when the wing operates at high lift coefcients. Furthermore a vortex developes in the intersection of the wing and nacelle. The separation area is wedge shaped, running on the upper surface of the wing from the pressure minimum under an angle of 45 spanwise to the trailing edge (see Fig. 8). Several methods could possibly weaken or dampen the afnity of separation. Most methods provoke increasing the energy in the boundary layer against positive pressure gradients: cowling the wing-nacelle intersection with fairings which will reduce the pressure gradient after the maximum airfoil thickness; modifying the power plant integration by positioning the nacelle with the engine inlet on the underwing (see Fig. 9(a)), where the pressure gradients are much lower, and therefore the boundary layer responds less sensitive on disturbances. An additional advantage is the possibility of integrating the landing gear into the nacelle (see Fig. 9(b)), and thereby avoiding the vortex generating belly fairing;

Fig. 6. Theoretically and experimentally determined pressure distribution for Ma = 0.3, cl = 1.5, Re = 1.0 106 and = 7.5 .

Fig. 7. Drag polar for the airfoil LH37 for Ma = 0.39 and Re = 1.2 106 .

Fig. 8. Flow separation area in the wing-nacelle intersection.

48

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

(a)

Fig. 10. Modied wing-nacelle intersection with an optimized fairing.

(b) Fig. 9. (a) Modied power plant integration; (b) integration of the landing gear into the nacelle (proposed by IABG).

vanished completely. For the real aircraft the exhaust gases of the engine could be blown into the wing-nacelle intersection with a volume ow rate of 30 ls1 . A more detailed investigation about the wing-nacelle interferences including wind-tunnel experiments and methods to reduce their drag contribution are given in [5].

5. Performance evaluation of Strato 2Cs propeller feeding the decelerated uid particles of the boundary layer with additional energy by blowing air into ow direction. The ow velocity will increase and thereby the separation risk reduced; the boundary-layer suction could be performed in the area of increasing pressure, where the retarded ow will be sucked off, and the non-retarded ow layers will build the new boundary layer which is more resistent against ow separation; inuencing the boundary layer with vortex generators in order to exchange high-energy uid particles of the outside ow with the boundary layer. Three of these ve methods fairings, vortex generators and blowing out for avoiding ow separation in the wingnacelle intersection were investigated in the subsonic windtunnel MUB on a model with scale 1: 22.4. The surveyed vortex generators could not prevent the ow from separation. A more successful and less expensive approach was the modication of the wing-nacelle intersection with different fairings. These experiments made obvious that an important parameter for avoiding separations completely is to lengthen the fairing behind the wing trailing edge. The fairing shown in Fig. 10 eliminated the separation completely. Another promising solution was blowing air into the boundary layer at x/c = 0.4 with a velocity of 80 m s1 ( p = 1.5 105 Pa). For this conguration the separation The propulsion system (see Fig. 11) is a combination of a 300 kW piston engine with a gas generator which serves as a turbocharger and provides an additional jet thrust of about 12% of the propeller thrust at design altitude (24 000 m). Between each compressor stage the air is cooled by intercoolers. The compressor has an overall compression ratio of 32 : 1 and provides charge air for the engines manifold inlet at 24 000 m of sea level condition. Each of the two engines mounted in large nacelles on top of the wing drives a wooden Kevlar composite coated variable-pitch ve-blade, constant speed and six meter diameter propeller, working in pusher mode. The propeller is abnormally strongly twisted from = 43 at the propeller hub to 10 at the tip.

Fig. 11. Propulsion system of Strato 2C.

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

49

Fig. 12. Strongly twisted propeller of Strato 2C. The four airfoil sections are taken into account for the evaluation.

aerodynamic forces in order to design and analyse an optimal propeller for the selected application. The main assessment criterion for propellers is whether they are capable of providing the airplane with sufcient thrust for level ight at these operation altitudes, and furthermore if they have an adequate climbing performance reserve in order to reach the maximum altitude in a nite period of time. The basis for calculating the propeller performance are the drag polars in various slices, especially between 60% and 90% of the propeller radius where the main thrust is produced. In Fig. 14 we observe that for altitudes above operation altitude 2 (18 500 m, see also Table 2) the drag for the 60% slice experienced a strong increase, which indicates ow separation. In the 80% slice the ow is still attached, but separates nearby operation altitude III (22 000 m). These observations indicate that the propeller is limited to altitudes between 18 500 m and 22 000 m. This presumption will be conrmed if we look at the thrust of the propeller, the maximum power of the engine, and the drag produced by the aircraft. This minimal thrust necessary for level ight is approximately equal to the drag D of the airplane ying at velocity v : D= 2 v SCD , 2 with CD = CD0 +
2 CL , Ae

(1)

where S = 150 m2 . CL is calculated using mg CL = 2 2v S with m = 12 000 kg. e is the Oswalds efciency factor which depends only on the Mach number. A value of e = 1 indicates an elliptical lift distribution. For the calculations e = 0.865 = const, A = 21.28. However, in the incompressible theory for positive propeller thrust TP it will be assumed that the ow through the propeller disk is incompressible and irrotational. From this theory we are able to calculate the perfect/ideal propeller efciency id as follows: v = id 2P 2 d (1 id )
1 /3

Fig. 13. Reynolds number distribution of one propeller blade at four altitudes.

The propeller was designed for operating in the stratosphere from 12 000 m up to the maximum mission altitude of 24 000 m. In other words, the propeller must cover a remarkable Reynolds number range from 1.8 105 to far beyond 1.0 106 (see Fig. 13). For the performance evaluation four discrete ight levels 12 000 m, 18 500 m, 22 000 m and 24 000 m have been selected. Therefore one propeller blade was discretized into four airfoil sections (see Fig. 12). The pressure distributions and the drag polars for these four airfoils were calculated with the two-dimensional viscous aerodynamic design and analysis code ISES of Drela and Giles [1] and published in [6]. The problem of calculating the drag polars of various propeller slices are the very low Reynolds numbers below 200 000 at relatively high Mach numbers between 0.6 and 0.8. Up to now ISES still offers the highest accuracy for such ow conditions. But its error should not be underestimated, and 20% to 30% error should be taken into account. The performance characteristics of the propeller are calculated on the basis of the afore determined aerodynamic characteristics with a computer program developed by Hepperle [3]. This computer code is based on the combined blade-element and momentum theory which accounts for details of the propeller airfoil geometry and their

(2)

with P the power output and d the diameter of the propeller. Here, the thrust of a perfectly working propeller is id P . (3) v If we pursue the propeller thrust and the aircraft drag (remark: propeller thrust given for one engine and aircraft drag refers only to the half aircraft. The additional jet thrust of about 12% of the gas generator is not considered.) for maintaining level ight with increasing altitude in Fig. 15 and Tid =

50

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

Fig. 14. Drag polar of the propeller airfoil section at 60% and 80% radius. The roman numbers (I, II, III, IV) indicate the four operation altitudes which are specied in Table 2. Table 2 Physical properties for four discrete operation altitudes. Comparison of the aircraft drag in level ight with the thrust provided by the propeller. (Remark: Drag, Thrust and Power are referred to one engine without considering the 12% additional thrust of the gas generator.) Operation altitude Altitude H [m] Density [kg m3 ] Flight velocity v [m s1 ] Mach number Ma [] Lift coefcient CL [] Zerolift drag coefcient CD0 [] Drag coefcient CD [] Twist angle 75 [ ] Advance ratio v/n d [] RPM n [ 1/min] Power output P [kW] Efciency [] Perfect efciency id /id D [N] TP [N] I 12 000 0.30 62.2 0.21 1.35 0.023 0.054 26.0 1.088 572 179 0.87 0.96 0.91 2 376.9 2 502 II 18 500 0.11 101.3 0.34 1.37 0.025 0.057 43.5 1.772 572 298 0.87 0.96 0.91 2 468.1 2 556 III 22 000 0.064 131.3 0.45 1.42 0.026 0.061 48.5 2.066 636 300 0.84 0.97 0.87 2 524.3 1 909 IV 24 000 0.047 153.8 0.52 1.41 0.027 0.062 64.0 2.418 636 300 0.64 0.97 0.66 2 563.3 1 252

Comparison aircraft drag in level ight D with propeller thrust TP

the aircraft weight multiplied with the sine of the ight-path angle (= climbing velocity/ight velocity) is necessary. The engine however, already operates, at 18 500 m, at its power limit of 300 kW. The relative efciency of the propeller /id which indicates the performance rate of a perfectly working propeller, drops rapidly from 91% in 18 500 m to 66% in 24 000 m.

6. Conclusion
Fig. 15. Propeller thrust and aircraft drag versus altitude. (Remark: both forces refer to one Propeller or in lieu of the drag, of the half aircraft.)

Table 2 we observe that for 18 500 m level ight with only a very modest climbing capability could be ensured. However, above 19 000 m the drag exceeds the propeller thrust. For further climbing to higher altitudes additional power equal

Airborne platforms for altitudes above 20 000 m are until nowadays a challenge for the aerodynamic design. Each meter altitude for a given payload is hard-won through optimizing each detail of the aircraft. This is aggravated by the fact that these details are interdependent. The main design challenges are:

D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 4351

51

a laminar wing, producing drag as low as possible at high lift coefcients; a drag minimized fuselage; a ow optimized wing-fuselage intersection with only low pressure gradients in order to avoid ow separation; the selection of a suitable power plant, and its integration into the airframe without interfering the ow too much; and if the power plant is a piston engine the propeller should be adjusted optimally to the shaft power of the engine and the altitude range to be covered. The research aircraft Strato 2C accomplished these requirements for its design altitude of 24 000 m only with regard to the wing design based on the airfoil LH37 and the selection of a turbocharged piston engine as power plant. The other points need improvement. The specic problems in summary were: the belly fairing for the landing gear at the fuselage generates high drag vortical ow; the wing was mounted in high wing conguration without suitable fairings; the large nacelles are just put on the wing with sharp intersections. No additional devices inuencing the ow in the intersection are envisioned. Large ow separation areas were the result; the propeller together with the 300 kW piston engine is not capable to bring Strato 2C in its current layout into altitudes of 24 000 m. With reasonable climbing

velocities 18 500 m was reached. Further climbing is possible but not practical because of the vanishing climbing rate. The preliminary layout of such aircrafts is still aficted with errors which should not be underestimated. The reasons are the lack of suitable and accurate tools on the theoretical side (CFD codes) as well on the practical side (windtunnels) to determine the aerodynamics of a body ying at low Reynolds numbers with high lift coefcients and high Mach numbers. Nevertheless the available tools point out the trends with 2030% accuracy.

References
[1] M. Drela, M.B. Giles, ISES: A two-dimensional viscous aerodynamic design and analysis code, AIAA paper 87-0424, 1987. [2] R. Eppler, D. Somers, A Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Low-Speed Airfoils, NASA-TM-80210, 1980. [3] M. Hepperle, Ein Computerprogramm fr den Entwurf und Analyse von Propellern, Institut fr Flugzeugbau der Universitt Stuttgart, 1984. [4] R. Johnstone, N. Arntz, CONDOR High altitude long endurance (HALE) automatically piloted vehicle (APV), AIAA paper 90-3279, 1990. [5] Ph. Tlke, A. Quast, Untersuchungen zur Ablsung im Bereich der Flgel-Gondel-Verschneidung am Forschungsugzeug Strato 2C, DLR-IB 129-96/36, 1996. [6] G. Wichmann, H. Kster, Leistungsnachrechnung des Propellers des Hhenforschungsugzeugs Strato 2C, DLR-IB 129-96/31, 1996. [7] G. Wichmann, C.H. Rohardt, P. Hirt, Kenndaten fr Prole: Prol DLRLH37, Luftfahrttechnisches Handbuch LTH, Band Aerodynamik AD 41102-24, 1998.