r

ft
AERODYNAMICS OF WINGS WITH
LEADING-EDGE FLOW SEPARATION IN
SUPERSONIC REGIME
by
SYLVAIN PIERRE
Department of Mechanical Engineering
McGill University
Montreal, Canada.
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Engineering.
March 31, 1992
Sylvain Pierre, 1992
{

Abstract
The flowfleld over delta wings at angle of attack hu been of constant interest
to the scientific community in the last decades. Interest has been stimulated as a
reslllt of the applications of low aspect ratio wings to missiles, supersonic .i'ansport
aircra{ts and aircraft fighters. The rolling-up of the vortex sheet over the leeward
side of the delta wing creates suction peaks which favourably increases the lift and
there{ore permits extended manoeuvrability at higher angles of attack.
Analytical rnethods solving for the separated flow over delta wings have been based
on the slender-body theory, which applies for wing geometries of smalt aspect ratio.
The slender-body solutions are independent of the Mach number, and therefore, {or
snpersonic flow, cannot appropriately take into accon nt the directional propagation
of disturbances. The slender-body model is attractively simple for the pressure dis-
tribution and lift prediction, but in the supersonic regime it can le ad to large errors
when the wing geometry is not very slender with respect to the Mach cone.
ln the treatment of attached flow over arbit:-ary wing-body cornbinations in su-
personic flow regime, the metho<l of Velocity Singularities based on conical motion
provides a more accurate alternative over sien der-body theory by consiuering the ap-
prupriate boundary condition of flow disturbances outside the wings. In sorne cases,
for large aspect-ratios, the errors introduced by the slentler-body solution could reach
30% or even higher, in comparison with th, solution obtained with the method of
Veloci ty Singularities.
This thesis presents an extension of the method of Velocity Singularities for the
analysis of the separated flow over thin delta wings. The analytical solution thus ob-
tained is compared with the slender-body solution and the experimental data available
in the literature.
1
Sommaire
La communaut scientifique s'intresse au champ d'coulement au-dessus de l'aile
delta . angle d'incidence depuis les quarantes dernires annes. L'application de l'ailt'
trs effil aux missiles, aux avions de transport supersoniqhc et aux aVIOns dt' chasse
su maintenir cet intrt. L'apparition de la nappe en cornet sur l'extrados engendre
de puissantes aspirations qui u ~ m e n t e n t avantageusement la porte et permet ainsi
une plus grande manoeuvrabilit des angles d'incidencc plus lev!>.
Les mthodes de solution analytiques de l'coulement dtach sur l'extrados sont
fonds sur la thorie des corps effils. Cette thorie s'applique la gomtrie des ailes
trs effiles. La solution apporte par la thorie des corps effils cst indpendante du
nombre de Mach, et donc ne peut tenir compte de la propagation direct.ionnelle des
perturbations en rgime supersonique. La simplicit e la thorie des corps dlilps en
fait un modle attrayant pour le calcul de la pression ct de la porte; toutefOIS, pour
des gomtries moins effils ce calcul peut induire de larges erreurs.
Dans le traitement de l'coulement attach pour des combinaisons arbItraires aile-
fuselage en rgime supersonique, la mthode des SingularIts de Vitesse base sur la
thorie es mouvements coniques amne une solution plus correcte que la thorie
des corps effils car elle considre les conditions limites appropries de propagation
directionnelle l'extrieur des ailes. Pour les ailes de moyenne forte envergure, les
erreurs engendres par la mthode des corps effils peut atteindre plus de 30% que la
solution obtenue l'aide de la mthode des Singularits de Vitesse.
Cette thse prsente une extension de la mthode des Singularits de VItesse pour
l'analyse de l'coulement dtach sur l'extrados de l'aile delta. La solution analytique
ainsi obtenue est compare avec la solution de la thorie des corps effils et les donnes
exprimentales disponibles.
11
Acknowledgements
1 would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Professor Dan F. Mateescu, for his
patience and guidance throughout the course of this work.
1 am aiso grateful to my parents Fritz and Lonie, my brother and sisters Stphane,
Marie-Jose and Isabelle, and also to my companion Sylvie Varin, for their sustained
help and support.
111
-.
Contents
1
2
Abstract .
Sommaire
Acknowledgements
Table of contents
List of figures
List of tables
Nomenclature
Introduction
Supersonic Flows Past Delta Wings
2.1 General Considerations . . . . . .
2.2 Conical Motions in Supersonic Flow .
2.2.1 Governing Equation ..
2.2.2 Compatibility Relations
2.3 Attached Flow Solution of Delta Wings in Supersonic Flow based on
the Method of Velocity Singularities.
2.3.1 Type of Singularities .
2.3.2 Boundary Conditions .
2.3.3 Solution for a Thin Delta Wing
2.3.4 Generalization of the Solution through the Velocity Singularity
Il
1tI
vi
VIII
IX
X
1
1
7
11
11
13
14
14
15
16
A pproach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
IV
li
(
{
,
,
3 Analysis of Delta Wings with Leading-Edge Flow Separation in Su-
personic Regime 31
3.1 BrieC Introduction of Previous Solutions 31
3.2 A Simplified Conical Solution for Thin Delta Wings at Tncidence . 34
3.2.1 Determination of the generic potential function .. . . . . 34
3.2.2 Determination of constants based on the Boundary Conditions 37
3.2.3 Analytical Expressions for the PerturbatIOn Velocities 43
3.2.4 TheoreticaJ Solution for the Pressure Cp and the
Lift Coefficient C, .
3.2.5 Numerical Details.
3.3 An improved Solution for Delta Wings with Leading-Edge Flow Sepa-
ration
3.3.1 Importance of the Boundary Condition
3.3.2 Additional Distribution of Supersonic Ridgt:s to Satis{y the
Boundary Conditions on the Mach Cone . . . . .
3.3.3 Improved Solution Including the Additional Ridge Distribution
43
43
45
45
46
48
4 Comparison Between the Theoretical Solutions and Experimental
Results
4.1 Lift Variation with Angle of Attack ..
4.2 Coefficient of Pressure Cp Distribution along the Span .
4.2.1 Variations of the Coefficient of Pressure for a Not-So-Slender
59
60
61
Wing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.2 Variations of the Coefficient of Pressure for a Slender Wing . 63
4.3 Discussion . . 64
5 CONCLUSIONS 71
Bibliography 73
A Separated Flow Slender-Body Models. A-l
v
A.1 Legendre's Model ..... .
A.2 Brown and Michael's Model
-
vi
A-l
A-4
(
(
,
List of Figures
2.1 Schematic drawings of separated flow over slender d !lta wing
2.2 Typical pressule and lift distribution over delta wing
2.3 Separated flow in subsonic and super'lonic flow ..
2.4 Types of flows over delta wings in snpersonic regime .
2.5 Uses of a vortex ftap ....... .
21
22
23
24
25
2.6 Wmg geometry in the physical space 26
2.7 Transformation from the physical plane to the llew plane z = y + iz 27
2.8 Wing geometry in the physical space with the associated boundary
conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 Geometry in the x plane and the X plane.
2.10 Pressure coefficient cornparison between the slender-body theory and
the Velocity Singularity method in the case of supersonic attached flow
(Mec = 1.9, A = 73, BI == 0.493 and E(k) = 1.205).
3.1 Wing geometry and boundary conditions in the physical space
3.2 Geometry in the x plane and the X plane. . ....... .
3.3 Variations of the perturbation velocity cornponents on the Mach cone,
28
29
30
50
51
for BI=0.43 and a = 4 . . . . .. .... ......... .... 52
3.4 Variations of the perturbation velocity components on the Mach cone,
for Bl=0.43 and a = 14 ......... . . . . . . . . . .. 53
3.5 Variations of the perturbation velocity cornponents on the Mach cone,
for Bl=0.67 and a = 12 ......... .............. 54
vu
1
3.6 Variations of the perturbatiun velvrity C()Ill!l')lIt l t ~ l'n the \t.lfh \,)1\("
fr Bl--=O 67 and Cl := 20 ....... .
55
3.7 Variations of thl! perturbation vcl"Clty ulU
oo
t.n the \ta\ h {1l1lC', fr
BI -067 and a == 20 .....
56
38 Variatic.ns of the perturhtion "C'!ority v/U
ro
('n the \L1Ch C\'IlI', fl)r
Bl::::O 67 al,d a := 20 . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... 57
3.9 Variatins of the perturbati0n \docity u,/U
oo
nn thl' \LI('h ('1111(', fnr
Bl=O 67 and a == 20 ....
58
4 1 Variation of 11ft for Bl=0.67 65
4 2 Variation of lIft for Bl=0.43 66
43 Variations of the pressure coefficient on a delta ",ing )\)th fluw separa-
tion for B1=-O 67 and a == 12 ..... 67
4.4 Variations of the pressure cocffici('nt on a delta "'Ing wlth flow separa-
tion for Bl=O 67 and a = 20 ................. 68
4.5 Variations of the pressure coefficient on a delta w i n ~ wlth fluw s('para-
tion for Blo=O 21 and a = 35 . . . . . . . . . .. . .....
69
4.6 Variations of the pressure coefficient on a delta wing wiH) flow separa-
tion for Bl=O 21 and Q = 7 5 . . . . . . . . 70
-
Vlll
..
List of Tables
3.1 Values on the Mach cone (By=l) "r the perturbation velocity components 46
4.1 Table of cases examined for the lift coefficient Cl . 61
4.2 Table of summary of lift resuIts ..... . . . . . 61
4.3 Table of cases examined for the coefficient of pressure Cp 62
4.4 Not-so-slender wing parameters for the coefficient of pressure Cp 62
4.5 Slender wing parameters for the coefficient of pressure Cp . . .. 64
IX
A
Cl
B
C,
Cp
D(0'1),1(0'1)
E(k),n(p,k)
F'
r
l
A
M
P
Q
Re
lm
s
S(Zl' X2, xa)
0'1
Z
X
(Zl, Z2, X3)
Xl
y'
Z'
......
'U,v,w
Nomenclature
attached flow constant
angle of incidence
= VMoo2 -1
lift coefficient
pressure coefficient
IntegraIs dependent upon vortex position, defincd by equations
3.25 and 3.41, respectively
complete elliptic integrals of the second and third kind resp.
complex potential function
vortex core strength
semi span of wing in the plane Xl = 1
semi sweep angle of wing
Mach number
constant defined in equation 3.36
constant defined in equation 3.12
real part
imaginary part
ridge position
equation of the wing surface
= 91 t- ih
l
, vortex position in the x plane
= y + iz, complex plane defined in equation 2.9
= Y + iZ, complex auxiliary plane
cartesan coordinates
= Y1 + iZt, vortex position in the X plane
= Z2/Xl, non-dimensional spanwise coordinate
'l:3/Z1, non-dimensional coordinate normal to the wing
perturbation velo city component
x
-l
U,V,W
U;,o
Subscripts
n
v
00
f

complex velocity potential associated with the perturbation
velocity component u, v, w resp.
{ree stream velocity
normal to the leading-edge
without the vortex influence
unperturbed
Xl
,
\,
...,.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Previous Investigations on the Flow over Thin Delta
Wings
It was early recognized experimentally that delta wings of small aspect ratio with
sharp leading-edges provided stable and controllable attached flow conditions at Iow
angles of incidence in supersonic regimes [1, 2]. Classicallinearized lifting surface the-
ory have been used (for attached flow, throughout the flight conditions) and simplified
for small aspect ratio wings under the assumption of linear slender-wing thcory to ob-
tain an analytical expression for the wing loading [3, 4]. With the assumptions used
to linearize the potential flow equation, i.e. steady state inviscid irrotational flow 1
followed the decomposition of the velocity potential into a free stream and a small
perturbation potential: this implied that the theory would apply to thin wings with
small camber, twist and angle of attack which reprebent conditions of aerodynamic
slenderness. Slender-wing theory goes one step further by requiring that the varia-
tions in velocities in the longitudinal direction of motion are negligible compared to
those in the cross-flow plane (geometric slenderness), therefore reducing the problem
to an equivalent 2D incompressible flow where the powerful techniques oC conCormaI
transformation can be used. The solution thus C'btained is independent of the Mach
1
(
(
(
number and becomes inadequate for not-so-slender wings.
Several attached flow theories, based on small disturbances, were developed by
various authors [5, 6, 7] for supersonic flow. One of these methods is based on the
assumption of conical motion. A flowfield is conical if the velocity and other flow
variables do not vary along rays issuing {rom a certain vertex. First defined by
Busemann [8J, conical superonic flow theory wu developed by various authors [9,10],
and generalized by Carafoli, Mateescu and Nastase [11] for arbitrary wing plan!orm,
higher order conical motions, the direct and indirect problem. Mateescu further
extended the application of this method to cruciform wings and tails [12, 13] and
recently tn arbitrary wing and conical body of arbitrary cross-section [14].
Up to the end of the 1970's, most aerodynamicists used linear theory based meth-
ods for the design of twisted and cambered wings for efficient low-lift supersonic flight
[16, 17]. The idea was to avoid flow separation at the leading-edges [18]: at one design
condition, the flow should be attached to the whole length of the leading-edges, to
avoid the possibility that vorticity from one edge rolls-up on the uppp.r surface and
vorticity from another part sheds on the lower surface [19, 26]. Attached ftow then
was thought of being the best way to obtain the lowest drag and the highest lift to
drag ratio [25].
The flow about slender-wings with steady motion separates from the edges at
moderate or even small angles of incidence. A free shear layer, or vortex sheet,
separates from the wing along each leading-edge, and then proceeds to roll-up into
spiral vortices, lying ab ove the wing and inboard of the leading-edges. The flow
description is detailed in chapter 2.
Smith [43, 44, 45] amongst others [42, 47] has reviewed the theoretical methods
used to predict flow properties for the flow separation of thin delta wings. To un-
derstand the topological nature of such a flow, a clear understanding of the concepts
related to 3D flow separations is needed. These concepts were first defined by Maskell
[15] who identified two basic components of the structure of the viscous region, each
of which being characterized by a particular form of surface ftow pattern: the bubble
2
"
-
and the free-vortex layer. His approach considerably simplified the construction of
three-dimensional skeletons of complex flow patterns. Based on slender-body and
conicaI motion assumptions, two approaches have been used to expressions
for the prediction of the wing loading and the drag for separated flow over thin delta
wings : non-tinear surface theories and detached flow rnethods The detached Dow
are discussed in Appendix A.
Kchemann [46] developed a non-linear sIen der wing conieal flow metbod by as-
suming a model consisting of a vortex sheet that incorporates part-span vortices,
who se height above the wing is unimportant. The spanwise position of the vortices is
given empiricaIly, and it is assumed that the flow separates smoothly at tbe leading-
edges. Squire [48] extended the work to supersonic flow by incorporating rt'sults
obtained by Mangler and Smith [49] ( numerical solution for the strcngth and posi-
tion of the vortex core together with the shape of the vortex sheet and the total lift )
for the spanwise position. By itself, this approach do not daim to compute the true
spanwise position and cannot give any information as to the strength or position of
the vortex core.
Legendre [50] developed the first model for separated flow over a tbin fiat delta
wing by replacing the vortex sheets with two discrete line vortices originating from the
wing apex. The position of the vortex core is obtained by requiring the vortex-core
to lie along a streamline of the three-dimensional flow.
Brmvn and Michael [52] improved the model by including a feeding vortex sheet
(mathematically, a cut) [51] joining the leading edges to the vortex cores, th us making
the problem determinate.
The Brown and Michael mode! has been applied to severaI problems: slender
wing-body combinations (conical and non-conical) [53, 54J, second-order slender wing
theory [55]; in subsonic flow: leading-edge flaps [56], vortex breakdown [57], conieal
augment or/delta wing integration [58], leading-cdge blowing [59].
Mangler and Smith [60] did an analysis (in incompressible flow) to determine the
shape and flow field near the centre core of the spiral vortex through asymptotic
3
expansion. They assumed that the vortex sheets are shed tangentially at the leading-
edges and roll-up as spiral vortices. Each spiral vortex is split into an inner part
(smwl in size and remote from the wing) and an outer part (comprising a finite
vortex ',;heet, joining the leading-edge to the inner part). The inner part. is rt.,laced
by a concentrated vortex joined to the outer spiral by a cut. The boundary condition
of zero pressure discontinuity across the separated vortex sheet is modified in the
inner region to one of zero totalload on the line vortex and eut. Smith [61] relaxed
the restrictions on the u t ~ r part of the vortex sheet and used iterative procedures to
obtain a solution. Jones [62] extended the procedure to arbitrary non-conical wing
planform.
Several methods have been explored, using CFD, to solve the problem of the flow
separation over thin delta wings and we will mention here a few. Mook and Maddox
[63] extended the vortex lattice method to include leading-edge separation. Weber,
Brune, Johnson et als. extended the panel method to include leading-edge separa-
tion (subsonic). In order to include compressibility effects, Vigevano [65] coupled the
non-linear potential governing equation with the Brown and Michael model to get a
finite difference scheme. Hitzel and Schmidt [66] compared the application of time-
dependent Euler schemes to potential flow methods: whereas panel and vortex lattice
methods are restricted to particular regime, and can demand significant modifica-
tions and manipulation for analysis of complex geometries (when the flow structure
cannot be described in easy terms [66]), Euler methods are applicable to any speed
regimes without any particular initial assumptions. Oh and Tavella [67] applied the
vortex-cloud method to flow separation of slender flapped delta wing in subsonic flow:
this method gives a more detailed definition of the free-shear layer (or vortex sheet)
over the lee-side of a delta wing than can be obtained with Euler, Navier-Stokes or
panel solvers, and with greater speed of computation. Kandil and Chuang [68] solved
the unsteady supersol1ic flow around a rigid sharp-edged delta wing using the un-
steady Euler and thin-layer Navier-Stokes equation: they concluded that for accurate
prediction of distributed aerodynamics characteristics, the Navier-Stokes equations
4
are required (at least in the vortical shock interactions region), but the prediction of
the total loads based on the Euler equations have been found sufficiently accurate
provided that the leading edge is sharp.
Thesis Objectives and Organization.
The problem oC flow separation Crom a delta wing has been adressed analytically in
the frame of the slender-body theory . This model is attractive1y simple, but can lead
to large errors when it is applied to delta wings of large aspect ratios. In a.ddition,
the slender-body model doe!! not take into account the directional propagation of
disturbances, as weIl as the effects oC compressibility for supersonic flow.
In the treatment of the attacht::d flow over delta wings in supersonic regimc, the
method of Velocity Singularities provides a more accurate alternative over slender-
body models by taking into account the directional propagation of disturbances and
the compressibility effects, within linearized supersonic potential flow methods. Bcing
in very good agreement with experimental data for attached flow, this analytical
method treats geometries oC arbitrary wing-body combinations. For wings of large
aspect ratios, the slender-body model can overshoot the vrediction of the method of
Velo city Singularities by more than 30%.
The first objective of the present work 18 to develop an analytical tool that solves
the problem of the flow separation over delta wings in supersonic fiow through the use
of conical motion. The strength oC the method of Vewcity Singularities in the case
of attached flow cornes from the jUdlCious placement of the singularities on the wing,
which accurately satisey the boundary conditions, including those Oil the Mach cone.
This cannot be do ne in the case of flow separation, in which singularities appear in the
fiuid domain above the wing. The first objective is thereCore to adapt th(; method of
Velocity Singularities to separated flow, by considering the appropriate singularitics
above the actual wing, and see what gains are obtained by the use of the proper
physical boundary condition on the Mach co ne and at infinity.
5
(
(
{
The second objective of the thesis is to lay the ground for future development to
solve for an exact boundary condition on the Mach cone. This would then completely
solve the problem for supersonic flow.
In thc prcsent thesis, the treatment of the leading-edge vortex singularity is made
through the use of conical motion in supersonic flow. In Chapter 2, the method of
Velocity Singularity in attached flow is presented. In Chapter 3, a Simplified conical
solution is first prellented for solving the problem of fiow separation by neglecting
the influence of the Mach cone on the solution. An extension of the method is then
devej.Jped in the second part of Chapter 3 to take into account the correct boundary
condition on the Mach cone. The theoretical solutions derived in Chapter 3 elre
validated in Chapter 4 by comparison with experimental data and other results.
6
i
i
-
Chapter 2
Supersonic Flows Past Delta
Wings
In this chapter, the description of the physical phenomenon and the cxpcrimental
work of various researchers are reviewed. The main eharacteristics of coniea] motions
and their relation to supersonie ftow are reviewed to lay the grounds of the subsequent
analytical developments in the Collowing chapter. The application to aHaehed flow
for a delta wing with subsonic leading-edges is summarized.
2.1 General Considerations
The ftow past slender delta wings at low to moderate angles of at tack separates at
the leading-edges and rolls-up ab ove the wing to form, inboard of the leading-edges,
two spiral vortex sheets rolling-up into tight vortex cores (Figure 2.1). Stalting from
a low incidence, flc.w separation will occur for delta wings with sharp leading-edgcs,
as the angle of attack increases. In steady motion, the symmetrical vortex sheets and
cores affect airftow properties of t}-e wing in a predictable and controllable manner;
whereas with an attached flow you have infinite velocities in the vicinity of the leading-
edges, in separated flow regime the velocities are finite at the ]eading-edges with,
however, higher velocities components inboard of the leading-edges, induced by the
7
(
(
concentrated vortex cores above the wing (Figure 2.2): the singularities at the leading-
edges are transported within the flowfield along the vortex sheets (from the wing
leading-edges) up to their vortex cores, where most of the vorticity is
For rounded leading-edges, the separation is milder.
The variations in velocity distribution affect quantities of interests to the aerody-
namicist, like the pressure distribution, the wing loading and the drag: as compared
with an attached flow, the lift increases non-linearly with the angle of incidence for
separated flow over delta wings. Two useful parameters are used to relate the strength
of flow separation with geometry and aerodynamics: BI and ail. The flrst one, BI,
relates the wing geometry to its cone of directional propagation of disturbances ( BI
represents the ratio of the semi-wing span 1 to the distance to the Mach cone l/B in
a given plane). When this ratio is greatel' than unit y, the leading edges are called
supersonic, which me an that the delta wing protrudes outside its Mach cone of di-
rectional propagation disturbances and the flow velocity normal to the leading-edge
is supersonicj flow separation occurs when the leading-edges are subsonic, i.e. within
their Mach cone. The oUler parameter is a/l, which relate the angle of incidence to
wing semi-span: for a specified angle of attack, for which there is flow separation, an
increase in wing span will decrease the effects of ftow separation on pressure distri-
bution and total lift (geometry effect); in order for the flow separation to be again
important for this larger aspect ratio wing, a corresponding increase in incidence is
required. Thus :.>r tbe same value of a/l, a larger aspect ratio wing will need a greater
angle of attack Cor the phenomenon to have the same importance than for a slendcr
delta wing. As a result, tbe flow separation phenomenon is more acute for sIen der
wings than for moderate to large aspect ratio wings.
The flow separation for slender delta wings at incidence occurs at low speed, as
well at high speed, is schematically shown in Figure 2.3. The basic Ceatures of the
flow remain qualitatively the same, changing quantitatively with changes in angles of
attack and Mach number.
In recent years, many researchers [21, 22, 23, 24, 35, 38, 40] devoted their efforts
8
1
,
1
to catalogue flowfields over a delta wing. These efforts aimed the description and
visualisations of the flow on the lee-si de and wind-side (respectlvely ahove and bclow)
of a delta wing as well as the development of empirical correlatIOns to predict the
flowfields over a delta wing, in different flow regimes and attitudes The following
discussion will deal with separated flow in supersonic regime over delta wings.
Stanbrook and Squire [23] correlated the change in types of flows, from an attached
flow to a separated flow, in ter ms of the flow cOJldltion normal to the leading-edge.
Using, as variables, the Mach number normal to the leading-edge (or Mn) and the
incidence normal to the leading-edges (or an), they have shown two (hfferent types
of flows separated by a Land running {rom Mn '" .6 at low an to Af
n
'" 1 0 at
an l'V 30deg (see Figure 2.4); to the left of the band the flow is always scparatcd
at the leading-edges, whereas to the right of the band the flow is always attached
at the leading-edges. As the normal Mach number b('coOles supefSOIllC, shock waves
in the cross-flow plane occur, which in turn induced flow separatioll Ill-board of t t ~
leading-edges. More complicated flow patterns result. The effect of shock waves on
leading-edge flow separation are discussed by Squire [24] At larger angles of attack
and for sm aller aspect ratio delta wings, the orderly flow pattern described up-to-
now abruptly changes to a diffuse disordonnate flow pattern This vortex breakdown,
initially at the trailing-edges, creates a vortex asymmetry which is delrimcnlal to
the lift loading of the delta wing; the extra-lift. gained by the fiow separation is lost,
And the vortex asymmetry increases the rolling moment of the delta wing creating
the wing-rock phenomenon. Vortex breakdown [36, 37] and wing-rock phenomenon
[38, 40] are reviewed by Stallings [35].
Wood [31, 32, 34] developed a set of graphs, based on a compilation of empirical
correlation and experimental data, which summarize the inviscid aerodynarnics of
delta wings at supersonic speeds. These graphs aimed to assist the aircraft designer to
define a preliminary wing design space [33], for a fully separated flow concept, in which
the wing loading, the drag and the initial wing geornetry could be parametrized and
optimized to fulfill the particular mission requirements of the aircraft design. Looking
9
at the available data for the pressure distribution on the upper and lower sides of a
delta wing, Wood showed that the upper side contribution to the lift reduces with the
increase in the Mach number and with the decrease in the wing aspect ratio. In the
supersonic regirne with classical flow separation (without shock waves), the pressure
distribution on a. delta wing, as well as the perturbation velocities are conical, i.e.
they are constant along any radius issued from the wing vertex. This property of
the conical flow with separation at the leading-edges can be used to deterrnine the
rnathematical solution of the flow problem.
The investigations performed by various authors were clearly dirned at using the
benefits of flow separation over sien der delta wings in aircraft fighters designs [42], in
a controllable and predictable manner, to improve upon high-Hft capability and post-
sta11 maneuvring (Figure 2.5). Polhamus [30J reviewed the history of the development
of slender-wing aircrafts. Lamar [25J reviewed the control of vortical separated flows
in various speed regirnes through the use of fixed or moving devices like strakes,
leading-edge extensions, vortex flaps [27J or spanwise blowing [28, 29J.
10
-
2.2 Conical Motions in Supersonic Flow
In this section, the geometrical transformations lcadlllg to conical motion and the
reduction of the equation of motion of the' flow to a Laplace equatlOn are shown.
The geometry in the physical plane and in the transformed plane is dl'scribed. The
general relationships between the perturbation velocity components art' shown.
2.2.1 Governing Equation
Consider a thin delta wing at incidence Cl in an inviscid steady-state irrotational
supersonic flow regime (Figure 2.6). Let the origtn 0 of the axis system (Xl, X2, xa)
corresponds with the wing apex, with the axis 0;:;1 p<lrallcl to free stream vclocity
U
oo
The free stream Mach number Moo is defined as the ratio of the free stream
velocity U
oo
to the local sound velocity a
oo
. The edges GAI and 011
2
are the Icacling
edges of the delta wing, and lie in the plane Xl = 1; the correspnndlllg semi-bpan
length in the plane :1:1 = 1 is 1 = GoAl = OoA2' The Wll\g l('adlJlg-cdge sweep-anglc
is denoted by A and the wing seml-apex angle as . The lcading-cdge sweep angl(! /\
is related to the wing semi-span length 1 in the plane Xl = 1 (1 = l" / c, sec Fig. 2.3)
by the relation
cot A = 1 = tan e. (2.1 )
The pressure, density and velocity perturbations produced by the wing propagate
within the Mach cone defined by the angle l'; the circle representlllg the intersection
of the cone with the physical plane Xl = 1 has the radius
1 r;:;;-
ro = tan l' = B where B = V M! - 1.
(2.2)
Classical separated flow occurs only for wing geometries Iying inside their respec-
tive Mach cone envelope, for which the ratio of the semi-span length, l, to the radius
ro of the Mach cone is smaller than the unit y:
11
".
1;,
ft
(2.3)
In irrotational flow the velocity vector V can be expressed as the gradient of
a velocity Under the assumption of smaU perturbations, the velo city
potential can be decomposed into a free stream velocity potential and a perturbation
velocity potential 4J such that the corresponding perturbation velocities u, v and w
can be defined by the relations
/P/lJz
1
U
oo
+ 4J/2:1 Uoo + u ,
4?/8z2 = l/J/8z2 - v,
(2.4)
4? /8z
a
8N 8z
3
w .
The linear governing equation for a steady state inviscid irrotational flow can be
expressed in terms of the perturbation velocity potential 4J,
28
2
4J 8
2
l/J 8
2
4J
- B 8 2 + -8 2 + 2 = 0, k=1,2,3. (2.5)
Zl 2:
2
Za
If the equation (2.5) is sequentially differentiated with respect to Zl, Z2 and Z3,
one can obtain
(2.6)
where ql = U, q2 = v, qa = w are the perturbation velocity components, along or
paraUel to the respective coordinate axis (Zl, Z2, za). The equations (2.6) obtained
are in a form which permits their simplification through the use of conical motions.
In a conical motion, the flow properties such as \'elocity components, pressure and
dcnsity do not vary along rays issuing from the wing vertex. Defining the following
non-dimensional coordinates
y'
Z2
-
Zl
Z'
Z3
(2.7) = ,
Zl
12
the perturbation velocity components will become functions only of y' and Z', sud-
that the equation (2.6) reduces to the two dimensional form
This equation can be further reduced to the Laplace equation using the geometrical
transformation
{
y -
z - z'
(2.8)
8
2
q1e 8
2
qle _ 0
8y2 + 8z2 ---
(2.9)
In the new plane a: = y + iz, the wing trace remains unchanged (y = y', z = 0)
and the Mach cone trace in the physical plane (Gy' z') is represented by the semi-axes
y E (-00, }')U(iJ,oo) (Figure 2.7).
2.2.2 Compatibility Relations
The solution to the Laplace equation consists of harmonie functions. Defining the
complex plane x = y + iz, the perturbation velocities can be expressed as the real
part of associated complex functions,
u(y, z) - Re[U(x)],
v(y, z) Re(V(x)),
w(y, z) - Re[W(x)),
U = u + iu'
V = v + iv'
W = w +iw'
(2.10)
The complex functions U, V, W, associated to the perturbation velocities u, v, w
respectively are related by the compatibility relations (11]
lX
JU=-xdV=- dW,
'1'1 - B2z2
(2.11)
which are obtained from the irrotationality conditions of the motion.
13
f

2.3 Attached Flow Solution of Delta Wings in
Supersonic Flow based on the Method of Velo city
Singularities.
In this section, the generaI method of velocity singularity approach {or a conical flow
and the main results obtained in reference [11, 69] in the case of attached flow for
a thin delta wing with subsonic leading-edge flaps at angle of attack a are outlined.
The influence of the boundary condition on the Mach cone on the solution is shown.
The general features of the method of velocity singularity can be summarized as
{ollows:
No restrictions are made regarding the supersonic regime ~ l relation to the
leading-edge sweep angle A, the present method being able to handle both
subsonic and supersonic leading edges.
The present method applies equally to the case of nonsymmetricalleading edges.
It can also deal with trapezoidal and polygonal wings.
The effect of the wing thickness on the perturbation velocities around the wing
can be determined using the same method of solution.
It can deal with wing and conical body of arbitrary cross section [14].
In what follows, the solution of a thin delta wing with subsonic leading edges and
flaps will be presented.
2.3.1 Type of Singularities
The wing un der consideration is shown in Figure 2.8. The wing has a semispan
length 1 with ridges situated .. in the plane :1:1 = 1. A ridge, RI, is defined as a
line separating wing regions of dHferent incidences. The central part of the wing is
14
....
assumed to be at a constant incidence ao and the leading edge flaps at a. constant
incidence al'
The analysis of attached flow near the leading edge in [11] bas shown that the
velocity perturbations u, v present the singularities (1 y'ft/2. Similarly, the sud-
den change of incidence &long the ridges OR
l
and OR, correspond to a source-type
singularity of the form In(y' 8).
The governing equation (2.9) being linear, the complex velocity functioll V will
be determined as the sum of the contributions oC each singularity,
(2.12)
where the two first terms represent the contribution of the leading-edges, and the last
two the contribution of the ridges.
The problem is thus reduced to the determination of the complex function U ( or
V, W ) presenting the singularities at the points corresponding to the leading edges
and ridges and satisfying the boundary conditions. Note that once U is known, V
and W can be determined using the compati bili t y relations.
2.3.2 Boundary Conditions
The wing is a streamsurface of the flow. Defining the surface equation oC the thin
delta wing by = Z3 - the boundary condition becomes in
steady :flow equivalent to
vs V = o.
as '" as
w = (Uoo + = r;-UOQ'
VZl
where the velocity vedor V is given by
v = (U
no
+ u, v,w).
The perturbation velocities can only propagate inside the Mach cone,
15
(2.13)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(
u = v = w = 0 for y' E (-00, - ~ U ( , (0) . (2.16)
The perturbation veJocities u and v are antisymmetric with regard to the windward
and lccward side of a thin wing, i.e. the Z3 = :' = 0 plane. Since the velocity must
he continuous on the portion of the z axis between the leading edge and the Mach
cone, it follows that the perturbation velocities u, v must be set to 0 50 that the
antisymmetrical nature of the flow is accounted for.
To summarize the discussion, the boundary conditions on the wing and outside it
in its plane are dcfined as
W -ooU
oo
fory'E (-I,-s)U(s,l) on :'=0
W = -o,U
oo
for yi E (-lI,s) on Z' = 0
u =:: v=O forY'E(-CXl,-I)U(I,oo).
(2.17)
Using the compatihility equations (2.11), the boundary conditions (2.17) expressed
in complex form in the complex plane z = '11 + iz:
Im[U]z:o - -0 on y E (-l, -8)
Im[U).:o - C on '11 E (1,8)
Re[U]z:::o 0 on y E (-00, -1) U (1,00),
whcre C is a real constant which will he determined in the following.
2.3.3 Solution for a Thin Delta Wing
(2.18)
\\Then the leading-edges are symmetric, and that there are no ridges, the problem can
be solved in the conformai auxiliary plane ...;zr - 12, as shown in Figure 2.9. In this
new plane, the solution is of the form
U
.A . A
~ , X=::' z 2 - 1
2

(2.19)
The generic {orm satisSes the boundary condition on the wing and on the Mach
cone. The constant is determined through the use o{ the compatibility relations ainee
16
"
-
the perturbation velocity w component is known on the wing and on the Mach cone.
Integrating from a point on the wing 'Yw to the Mach cone (z = 1/ B),
1
1/B _ll/B VI -- B2z2
dW- . dU.
1/_ Il. IZ
(2.20)
The integration is independent of the path. An alternate integrating Iimits would
yield:
L
iDO LiOO vI - B2Z2
dW= . dU.
o 0 IZ
On the L ~ the integrat gives Cl U
oo
On the RHS,
manipulations becomes
The complete solution on the wing (z = O,z = y = y') is
u = CtoU
oo
E(k)
1
JI - (y/I)2
(2.21)
the integral aCter sorne
(2.22)
(2.23)
where E(k) is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind, k being the modulus
(le = .JI - B
2
12). The solution obtained in the case of slenderbody is similar
JI - (y/l)2'
US.B. = CloU 00
1
(2.24)
However, the difference between the two methods can be very large and is due to
the consideration of the boundary conditions on the Mach cone. The elliptie integrat
factor, E(Ie), becomes important when the wing semi-span is not negligible with re-
spect to the Mach cone radius 1/ B. In Figure 2.10, the pressure distribution obtained
with slender-body and the conical method is compared for a wing of moderate aspect
ratio, BL = 0.493; in this case the sIen der body solution is shown to overshoot the
conical solution by 20%.
17
(
('
2.3.4 Generalization of the Solution through the Velocity
S ingu larity A pproach
To deaJ with arbitrary wing pJanforms, more versatile transformations are required,
so that the influence of cach singuJarity can he isolated more ea:.iJy. The method
of Ve10city Singularity separates the influence of the left-hl.nd side singularities as-
sociatcd with the Jeading-edge from the right-hand side singularities to
obtain the general solution. The constants are then obfained through the use of the
compatibility relations, as was shown in the previous subsection.
Complete expressions are obtained in another auxiliary plane, X,2 = for the
singuJarities at Ah RI, Xr
2
= for the singularities at A2' R
2
These are:
UA,
=
Al V(I+z)/(I-z)
U
AJ
=
A
2
V(I- z)/(I + z)
(2.25)
UR,
--
2/1r Cl cosh-1V((I- z)(l + ,,))/(21(. - z))
u
RJ
=
2/1r C
2
cosh-tlf{z + :.:)(1 + .. ))/(21( .. + z
These expressions satisfy the boundary conditions on the wing. To fully solve
the probJem, the constants Al, A2, as weil as Cl and C
z
must be determined. The
method is detailed in [11]. The ridge constants, Cl and C
2
, are each ohtained by
integrating the compatibility relation on a semi-circle of a very smaU radius around
the ridge points; the leading-edge constants, At and A
2
, require more work: first we
relate one to the other using the compatibility relation, and specifying that
(2.26)
in order to avojd infinite perturbation velocity w at the origin. Then, using again the
compati bili t y relation, we integrate from the wing leading-edge to the Mach cone to
determine the value of the A constants.
18
-
.....
Attached ftow solution for a thin delta wing of constant
incidence o!o
In this case, there is no need to consider the ridge singularities. The complete solution
on the wing (z = O,z = y = yi) is
(2.27)
where the constant ao is given by
J(l + Bld( 1 + BI,)
ao = a U
oo
1
1
1
2
(2 28)
(1 + Bl
I
)(l + BI2)E(ka) - B(1
1
+ 1,)K(ka) .
where K(ka) and E(ka) are the complete elliptic integral of the first and second kind
resp., ka being the modulus (ka = J[(1 - B1d(1 - BI
2
)l![(1 + Bl.)(1 + in
2
)]).
Attached ftow solution for a thin delta wing of constant in-
cidence 00 with leading edge ftaps of constant incidence 01
The complete solution on the wing is
0.0 2 [ -1 (1- y)(l + 8) + cosh-1 (1 + y)(l + 8)]
u = ..jz2 _ y2 + ;- C cosh 21(" _ y) 21(8 + y)
(2.29)
where the constants C and ao are
{
C = s (ao - QI )U
oo
1.../1 - B'8
2
0.0 = (a
o
U
co
I2)/E(k) - 2/1r C (B
2
12y'12 - 8
2
/ E(k n(p,k).
(2.30)
In the a.bove relations, E(k) and I1(p, k) are the complete elliptic integral of the
second and third kind, with the argument p = 8
2
.,,2 - 1 and modulus k. The case
where the leading-edges are not symetrie can be round in [11].
An interesting feature of the solution is that a condition to obtain finite velocity
conditions at the leading-edges can be determined by setting the value of the constant
19
-
ao to o. The resulting fiap de8ection a, in terms of the geometry and the wing
incidence Qo is then obtained as
(2.31)
20
(0) Assumed flow field. (b) Approllmoted flow field.
Figure 2.1: Schematic drawings of separated flow over sIen der delta wmg
21
t
'"
1.2
.8
CL
.4
o
A ttach('d flow
Non-lincar separated flow
Non-linear solution
.-1
(with flow separation effects)
'"
/
.......... t
Linear solution
(attached flow)
10 20 30
a, deg
Figure 2.2: Typical pressure and lift distribution over delta wing
22
1
SUBSONIC
.... .-
1
!
Pararncfcrs invol\'cd: lU ,n/ e
SUPERSONIC
ft
MACH EFFECTS
HIGH a EFFECTS
.-
Figure 2.3: Separated ftow in subsonic and supersonic fJow
23

..
2.00
1.00
o
r
Shock with
no separation
10
l "
. .,
)f
...
1 t l ,
", 1
:

Shock-induced Separation
separation bubble
20
... l"
," . "
". ,.'
4*i ...
with shoc
crassical vortex
30 40
Figure 2.4: Types of lIows over delta wings in supersonic regime
24
--
S(
.'
Controlled Vrt,:x Force
Benefits

Approach trnsonic sus1ained maneu'.er l/D:
--" . t r .
"",..- Increase a QW supersonlc
-- 1 ncrease takeoff and insfanfaneous
/ ..ra maneuver lif1
-.MPt
.. .
- fv'aintain subsonic efficiency;
increase supersonic
- Increase lift and drag for fanding
1
-- Provide Erreet 1 high drag i '"r ralloul
Provid simple variabre geometry
Figure 2.5: Uses of a vortex flap
25
l
\
. ~ /
Figure 2.6: Wing geometry in the physical space
26
z'
WING
,,'
MACH CONE
WING
--- ----;)
------- 1
D
2
/
r-- --:-;:.-- ;::::-- -- --- - -- -- .,..
0 0 Al Dl Y
11
r-1/B liB
"""" Figure 2.7: Trans{ormation {rom the physical plane to the new plane z == y + iz
27
(
.
..
U==v==w==o
(Mach cone)
..,-- -- ....
i/B
\ z'
w = -sina U
oo
(Wing)
y'
Figure 2.8: Wing geometry in the physical space with the associated boundary con-
ditions
28
l
z
X :::: y., 1::
-
- - - -

e: - - -- -
!I
,.<! - <! [2
~ - X -
z
.. Y ::::: y + iZ
-.:.=. .=. -= =- -= ..:::) ---_. _.. - --
r
Figure 2.9: Geometry in the x plane and the X plane
29
(
o. 6
!:,
Slcnder- Lod)' 13]
0 Conical solutlOn [l1,14J
c
~ c.
-- c
p
.
o ...
~
1
1
.
i
/
SIen dcr- body theory
V
V

V'"
~ ./
--- /
\
r-'
~
-
0.2
0.1
Yelocity singularity ffiethod
o.
1 1 1 1
O. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 O.S 0.9
yl'
fIgure 2 10. Pressurf' coefficient comparison betwecn the slender-body theory and
thl' Yelocity Singularity Illetlwd in the case of supersonic attached fle\\' (Moo = 1.9,
.\ - 73, BI = 0493 and E(k) = 1 205).
30
.'
-
Chapter 3
Analysis of Delta Wings with
Leading-Edge Flow Separation in
Supersonic Regime
In this chapter, the solution to the separated flow past a delta wing in supersonic flow
is presented. Two solutions are derived for the flow with leading-edge separation: (i) a
Simplified solution which takes into account the vortex system formed ab ove the wing
due to flow separation, and (ii) an Improved solution which satisfies more accurately
the boundary conditions on the Mach cone.
These theoretical solutions represent definite improvements over the slender.body
solution, especially at slightly higher flight Mach number, at which the wing geometry
becomes less sIen der with respect to the Mach cane. A numerical comparison with
the experimental resuIts is presented in the following chapter.
3.1 Brief Introduction of Previous Solutions
Flow separation over a delta wing occurs when the leading dges of the wing lie inside
the Mach cone and are subsonic (BI < 1).
When the leading-edges are subsonic, at a given incidence and Mach number, the
31
1
'(
,
pressure distribution over the thin delta wing is strongly affected by flow separation.
The flow separation effects are stronger for low aspect ratio delta wings and high-
angles of attack than for higher aspect ratio wings and low to moderate angles of
incidence (effect of BI and 01./1).
The first model of flow separation over slender delta wings which replaced the
vortex sheets with two discrete line vortices wu done by Legendre [50]. The position
of the vortex core was obtained by requiring the vortex-core to lie along a streamline
of the three-dimcnsional flow. The model was improved by Brown and Michael [52]
who included a feeding vortex sheet (mathematically a eut) [51] joining the leading
edges to the vortex cores, thus making the problem determinate. The eut permits
to satisfy Kelvil."s theorem since the vortex sheet in strength with distance
from the apex flow) , the increase being fed via the eut. Along this eut the
potential function and the pressure are discontinuous. To obtain the vortex-core
position, Brown and Michael allowed the line vortex to be inclined at a small angle
to the local velocity vector so that the force generated on the vortex-core exactly
balances the force on the eut. This force on the eut also implies that there is a finite
loading at the leading edges. Both of these methods are using the slender-body theory
with the addditional assumption of conical flow behaviour near the wing ape7.
However, the analytical solutions based on slender-body theory do not satisfy
the condition that the velocity perturbations propagate only inside the Mach cone
originating from the wing vertex, O.
In this chapter, the method of Velocity Singularities is applied to the problem of
flow separation over delta wings in order to obtain a conical flow solution without
resorting to the sIen der-body assumption. The problem is solved in two steps: (i)
a simplified method, and (ii) an improvement over the simplified method. In the
simplified treatment, the effects of the flow separation on a delta wing is considered by
deriving the conica! solution based on the vortex-type singularities situated ab ove the
wing as a result of the flow separation. This solution is then improyed
by using a distribution of singularities on the Mach cone in order to satisfy more
32
accurately the corresponding boundary conditions.
-
-
-
33

l

3.2 A Simplifled Conical Solution for Thin Delta
Wings at Incidence
A simplified method of solution to the problem of the separated ftow over a thin
delta wing is presented in this section. This step was considered necessary since
the method of Velocity Singularities has never been applied to a problem where the
flow singularities do not reside on the wing. The method presented here will only
consider the conical motions in supersonic flow, and therefore removed the geometrical
limitations related to slender-body, i.e. a theory limited to low aspect-ratio wings.
3.2.1 Determination of the generic potential function
Consider a thin delta wing at incidence a with flow separation at both subsonic
leading-edges, in the physical plane (Figure 3.1). The vorticity is concentrated in the
vortex cores, about 90%, white the rest (about 10%) is disseminated in the vortex
sheets issuing at the leading-edges. The representation of the physical phenomenon
in a tractable equivalent analytical model is done in the following way: the physical
vortex sheet which rolls-up above the wing to a vortex core is represented by a vortex-
line of strength r issuing at the wing apex and joined to the wing leading-edge by
a mathematical eut. 'rhis is a simplified representation in which a. pair of vortices is
used to represent the complex system of vortices associated to the leading-edge flow
separation. This model keeps the general features of the flow and it has been used by
other researchers in conjunction with the slender-body theory for this flow separation
problem [52, 53, 56J. In the present anaIysis, this model will be used to derive a
conical flow solution, without resorting to the slender-body assumption, which can
aIso be va1id for larger values of BI. In this model, the vortex-li ne is connected to the
leading-edge by a eut to ensure that the analytical solution remains single-valuedj a
contour integral around the delta wing must include the vortex-lines for the integral
solution in order to avoid situations where you could have a contour excluding the
vortex-lines, making the potential solution multiple-valued. In subsonic flow, Smith
34
[52] has generalized the approach by using multiple line-vortices originating at the
wing apex, interconnected with cuts, 80 that the definition of the 'eut vortex-li ne'
contour matches doser the vortex sheet shape in the physical plane. (For the work
presented, such a treatment of the singularities would be out si de the scope of the
thesis objectives.)
In the plane z == y + iz, the vortex-line position is given as (Tt = 9t + iht. The
generic potential function F is obtained in the auxiliary plane X = Y + iZ defined
by the conformaI transformation (Figure 3.2)
(3.1)
In this new plane, the geometry, i.e. the wing trace and the Mach cone are
represented by the segments
{
y E (-il, +il) the wing trace,
y E (-oo,-vt/ -1
2
) u (J'-i'A
2
-_-
,
-
2
, (0) the Mach cone trace.
(3.2)
The vortex position in the plane X = Y + iZ is given by
(3.3)
The vortex sheets springing from the leading edge to the vortex core join, in the
new plane X = Y + iZ, the origin of the X plane to eaeh vortex.
The main diff'erence, in the determination of the generie potentia) functton F(X),
hetween attached flow and separated fiow, is that the singularities previously put at
the wing leading-edges to give infinite perturbation velocities ('U, v, w) in at tached flow
[11, 69], have now to be removed from the wing leading-edges and positioned above
the wing on the line-vortices. The perturbation velocities ('U, v, w) are then finite
at the leading-edges. Because at low incidences, the flow is aUaehed, the generie
potentiaI function F(X) should tend towards the attached flow type of solution, in
that limit. One way to ensure that type of behaviour is to build the required complex
35
(
:(
potential function F in the plane X = Y + iZ to be the combination of an attached
flow singularity and a vortex-li ne potentiallingularity, and to adjust the strength of
their respective constants to get fini te velocities at both leading-edges. Bence, the
proposed generie potential function F(X) in the plane X = Y + iZ is of the form
F(X) = -iAX + ir(ln(X - Xt} -ln(X + Xl , (3.4)
wherc X = Jz2 _1
2
. The generie potential function F is linked to the harmonie
perturbation veloeities (U, V,W) through differentiation. Using a property of conical
motion, the generie potential function F can be expressed in terms of the variables
y' and z'
and the perturbation velocities beeome
Re U u - 8F/8z
1
- F - y'v - z'w
Re V = v - 8F/8z
2
= 8F/8y' = 8F/8y
Re W w - 8F/8z
3
8F/8z' = 8Fj8z.
(3.5)
(3.6)
To solve the problem with the harmonie function V is, in this case, the simplest
way, because it can be linked directly to F in the eomplex plane z = y + iz.
V
8F dF
(3.7)
=
--
8z dz
dFdX
(3.8) = --
dX dz
~ [ i A + ire 1
1
(3.9)
=
X +X
l
)]
X X-Xl
V is related to the other perturbation velocities U and W through the compatibility
relations.
IZ
dU = -zdV = dW
Vl- B2Z2
36
....
.'
In the case where there is no flow separation, r = 0, the velocity potential V is
of the correct form for attached flow. The harmonie funetion V does not beeome null
on the Mach cone physical boundary.
Since the perturbation velocities propagate inside the Mach cone, in supersonic
flow, they are null on and outside the Mach cone. The velocity potential V does not
completely satisfy this requirement in the present form. This requirement is addressed
in section 3.2 . But, for relatively low-aspect ratio wings (BI < 0.1), the contribution
of the line-vortex singularity on the Mach cone is small: the harmonie funetion V
tends to
which satis!y the boundary condition on the Maeh cone since the real part of velocity
potentia! V is zero. In this sense, the velocity potential funetion V derived from the
generic potential function F is a simplified velocity potential function which is now
developed in the following subsection.
3.2.2 Determination of constants based on the Boundary
Conditions
The link hetween the constants in the velocity potential V is obtained by ensuring
that the velocity potentia! remains finite at the leading-edges. The delta wing being
a stream-surface of the flow, the perturbation veloeity component w can be expressed
in terms of the free-stream velocity U
oo
and the angle of incidence a. Using the
compatibility relations, the eorresponding harmonie function W is related to V, and
therefore, the equation linking the vortex position to the harmonie potential function
is obtained. The vortex position is then obtained by ensuring that the line-vortex s
a conica! streamline of the flow. The details to each of these boundary conditions will
now he done.
37
1
..
.-
t
Finite Perturbation Velocities at the Leading-Edges
In separated flow, the perturbation velocities have finite values at both leading-edges.
To satisfy the boundary condition, the constants of the attached flow singularity A
and the vortex-li ne singularity r must be linked so that
1
X + Xl)] '" finite at X = 0
(3.10)
1.e. - iA + ire X Xl
1
-x-+--=x=;) = 0 at X = o.
(3.11)
Renee we have a relationship between the constants A and r, which is the constant
Q = XIXI/(X
I
+ Xl), and the generic potential function F and the velo city potential
V reduce to
r = -AQ, (3.12)
X-Xl
F =
-iA[X + Qln( X + Xl)]
(3.13)
V
'A X+XI-Xl
(3.14)
-
-1 Z
(X - XI)(X + Xl)
Determination of the constant A
The equation of the delta wing surface is defined by the function S(Zl, Z2, :1:3)' Under
the assumption of small disturbances, it is uauaI to write the wing planform equation
in the form [11):
(3.15)
where S'C Zl, :1:2) is the approximate wing planform surface function in the (Zl, :1:2)
plane. In steady state flow, the no-flow boundary condition through the wing surface
can be written , with the use of the material derivative D / Dt, as
DS 85 ..
-=-+VSV=O
Dt 8t
(3.16)
38
....
as as
(Uoo + u)-a + v-a = w
Zl Z2
(3.17)
Keeping first order terms, we obtained the following boundary condition on the
Wtllg
w U
oo
as = -aU
oo
(3.18)
OZl
Using the compatibility relations (2.11), the preceding boundary condition can he
applied to the velocity potential V in the following manner: integrating the compat-
ibility equation (2.11)from the wing leading-edge to infinitYI we obtain
(3.19)
The velocity potentials are single-valued funetions. The integratioll is independent
of the path, and therefore the integrals depend only on their end points. Dy having
one of the points ol integration at infinity, where aU perturbation ve10cities arc null
by definition, the real parts on both si des of the equation (3.19) are takell, so that
the lelt-hand side of the equation becomes
Re 1,00 dW = w( 00) - w(l) = sin a U
oo
, (3.20)
where the boundary condition for perturbation velocity w is neglected on the Mach
cone. Defining V(z) = V(z)/A, equation (3.20) becomes
sin a U
oo
= Re 100 i ';1 - B21;2 dV dz
l '
= A Re],oo i ';1 - B21;2 d'l,
and performing the integration along the axis z = iz,
sina U
oo
39
(3.21)
(3.22)
(3.23)
(3.24)
..
r

== AD,
where the integral D is defined as
or:
D(D'l) =
(3.25)
(3.26)
Re 1
1
~ I I + B2Z2 { 12(VI2:- z2 - 2 Zl) + 2z2(11
2
+ Zl)(v'12 + %2 - 2 Zl)}
o 1
2
+ z2 l? + (J12 + Z2 - Zt}2 (Y? + (V12 + z2 - Zd
2
)2
VB2 + Z2 { 12( JI + f2 Z2 - 2 zZt} 2z
2
(t;2 + Zn( VI + 12 Z2 - zZt} })d
+ 1 + 12 Z2 }?Z2 + (VI + 1
2
z2 - ZZl)2 + (1';2z2 + (VI + 1
2
z2 _ ZZl)2)2 Z
The value of the integral D is only dependent upon the position of the line-vortex
(in the term V). Once the position of the line-vortex in the complex plane z = y + iz
is known, the constants A and r can be determined. In the case where the line-vortex
strength becomes negligible, the integral tends towards the elliptic integral solution
E( ka) for attached fiow.
The term D is a function of the position D't, or D = D(D'd. The final form of the
second boundary condition links the constant A to the position D'1.
Position of the Line-Vortex in the z plane
The position of the vortex in the plane Zl = I is described by the position vector
R which has for components the origin of the (Zl, Z2, :1:3) system axis and the point
(Zl = 1,91, hl)' The position of the vorteJC lies along the line-vortex which is a
strearnline of the fiow. The strearnlines of a potential flow are aligned with the
40
'
........
velocity vedor V and therefore the veetors il and V are paraUel. Taking their cross-
product CV 1\ il = 0) will relate the position to the velocity, and wc will obtain the
following equations
decomposing into
91(Uoosina+w) = vh
ll
zl(Uoosina+w) - Uoo+u,
91 (U
oo
cos a + u) ~ 1 V.
These equations combine to give
{
(gt/zd U
oo
~ v,
(ht/zd UCX) ~ w + sina U
oo

(3.28)
(3.29)
(3.30)
The position of the vortex is stationary. This stems from the the faet that the line
vortex has no self-induced velocity [44]. So the correct expression to he used for \t
and w at the vortex position 0"1 is obtained by subtracting the influence of the vortex
singularity at Ul from the complete solution. Let us denote thcse funetions by the
subscript v. The generie potential function F heeomes
F" = F - irln(z - ud (3.31)
= -iA[X + Q(ln(X - Xl) -ln(X + Xt} - l n ~ - O"d ,at ~ = O"t. (3.32)
Using the identity (X - Xt}(:I: + Ul) = (:1: - ut) (X + Xx), we get at ~ = 0"1
Ft!
. ~ + 0'1
at z = 0"1 (3.33)
-
,A[X + Q ID( (X + Xt}(X + XI)]
V"
dF"
(3.34)
=
dz
41
r
(3.35)
(3.36)
Then, we get Wu using the compatibility relations (2.11), integrating {rom a point
Yw on the wing to the vortex position.
ri 1C1'I
J.. dWv = iv'1 - B2Z
2
dVv
v. Il.
Taking the real part on both sides, the left-hand si de becomes
Re 1
erl
dWv = w(at} + sinaUoo ,
Il.
while the right-hand side
Re LVI iv'l - B2Z2 dV
v
_
Il ..
(3.37)
(3.38)
(3.39)
(3.40)
The final boundary conditions for the line-vortex position is given by the following
two equations, which are applied at Zl = l,
{
1-
91/Zt = U
ao
Re Vv,
ht/Zl = rL Re Wu + sina Uoo
Or, uaing the equation (2.1) relating the wing leading-edge sweep angle A to the
semi-span length 1 in the plane %1 we get
91 sina 1 R
Vv
1
- -- e
cotA D(at}
(3.41)
ht sina 1 R
1(0'1)'
1
- -- e
cot A D(O't)
(3.42)
The last two equations are solved numerically by iterating on the line-vortex
position. Then the constants are obtained by back substitution.
42
..
..
3.2.3 Analytical Expressions for the Perturbation Veloci-
ties
For points on the wings (X = iZ), using the position of the vortex Xl = YI + iZ"
and AB (the contribution of the irnaginary part of the potential F), the expressions
for the perturbation velocity components V and U = F - :cV can be simplified to:
VIA
2Z
1
-z
(3.43)
=
:z: (Z _ Zl)2 + l'i
2
(AB) 1 A
=
lm F (3.44)
UIA
=
y
l
2 + ~ 2 2Z
1
- z
Z + 2Yl AB -:1: (Z _ Zl)2 + Yl'
(3.45)
For points on the Mach cone (X = Y), the analytical expressions are:
V/A
- :z: (y2 _ y? _ Zl)2 + 4ZlY2
(3.46)
U/A
1';2 + ~ B 2 2Z1(Y? t Zn
- Z+ 21'1 -:1: (Y2_}?-Zl)2t4ZlY2'
(3.47)
3.2.4 Theoretical Solution for the Pressure Distribution Cp
and the Lift Coefficient C,
The pressure coefficient defined as Cp = 2 (plPoo - 1)/hM!) can be calculated in
funetion oC the perturbation velocity components from the equation [521
u t,2 + w
2
C
,2 2 2
p = Sin Q - U cos Q - U
2
cos a,
00 00
(3.48)
The lift coefficient C, is obtained by integrating the pressure distribution over the
wing.
3.2.5 N umerical Details
BeCore proceeding to the next chapter, sorne of the details of the nurnerical calculation
will be given: these adress the vortex-li ne position in the plane :1:1 = 1 and the
43
l

iteration procedure.
The equations for the vortex position previously obtained are:
9t = sino_l_
ReV
1 cotAD(tTl) "
ht sin 1
1 = cotAD(tTl)Rel(tTl).
To solve for 91 and hl, a nested iteration has been performed using a 2 step shoot-
ing method. As&uming 2 starting values for hl, say ha and h
b
, for the corresponding
values for 91, say 9a and 9b, are solved {or using equation 3.41. 1.'hen the new valu"!s
for 91 are substitute back in equation 3.42 to predict correspondillg values for the h's.
The difFerence between initial and iterated h values is then used to obtain h
n
, and
another cycle of computation starts then. The calculation ends when the difFerence
between 2 successive predicted values of h is less than the desired accuracy, which
is specified at the beginning of the numerical procedure. The convergence of the
iteration depends highly on the choice of the initial position.
44
1
"""
,>
3.3 An improved Solution for Delta Wings with
Leading-Edge Flow Separation
The introduction of the line-vortex singularity to model flow separation sat.isfies the
boundary conditions on the wing, but violates the condition of no perturbation prop-
agation outside the Mach cone.
In this section, the last boundary condition is satisfied through the addition of
a distribution of singularities (or ridges) on the Mach cone, which will force the
perturbation velocities to be zero on the Mach cone.
3.3.1 Importance of the Boundary Condition
The magnitude of the ratio of the perturbation velocity components to a given free-
stream velocity increases for delta wings of intermediate to large aspect ratio at
moderate-to-high angles of attack. The value at the Mach cone of the pert.urbation
velocities therefore is larger.
In Table 3.1, the values of each perturbation velocit.y components at the Mach
cone are given. Whereas for slender wing 1.1) -: U
oo
and BI 1 this could be a
good assumption, for not-so-slender wings the slender-body assumption is no longer
correct. In Figures 3.3 to 3.6, the variation for the velocity components (u,v,w) are
shown for BI = 0.43 and BI = 0.67.
The perturbation velocity component w is ohtained by integration of the compat-
ibility relations:
1
2
>1-
12>1
dW
v =
00 hl1- B2z2 dV
v
(3.49)
00
=
D
2
(z) (3.50)
=
w(z > l)/A (3.51 )
which, setting z = 1/(, is equal to
45
(
BI a ujU
oo v/Uoo w/Uoo
0.14 2 -0.00004 0.00004 0.00004
0.14 4 -0.00015 0.00016 0.00016
0.43 4 -0.00108 0.00122 0.00109
0.43 14 -0.01032 0.01156 0.01066
0.67 12 -0.01827 0.02230 0.01680
0.67 20 -0.04032 0.04941 0.03856
Table 3.1: Values on the Mach cone (By=l) of the perturbation velocity components
3.3.2 Additional Distribution of Supersonic Ridges to Sat-
isfy the Boundary Conditions on the Mach Cone
Let '8 def1ne the {unction V
t
as the sum of the velocity potential V def1ned in the
previous chapters and a distribution of supersonic ridges type, V
r
, def1ned in the
Collowing manner:
V
t
= V + V
r
(3.53)
where
V
(ljB-z)( .. ,+I)_
r - L..- arccos IB( ) arccos jB( ) .
i=1 11' 2 "i - z 2 "i + z
(3.54)
The method to obtain the form of the singularity used in the distribution has been
developed by Carafoli and Mateescu [11]. By using a distribution of ridges li outside
46
,
1
1
the Mach cone , the coefficients Ci are obtained by Corcing V, to be zero outside the
Mach cone.
The real part of the arc-cosine functions can be obtained as
Re arccos
(l/B -- z)('" + lIB) _
2/B("i-:Z:) -
and
Re arccos
(1/ B + :Z:)("i + 1/ B) __
2/B("i+:Z:) -
1r/2 for:z: E (1/ B, s,)
arccos f!iB-z)(.,tl/
B
) for z E (--l/B, 1/11)
V - 2/B( -2)
o {orzE (-oo,-l/B)U(s"oo),
(3.55)
-1r!2 forzE(-s,,-ljB)
arccos (1/ B+z)(.,+1/ B) {or z E (- 1/ B 1/ H)
2IB(.,+:II) ,
o {or z E (-00, -s,) u (1,00).
(3.56)
For ease oC manipulation, the real part of the arc-cosine {unctions will be denoled
as
?-l1(:Z:, Si, 1/ B) == Re arccos
(liB - z)(s, + l/B)
2/B(si - z)
l(i7B + z)(s, + 1/ H)
?-l2(Z, "il 1/ E) == Re arccos -2/8(s. + z) -,
and the function V,. can be rewritten as
i=n 2
V,. = E -Ci {1t1(:z:, ".,1/ B) - ?-l2(Z, Si, 1/ En
i=1 1r
The derivative of V,., which is needed further, can be expressed as
47
(3.57)
(3.58)
(3.59)
(3.60)
l

The generic form for the velocity potential U, for Ut = U +U,. is obtained through
the integration of the compatibility relations.
(3.61)
Similarly, through the integration of the compatibility relations, W,. is obtained
as
The constant C. is obtained by forcing V, to be zero at the Mach cone and at all the
ridges " . The other constants Ei and Fi are obtained SiW;l1.;ly for Ur and W,..
3.3.3 Improved Solution Including the Additional Ridge
Distribution
Through the use of the distribution of supersonic ridges, the boundary condition
on the Mach cone is satisfied at a number of discrete points from the Mach cone
to in'inity. In Figures 3.7 to 3.9, the resulting behaviour obtained for Bl=.67 at
a = 20 deg is shown.
Another effect cornes in the determination of the constant A. From integrating
the compati bili t y relations from the wing to the Mach cone (instead of infinity),
the integral can be rewritten as:
(w(I/B)+Uoosina)/A = j,ooiv'1_B2z2 dV
_ 1
00
i VI - B2Z2 dV
ll/B
= D(O'I) + D:Z(O'l)
48
( .... 63)
(3.64)
. .
Since all perturbaton velocity components are null on the Mach cone, it follows
that:
A= Uaosina.
D+D2
(3.65)
The extra term D
2
has a large influence on A, as will be seen in the next chapter .
49
.
\
"
u=v=w=o
(Mach conc)
w = -sina U
oo
Dl.
(Wing)
Figure 3.1: Wing geometry and boundary conditions in the physical plane
50
p
"
,
-tTl
1
U==V==W==o ,
-- - - -__ :-- _-== _== = ~ _- --_ .... __ A
2
l
_ - -_________ 7 ~
-Xl
u==v==w=o
.
,
,
z
z
, 1
-:: ::-: = = = -- _ }--------
~
w = - sin et U
oo
l'
y
x == y +iZ
-- ------ - - -- C _=- _
y
..
Figure 3 2: Geometry in the x plane and the X plane
51
(
o. --- ---
, 1 1 1
o.:::!-- -- - ---- -----r ---------,------------,---- -- ---- -:-----
1 1
o - -
1 . . l'
o. _ : t
: l'-'='-I 1
------.=---- - -----1- ['00 -r---- ---- --------- --- -- -.
1
t
1
1
1
1 1
--
--- ---- ----- ,----- ----- --- ---t---
i
: [
r - --- ---- ---- - tl------j---'---1+--------=---=--l
1 __ u
l-- - ---------+-,-=--f----- ----1- -u-
1 ___ P"" CI:)
;
-+-----1-----+-----1---.------
1/ 1

1------ -- ---- ----- t-------- -.----r_---r_----t-------t---- -f---- -- -
1 i
0' -- --j--------1---+-----t------ ----f----L_- ---
o
: :1. ___ __ . ___ ______________________ , ___ _
l

o. ( : : . - -- --- ------ ------I-----t-
------___ U CI:) 1
__ _
, - - --- -- _____ ____ _1 ________ '-_____ -" ____ ..L _____________ "'--______ '-____ ._ __ _
v
-f----t----t----+------..-- ----
1
: . 5 0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 LE 1.?
By
Figure a 3 Variatic)IlS 0f t he pert urbation \'elocity components on the cone, for
BI=O..t3 and == 4
52
t
\
i.
i.


l
.....----.--- -1
. " , ! 1 1 1
- .ll .. ,------- 1 1
"1- -1---1------)- -. 1- ..... -j
1 1 l ,1 1 1
--- --1-- -r--I 1 .. -- 1
-i----- :--- ----- --- --1- \--
1 1 1 1_- -... -
+ __ . u-: _+ ___ -_ -r-i
- -
f-----+---+----I-----+-.--II---- ----- --- ----- - - -- -
: . 031---- -1---1------- --- - --- -.
: . 02l------'-<:--+---+---+.-----1r-------l---- -----t ------.
. :11

0.8 0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
By
,
,
- .
1
Figure 3.4: Variations (If the perturbation vcJonty ()TI t llf' \1 arh ('-.Ilf', f, ,r
Bl=0.43 and Ct == 14
53
{
. "i--r---i ---
: .: , ' : i - -- ! -1--, --- ------I--f- -----1-- ----- - - --
1
1
1
1
" ,
:
o 1
1
1
1
_ 1 .. r,1
1
1 1 1 1 ! '
-\ l' -- --r --- ,- ------,- -- -, ---
1 !
1 1 1
- -- -------- ---r---' --- 1--- -'-
,- f-----r- u:
!
-. i --,- -
- ,,- -- ---- -- -- --- - -+---+---I------t----;------ -
C'. 11-- -- --- -
-,-----j---1r----+---I----I-----+-------41---'--- ---,-
1
1
1
!
1
1
1
1
1
!
!
0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
, ,
By
Figure' :1 5' Variations of the perturbation velocity components on the Mach cone, for
Hl -0 G a n cl Cl -:; 1 2
54
:. :s...----,.----r---r----.----i-r--------,------
-- -d---- .. -------- --.. ---.
-. 'l
. '" , --;--.::. -
-'1---- ---- ------ -------- ---- --- --
o --- -- f--- -- -----1------- - -- ---- - - -- -- - --- -- -
- ---r--L._-+ __
1
\
1------1-----+---+---1--- ----- ----- -- ---
1 \
-t---------r---- --------- --- -- -
------- --_ ----
-----.. -- -j
1
1
1-----1------- -----
1
1
- . 15r----+------jr----t----t---.-t-----t----/----- - --- --
f----f.----f----t-----l-----+--- +----t-------- ----- ---
J . 2 ----\----- -------------t---- ---- 1-------- - -- --
1-----
----1---- ---- -- - ----
.. ------ ----
O
--'-__ --'-_. __ J L..-_ ---'--- ---- ---
. -- . ----- ----- ----
- 1
-- --_---r---I--
1
- --1
0.8 0.9 1. 1.1
, 1
- ... 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.A
By
FIgure 3.6: Variations of the perturbation \'elocity cmponcnls OII the ((_'Ile, for
-
Bl=O.67 and Q = 20
55
u
U
oo
1
1\
R
o
o.L'--I--
Simplificd cOlllcaJ c;nlutieon
SUpcrf,(JJ\ic ridge., rontriLutton
(of opposite 5ign)
Imprr)Vf'd cOJlitaJ solution
- .
-.C
0.7 0.8 0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
By
FIgure 3.7: Variati0JlS of the perturbation \'elocity ujU
oo
on the Mach cone, for
Bl:-:O 67 and <l == 20
56
-
v
U
oc
----.------.-----.--r--rTn-T
D.
R
()
Simplified conical solution
Supersonic ridges contribution
(of opposite sign)
Improved conical solution
O. - -
-.05
------
-.1
0.7 0.8 0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.1 l.R lo9
By
Figure 3.8: Variations of the perturbation velocity v/U
oc
on the Mach cone, for
Bl=O.67 and a = 20
57
(
w
U
oo
0.05
<>
Simplified conical solution
Supersonic ridges contribution
(of opposite sign)
Irnproved conical solution
0.03 --
-+---i----t---I----i----jt-- . ~ 1
0.02 --- -- -- ---I------t--
0.01 -
_ . 01 - - ---- -- __ . L . _ ~ ___ _'__ __ __L. __ --'
0.8 0.9 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
1.8 1.9
B'Y
Figure 3.9' Variations of the perturbation velocity w/U
oo
on the Mach cone, for
nt -0.67 and 0 = 20
58
1
-
Chapter 4
Comparison Between the
Theoretical Solutions and
Experimental Results
In this chapter a comparison between the analytical methods derived in chapter 3,
the slender-body model of Brown [52] and experimental data from reference [33] is
done, looking at the lift and the pressure distribution.
The lift results obtained with the simplified method and the improved method
is compared to the slender-body model of Brown [521 and to experimental results
[11}. The pressure distribution results obtained wlth the simplified mcthod and the
improved method is compared to the slenderbody solution obtained by Brown and
to experimental results summarized by Wood in ref [33], which reCers also to other
works. The spanwise position of the vortex-li ne will be glven as the variable gl' and
its relative height by kil. The aspect ratio is denotcd by AR and the semi-span length
to the Mi.f.h cone radius ro ratio by BI. The relation of the angle of incidence to the
wing semi-span length ail is used in the lift results. The other quantltles of interests
mentioned in chapter 1 are the Mach number normal to the leading-edge Mn and the
incidence normal to the leading-edge an' These quantities are related to the delta
wing leading-edp;e sweep angle A through the Collowing equations
59
(
Mao sin A JI + (sina tan A)2,
arctan ( tan a/ cos A )
4.1 Lift Variation with Angle of Attack.
(4.1)
(4.2)
The variation of lift with angle of attack were obtained for delta wings of moderate
and large BI to measure the improvement gained from slender-body with the method
of Velocity Singularitjes for the simplified solution. Because of the discretization
chosen, there can be differences in local pressure distribution near the leading-edge,
bui the integration to obtain the overall wing loading is proportion al to the vortex
intensity concentrated in the line-vortex cores above the wing, so that the lift should
represent the best aelOdynamic quantity to compare methods.
The comparison or the numerical results for the lift coefficient are summarized
in Table 4.1 {or two wing configurations for which previous results were available.
In both cases, the lift coefficients predicted by both the simplified and improved
solutions are in better agreement with the experiments than the slender body model.
For the wing of larger aspect ratio (BI = 0.67), the sien der body is seen to overshoot
the predicted lift of the conical solution by more than 60% for large a/l (Table 4.2
and Figure 4.1). However, the simplified model overestimates the experimentallift:
the overshoot hecomes more significant as the parameter increases (a/l 0.8). The
improved solution clearly shows the benefits of incorporating the Mach cone boundary
condition. The lift is in reasonable agreements with experimental data for BI = 0.67
(Figure 4.1). What is significant is the improvement of the improved conical solution
over the simplified conical solution (nearly 15%) for an angle of attack of 20.
The improvements introduced by the present conical solutions are clearly signif-
icant for larger values of BI, where the lift coefficients are predicted with a good
accuracy. Improvements with respect to the sien der-body solution can also be ob-
served in the case of smaller values of BI (Figure 4.2), although they are not 50
60
-
r----
f----
BI 0./1
0.43 0.52
0.78
r--'
0.67 0.50
0.84
U:: >q;
4 1 1 9 043 75.0
4.2 l 9 067 67 5
Table 4 1: Table of cases examined for the lift co('ffic('lIt C,
-----.
SIen der-body
solution
C,/I'
5.23
9.01
4.98
9.99
------ ---- -- ---
Simphficd conical s oluti ln Iml'ro\'cd (', 'Ilieal
C,jlz
4.81
7.85
--
3.45
6.18
% Tmprove ment C,jl" % Impro\'t'l1wnt
w.r.t
Slcndcr-b ody
Solutio n
8.73
14.77
44.34
61.65
%
%
%
%
4.65
7.52
3 13
539
w r.t
S1enrlcr- body
Solution
1247 %
19.81 %
5910 %
8568 %
Table 4.2: Table of summary of lift results
spectacular as for larger BI.
The lift, for the same a/l, is seen ta decrease as the parameter BI is increased;
given an angle of aUack and a wing span, an increase in the Mach llllmbcr wj)J rt'duce
the effect on lift of the flow separation to eventually disappear whcn the learling-cdgcs
of the delta wing become supersonic.
4.2 Coefficient of Pressure Cp Distribution aiong
the Span
In this section, a cornparison for slender wings and not-so-slender wing is made
through variations of the angle of incidence Cl in Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.4. The
61
{
Figure Moo Cl A
Not-so-slender wing 4.3 1.9 12 67.5
4.4 1.9 20 67.5
r----'
Slender wing 4.5 1.9 3.5 82.5
4.6 1.9 7.5 82.5
Table 4.3: Table of cases examined for the coefficient of pressure Cp
Figure Moo
a A BI Mn an
4.3 1.9 12 67.5 0.670 0.813 29.04
4.4 1.9 20 67.5 0.670 0.942 43.66
Table 4.4: Not-so-slender wing parameters for the coefficient of pressure Cp
Table 4.3 summarises the geometrical configurations considered in each case.
4.2.1 Variations of the Coefficient of Pressure for a Not-So-Slender
Wing
The experimental resuIts used for comparison are taken from Reference [11]. The
comparisons contained in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 refer to a wing with a leading-edge
sweep angle of A = 67.5 where the angle of attack is increased from a = 12 to
a = 20. The Mach number is Moo = 1.9, which corresponds to BI = 0.67 in this
case.
In all cases, for the simplified and the improved method, the coefficient of pressure
Cp on the leeward side peaks to its maximum value at the spanwise vortex location,
while remaining fairly constant on the windward side. The Table 4.4 shows that
the two cases lie not within the region of classical separated flow of a delta wing of
Figure 2.4.
62
1
.....
The simplified and the improved mode! reproduce the main qualitative (eatures
of the flow. The results for the simplified conica} solution on the windward side are
underpredicted compared to the experimental data. On the leeward, the simplified
conical solution largely overpredicts the coefficient of pressure, while havllg the suc-
tion peak nearer to the leading-edge than predicted by the experimental data; the
situation worsens as the angle of incidence is inereased The improved ("ouieal solu-
tion is in better agreement with the experiments than the simphfied solutions: the
most noticeable difference is in the height of the suction peak on the upper si de where
difFerences in magnitude are of the order of 23% at 12 and of 43% at 20 with t.he
simplified method.
4.2.2 Variations of the Coefficient of Pressure for a Slender
Wing
The experimental results used for comparison are taken from References [111 and [791.
The comparisons contained in Figures 4.3 to 4.4 refer to a wing with a. lcading-edge
sweep angle of A = 82.5 where the angle of attack is increased from a = 3.5 to
a = 7.5. The Mach number is Moo = 1.9, which corresponds to BI = 0.21 in this
case.
In all cases, the coefficient of pressure Cp on the leeward si de (which in the figures
is ab ove the y/l axis) peaks to its maximum value at the spanwise vortex location,
while remaining fairly constant on the windward side (which in the figures is below
the yI' axis). Table 4.5 shows that all cases considered lie weIl within the region of
classical separated flow of a delta wing of Figure 2.4.
The simplified mode} reproduces the main qualitative features of the flow. The
results on the windward side shows excellent agreement with the experimcntal data.
On the leeward, the simplified model overpredicts the coefficient of pressure while
having the suction peak nearer to the leading-edge than predicted by the experimental
data, because a concentrated vortex is used in this analysis, instead of an aclually
63
(
(
Figure Mao a A BI Mn an
4.5 1.9 3.0
0
82.5 0.213 0.266 21.87
0
4.6 1.9 7.5 82.5 0.213 0.349 45.24
Table 4.5: SIen der wing parameters for the coefficient of pressure Cp
distributed vortex sheet which is rolling up and forming a vortex core; the improved
solution behaves similarly, but with slightly less amplitude. The situation do es not
improve as the angle of incidence is increased, for both cases.
4.3 Discussion
The importance of the correct implementation modelisation of the boundary condi-
tions on the Mach cone has been demonstrated through the magnitude of the improve-
ments of the improved conical solution over the solutions which restrict themselves to
the slender-body approach. At small BI, the gain obtained with the method are not
so important: this is to be expected since the magnitude of the perturbation velocities
components are much sm aller in comparison with the {ree stream velocity U
ao
(recall
Table 3.1). With increasing BI, the magnitude of the perturbation velo city compo-
nents increases up to 5% for BI = 0.67 at 20. Improvement on lift prediction were
seen to be as high as 85% compared to the slender-body model of Brown, whereas
peak reduction were up to 43% for the pressure coefficient distribution. Most interest-
ingly, in comparison with the experimental results, the prediction of lift for the case
where Bl = 0.67 is sufficiently accurate to be considered as a practical engineering
tool.
64
-
C,
Il
10. r------r-------r--r,--
- - - -/-
1
9.
<>
X
6
J m pro\'('d coni ca.} sol ution
S;mplificd conira} sc.}ution
Slender- body
Experi men ts
8. ----- ---
7. -------- ---------- ------- --- - -- -- - - -
6. ----- ------+--
5.
--- ---.--t------- ------j- - - --
4.
3.
2 ---- - ----

o.
O. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.'7
(l
,
Figure 4.1: Variation of lift for B1=O.67
65
0.8 0.9
(
(
C,
'2
12. -- ----------
10.
Impr\'('d fUlliral sc.lution
Simplified cniral solution
SklldC'r-body
t><J Expe>ri !Ilcn ts
,
~
8. -
~ - ~ ~ ------- ----------
6. -- -- -- --- --- ----- -------- -----f-
--1Xt--
. ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~
o. - --------- - ______ --1-_______ .-.1. ______ --' ______ _
O. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(1
,
Figure 4.2: Variation of bft for Bl=0.43
66
1.
1
3 . ..--------,--------.---------.-----_.- --- ----- ---
2.5
2.
- Cp
<>
x
Improved conical solution
Simplified conical solution
SIen der-body
Experi ments
1 5 ~ --------- --- ---- -- - -- ---
1. 1----------1- ---
0.51------------------------------- - -------
-.5
O.
'------ --------
0.2 0.4 0.6
yI'
0.8
Figure 4.3: Variations of the pressure codflcient on a d('lta wing with flow separation
for Bl=O.67 and Q = 12
67
\
\
1.
i
-
(
(

3.5-
3. -
2.5
-c
p
2.
l. 5 - --
()
X

Improved comcnl solution
Simplified conical solution
SIen der- body
Expemncnts
- ---- ----- -------------t---
----4-------
1. ------ - ---------
O. 5 -FA -6- r-x::::::1Fft:"'"]J

o. ----- - -------- ------------ --t--------
---- )(--- -*-----)(- )( )(
-1.
O.
M-+-
Il 11- 1l1J 11 11 11- --
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9
y/I
FIgure' 4.4' Variations of th(' pressure co('fficient on a delta wing with flow separation
f\\r Hl 067 I\nd Cl = 20
68
1.
,
-

0.25
o
X
b,
Improved conical solution
Simplified coniral solution
Slcnder-body
1-
C<I Expcriments
0.2 ---------
- Cp
o . 15 --- ------- ------- -- ---- -------- -- -- -- -- -----
0.11-------1------------------- ------_._- -".
0.05 ---- --- --- - -
o.
-.05
O.
.--1. ______________ . ___________ _
0.2 0.4 0.6
y/l
0.8
Figure 4.5: Variations of the pressure coefficient on a delta wing with flow separation
for BI =0.21 and Q = 3 5
69
i
1.
.J
---- -
0.4
o
X
6
Irnprovcd conical solution
Simplificd conical solution
Sl('ndcr-body
D<l Exp,..rim('nts
0.3 -. - --,----
0.2
0.1 ' - - --------.
----*-4(- . .....loot..--4--

A -A -A -+. -A -+,--!- -A---A' -A-A -A -A-A

o ... --- - -.-----
-.1
O. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.
yll
FIgure 4.6: Variations of the pressure coefficient on a delta wing with flow separation
for RI -=021 and a =- 7.5
0
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of flow separation for a delta wing has previously been adresscd analyt-
ically by various authors in the frame of the slender-bdy theory . The slendcr-body
model is attractively simple, but it can lead to large errors when it 15 applied to
delta wings of large aspect ratios. In addition, the slender-body mode} docs not take
into account the directional propagation of disturbances, as weil as the cffed5 of
compressibility for supersonic flow.
An analytical model to solve the leading-edge ftow separation over a delta wing in
supersonic regime has been developed in this thesis in the framework of the conical
ftow theory. This method is compared to experimental data availablc in the litcrature.
The first objective of the thesis was to adapt, to the problem of separated flow, the
method of Velocity Singularities, which has been applied to arbitrary wing-body
combinations in attached flow with good results [14J.
Two models have been developed in the framework of cunical flow thery: (i) a
simplified model which is taking into account the vortex-type singularitics formed
above the wing as a result of the flow separation at the leading-edges, and (il) an im-
proved solution which more accurately takes lnto account the appropriate boundary
condition on the Mach cone. The simplified conical solutIOn is in much bettcr agree-
ment with the experimental data than the slender-body solution for the prediction
of the lift, even without satisfying rigourously the boundary conditions on the Mach
71
'",
-
cone, which is common to the slender-body solution. This justifies the application
of the method of Velocity Singularities to the flow separation problems, which yields
good results. Th,.. improved conica! solution showed further improvements for the lift
and the pressure distribution, especially for large BI. In the case of large ratios of
the semi-span to Mach cone radius, the improved solution was found to predict the
hft coefficient with good accurac.y to be of engineering use (for preliminary design
cstimates ).
The pressure coefficient becomes sometimes too large on the leeward side, when
the wing becomes not-so-slender. The peaks observed could be smeared out by using
multiple line vortices originating at the wing vertex. The improved solution in that
respect has a considerable reduction in peak magnitude for large BI over the peak
magnitude of the slender-body solutions for large BI, thus showing the large influence
of the correct modelisation of the boundary condition on the Mach cone.
The first objective of the thesis, which required to solve the flow separation prob-
lem with the vortex singull.rities above the wing plane in the framework of the conica!
ftow theory, can be consilered as being achieved. The inclusion of additional singu-
larities on the Mach cone to solve analytically the problem with the correct boundary
conditions has b.:!en shown to be successful in the improved conical solution.
The second e,bjective of the thesis is to lay the ground for future developments to
solve for an exact boundary condition on the Mach cone. This would then completely
solve the problem for supersonic flow. The long term goal is to use the powerful tools
developed for attached conical flow and solve, using higher or der conical flow theory,
the problem for arbitrary wing and conical body geometries. This theory would then
ruso take into account effects due to thickness. Eventually other problems such as
roll, leading-edge flaps and leading-edge blowing could be solved. This would help
understanding the behaviour of numerical methods for this type of problems.
The model can ertsily be extended to delta wings with leading-edge flaps and ftow
separation, flows with vortex asymetries (wings in pitch and roll motions), etc.
In conclusion, one can consider that the present thesis objectives are achieved and
they could le ad the way to future developments of the method.
72
1
Bibliography
[1] Jones R.T. (1945)" Wing Planforms for High Speed Flight", NACA Rept. 863.
[2] Willson H.A., Lovell J.C. (1946) " Full Scale Investigation of the Maximum
Lift Flow Characteristics of an Airplane having a.n Approximately Triangular
Planform ", NACA RM L6K20.
[3] Jones R.T. (1946) " Properties of Low Aspect Ratio Pointed Wings at Speed
Above and Below the Speed of Sound", NACA Rept. 835.
(4) Adams M.C., Sears W.R. (1953) " SIen der Body Theory -Rcview and Extension
", Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, pp 85-98, vol. 20.
[5] Ferri A. (1949) Elements of Aerodynamics of Supersonic Flows, Macmillan, Ncw-
York.
[6] Lighthill M.J." The Supersonic Theory ofWings of Finite Span", R&M No.2001.
[7] Ward G.N. (1955) Linearized Theory of Steady High-Speed Flow, Cambridge
University Press, London.
[8] Busemann A. " Infinitesimal Conical Supersonic Flow", NACA TM 1100.
[9] Germain P. " General Theory of Conical Flows and its Application to Supersonic
Aerodynamic ", NACA TM 1354.
73
[lOJ Fenain M. (1961) " La Thorie des Ecoulements Potentiel Homogne et ses
Applications au Calcul des Ailes en Rgime Supersonique", Progress in Aero-
nautical Sciences, vol. 1, pp 26-103, Pergammon Press, New-York.
[llJ Carafoli E., Mateescu D., Nastase A. (1969) Wing Theory in Supersonic Flow,
Pergammon Press, New- York.
[121 Mateescu D. (1968) " Cruciform Wings and Tails Fitted with Conical Bodies in
Supersonic Flow: J. Conical Flow", Revue de Mcanique Applique, vol. 13, no.
6, pp 1101-1121.
[13] Mateescu D. (1969) Il Cruciform Wings and Tails Fitted with Conical Bodies
in Supersonic Flow: II. High-Order Conical Flows Il, Revue de Mcanique Ap-
plique, vol. 14, no. 1, pp 55-76.
[14J Mateescu D. (1987) " Wing and Body of Arbitrary Cross-Section in Supersonic
Flow ", Journal of Aireraft, vo1.24, no. 4, pp 239-247.
[15] Maskell E.C. (1955) " Flow Separation in 3 Dimensions Il ,RAE Rept. Aero 2565.
[16] Wood R.M., Miller D.S. (1985) Il Assesment of Preliminary Prediction Tech-
niques {or Wing Leading-Edge Vortex Flows at Supersonic Speeds ", Journal of
Airera!t, vol.22, no.6.
[17] Smith J.H.B. (1978) Il A Review of Sepb.ration in Steady Three-Dimensional
Flow ", AGARD CP-168, pp 31-1,31-7.
[18] Cooke J.C ,Brebner ~ (1961) Il The Nature of Separation and its Prevention
by Geometrie Design in a wholly Subsonic Flow ", Boundary Layer and Flow
Control (Ed. Laehman), Pergammon Press, Oxford, pp 144-181.
[19] Squire L.C. (1981) " Experimental Work on the Aerodynamies of Jntegrated
Sien der Wings for Supersonie Flight ", Progress in Aerospaee Sciences, vo1.20,
Pergammon Press, Great Britain, pp 1-96.
74
[20] Sashadri S.N., Narayan K.Y. (1988) " Possible Types of Flow on Let' Surfaces of
Delta Wings at Supersonic Speeds ", Aeronautical Journal, pp 185-199.
[21] Squire L.C. (1976) " The Independence of Upper and Lower WlIlg Flows at
Supersonic Speeds ", Aeronautical Journal, pp 452-456.
[22] Squire L.C. (1976) " Flow Regimes over Delta Wings at Supersonic a.nd lIyper-
sonic Speeds ", Aeronautical Quarterly, pp 1-14.
(23] Stanbrook A.,Squire L.C. (1964) " Possible Types of Flow al Swcpt Lcading-
Edges ", Aeronautieal Qua.rterly, vol. 15, pp 72-82.
[24] Squire L.C. (1985) " Leading-Eri.ge Separation and Cross-FLow Shocks 011 Delta
Wings", AIAA Journal, vo1.23, no.3, pp321-325.
(25] Larnar J.E. (1987) " Non Linear Lift at High Speed and Angle of Attack using
Vortex Flow Technology ", Special Course on Fundamentals of Fighler Aireraft
Design, AGARD-R-740,pp 4-1,4-23.
[26] Kchemann D. (1978) The Acrodynamie of Airdraft, Pergammon Press, G r ~ a . t
Britain, pp 338-432.
[27] Wood R.M., Hernandez G., Collins R.E. (1990) "Lcading- and Trailing-Edge
Flaps on Supersonic Delta Wings ", Journal of Aireraft, vol 27, no.2, pp 158-
162.
[28] Katz J., hern D. (1990) " Effect of Vertical Ejector Jet on the Acrodynamies of
Delta Wings ", Journal of Aireraft, vo1.27, no.5, pp408-412.
[29] Wood N.J., Roberts L., Celik Z. (1990) " Control of Asymmetric Vortieal Flows
on Delta Wings at High-Angles of Attack ", Journal of Aireraft, vo1.27, no.5, pp
429-435.
[30] Polhamus E.C. (1984) " Applying Slender Wing Benefits to Military Aircraft ",
Journal of Aireraft, vo1.21, no.8, pp 545-559.
75
[31] Miller O.S., Wood R.M. (1985) n Lee-Side Flow over Delta Wings ", NASA
TP-2430.
[32] Wood R.M. (1988) " Supersonic Aerodynamics of Delta Wings ", NASA TP-
2771.
[33l Wood R.M., Miller O.S. (1985) Il FundamentaJ Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Delta Wings with Leading-Edge Vortex Flows " , Journal of Aircraft, vo1.22, no.6,
pp 479-485.
[34] Miller O.S., Wood R.M. (1983) " An investigation of Wing Leading-Edge Vortices
at Supersonic Speeds ", AIAA paper 83-1816.
[3Sl Stallings R.L. (1986) " Low Aspect Ratio Wings at High Angles of Attack", Tac-
tical Missile Aerodynamics (Ed. Hemsch and Nielsen), Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics, vol. 104.
[36] Wentz W.H., McMahon M.C. " Further Experimental Investigations of Delta
and Double-Delta Wings Flow Fields at Low Speeds ", NASA CR-714.
[37] Werle H. (1978) "Ecoulements Dcolls" AGARD CP-168, pp :19-1,39-14.
[38] Ericson Il.E. (1983) " The Fluid Mechanics of Slender Wing Rock", AIAA paper
83-1810.
[39) Rao D.M., Whitehead A.H. (1972) " Lee Side Vortices on Delta Wings at Hy-
personic Speeds ", AIAA Journal,voI.10, no.11, pp 1458-1465.
(40] Ericson L.E. (1989) " Wing Rock Generated by Forebody Vortices ", Journal of
Aircraft, vo1.26, no.2, pp 110-116.
[41] Mabey D.G. (1988) " Design Features which Influence Flow Separation on Air-
craft ", Aeronautical Journal, vo1.92, pp 409-415.
[42] Parker A.G. (1976) " Aerodynamic Characteristics of Slender Wings with Sharp
Leading Edges - A Review ", Journal of Aircraft, vol.13, no.3,pp 161-168.
76
[43J Smith J.B.B. (1980) " Vortical Flow and their Computation", Computational
Fluid Dynamics, vo1.1, Von Karman Institute (VKI) LS 1980-5, pp 1-'11.
[44J Smith J.H.B. (1984) " Theoretica.l Modelling of Three-Dirnensiollal Vortex li'lows
in Aerodynamics ", Aeronautical Journal, pp 101-116.
[45J Smith J.H.B. (1986) " Vortex Flows in Aerodyuamics ", AUllual rcvicw of }<'lllid
Mechanics, vol.18, pp 221-242.
[46J Kchemann D. (1955) " A Non-Linear Lifting Surface Theory for Wings of Sn1<\11
Aspect Ratio with Edge Separations", RAE Rept. Aero 2540.
[47] Weber J. (1955) " Sorne effects of Flow Separation on Slendcr Delta Willgs ",
RAE Tech. No. Aero 2425.
[48] Squire L.C. (1963) " The Estimation of the Non-Llllcar Lift of Ddta Wings
at Supersonic Speeds ", Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, vol.67, PP
476-480.
[49] Mangler K., Smith J.H.B. (1959) " A theory of the Flow Past a Slendcr Delta
Wing with Leading-Edge Separation", Procedure of the Royal Society Sene A,
vo1.251, pp 200-211.
[50] Legendre R. (1954) " Flow in the Neighborhood of the Apex of a lIighly Swcpt
Wing at Moderate Incidences", At!ronautical Researc:h Council, Rept.16, vol. 796,
London.
[51] Adams M.C. (1953) " Leading-edge separation from Delta Wings at Supcrsonic
Speeds ", Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, vol 20, pp 430.
[52] Brown C.E., Michael W.ll. (1955) " On Slender Delta Wings with Leading-Edge
Separation", NASA TN 34.30.
77

[53] Levinsky E.S., Wei M.B.Y., Maki R.L. (1970) " Theoretical Studies of Vortex
Flow8 on Slender Wing-Body Combinations ", Analytic Methods in Aircraft
Aerodynamics, NASA SP-228, pp 113-129.
[54] Levinsky E.S., Wei M.B.Y. (1968) " Non-Linear Lift and Pressure Distribution
of Siender Conical Bodies with Strakes at Low Speeds ", NASA CR-1202.
[55] Nenni J.P., Tung C. (1971) " A Second-Order Slender Wing Theory for Wings
with Leading-Edge Separation in Supersonic Flow", NASA CR-1860.
[56] Oh S., Tavella D. (1987) " Analysis of a Delta Wing with Leading-Edge Flaps
" , Journal of aireraft, vol. 24 , no.6, pp 353-354.
[57] Ashenberg J. (1987) " A Model for Vortex Breakdown on Slender Wings ", AIAA
Journal, vo1.25, no.12,pp 1622-1624
[58J Tavella D.A., Lund T.S. (1987))) An Analysis of Conical Augmentor Delta Wing
Integration" 1 Joint Institute for Aeronautics and Acoustics (JIAA), TR-81.
[59] Tavella D (1988)" Lift of Delta Wings with Leading-Edge Blowing ", Journal
of Aircraft, vo1.25, no.6, pp 522-524.
[60J Mangler K.W., Weber J. (1967) " The Flow -Field Near the Centre of a Rolled-
Up Vortex Sheet ", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol.30, llo.l,pp 177-196.
[61] Smith J.R.B. (1968) " Improved Calculations of Leading-Edge Separation from
Slender Delta Wings", Procedure ofthe Royal Society Serie A, vo1.306, pp 67-90.
[62] Jones I.P. (1974) " Leading-Edge Separation from Non-Conical Slender Wings
at Incidence", Lecture Notes in Physics, vol.35, pp 225-232.
[63J Mook D.T., Maddox S.A. (1974) " Extension of the Vortex-Lattice Mcthod to
IncIude the Effects of Leading-Edge Separation", Journal of Aircraft, vol.ll,
no.2, pp 127-128.
78
f
1
[64] Weber J.A., Brune a.w., Johnson F.T.,Lu P., Rubbert P. (1975) " A Threc-
Dimensional Solution of Flows over Wings with Leading Edgc Vortex Separation
", Aerodynamic Analyses Requiring Advanced Computers Part Il, NASA SP-
347.
[65] Vigevano L. (1981) " Finite Difference Computation of the Conieal Flow Fidd
over a Delta Wing ", Von Karman Institute (VKI), TN 140.
[66] Johnson F.T., Lu P., Tinoco E.N., Epton M.A. (1980) " An Irnprovcd PalH'1
Method for the Solution of 3-Dirnensional Leading-Edge Vortex Flows ", NASA
CR-3278.
[67] Oh S., Tavella D. (1987) " Application of the Vortex Cloud Method to the
Slender, Flapped Delta Wing ", Joint Institute for Aeronautics and Acollstics
(JIAA), TR-83.
[68] Kandil O.A., Chuang H.A. (1990) " Unsteady Inviscid and Viscolls Computations
Cor Vortex Dominated Flows ", Journal of aircraft, vo1.27, no.5, pp 387-388.
[691 Mateescu D. (1988) Supersonic Aerodynamics, Lecture Not.es, McGill UnivcrsHy,
Montral.
[70] Sacher P.W. (1986)" Fundamentals oC Fighter Aircraft Design", AGARD R-740,
paper no.l.
[71] Stallings R.L., Lamb M. (1981) " Wing-Alone Aerodynamic Characteristics for
High Angles of Attack at Supersonic Speeds ", NASA TP-1889.
[72] Mayer J.P. (1948) " A Limit Pressure Coefficient and an Estimation of Limit
Forces on AiCoils at Supersonic Speeds ", N ACA RM L8F23.
[73] Hatch J.E.) Gallagher J.J. (1953) " Aerodynamic Characteristics of IL 68.4deg
Delta Wing at Mach Number 1.6 and 1.9 Over a Wide Reynolds Number Change
", N aca RM L53108.
79
t
[74J Menees G.P. (1958) " Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment of an Aspect Ratio 2 Tri-
angular Wing With Leading-Edge Flaps Designed to Simulate Conical Camber
", NASA MEMO 10-5 58A.
[75] Kaattar G.E. (1954) " Pressure Distribution on Triangular Wing and Rectan-
gular Wings to High Angles of Attack - Mach Numbers 1.45 and 1.97 ", NA CA
RM A54D19.
[76J Hall C.F. (1954) " Lift, Drag and Pitching Moment of Low Aspect Ratio Wings
at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds ", NACA RM A53A30
[771 Boatwright W.B. (1956) " Experimental Study and Analysis of Loading and
Pressure Distributions on Delta Wings Due to Thickness and to Angle of Attack
at Supersonic Speeds ", NACA RM L56116.
[781 Briggs M.M., REED R.E., Nielsen J.N. (1982) " Wing Alone Aerodynamic Char-
acteristics to High Angles of Attack at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds ", NEAR
TR 269 (Contract DAA G29-79-C-0020), Nielsen Engineering and Research.
[79] Michael W.Il. (1955) " Flow Studies on Flat Plate Delta Wings at Supersonic
Speed ", NACA TN 3472.
80
Appendix A
Separated Flow Slender-Body
Models.
In this appendix the principal slender-body models for the separated flow ovcr a delta
wing are outlined. The models described are the one of Legendrt' [50], and Brown
and Michael [52]. It is not the purpose of the appendix to dwell on the details of cach
methods, but rather to show the differences and limitations of each approach.
A.1 Legendre's Mode}
We have again a thin delta wing at incidence Q, of semi-apex angle (, of semi-span
1 in the plane Zl = 1. U sing the small disturbances assumption, the vclocity can be
linearized to the velocity potential function c) and the perturbation vclocity potcntial
<p so that
(A. t)
The potential equation (2.6), under slender-body theory becomes
(A.2)
A-l
The boundary conditions on the wing and at a distance sufficiently far from the
wing (sayat infinity) for the perturbation velocity potential are given by
- -aUO/C on the wing (A.3)
- 0 at infinity (A.4)
Let us define a potential function W such that in the complex plane
t = :t2 + i:t3 we get
fjJ = Re (W(t)). (A.5)
To solve the problem for attached flow, we would define the auxiliary plane T
through the conformaI transformation T
2
= t
2
- l2. The wing being a streamline of
the flow, the solution to the problem in the T plane is
dW . dW
Tt = (v - dT = -iaUoo
(A.6)
dW dWdT
(A.7)
Remark that the difference between between the sIen der-body solution and the
conical flow solution is the presence of the elliptic function in the denominator for the
conical solution.
We have infini te velocities at the leading edges. If we want finite velocities at
both leading edges, we need to add a Kutta type of condition. In order to achievc
this, we introduce leading edge vortices at Tl and -Tl that will reduce this infinite
velocities to finite value These two leading-edges vortices correspond in the physica.l
plane to laterally symmetric points ')'1 and -')'1. By virtue of their symmetry, they do
Ilot disturb the boundary conditions in the T plane at infinity and on the imaginary
axis. With this in mind, the potential solution will then be given by:
A-2
(
T - Tl)
W(t) = -iaUooT + KIn T + Tl .
(A.8)
The Kutta condition at both leading edges requires in the T plane that = 0 to
avoid infinite velocities. This translate into a relationship between the vortex position
')'1 and the vortex strength K
K TITI
- == (A.9)
aUoo Tl + Tl
If we can determine "YI, the problem is solved. A straight linc vortex has no sclf-
induced velocity. Renee the velocity at il is obtained by substracting the infiuence
of the vortex at 1'1 from the complete solution. Denoting the rcduced potential by
the subscript *, one can obtain
W'" = W - K In( t - 1'1)
-iaUooT + Kin (T + + rJ
(A.10)
(A.11)
This line vortex lies along a strearnline of the flow. For conieal motions, this means
that
Vt Il (ray issuing from the wing apex), (A.12)
After sorne manipulations the equation for the position is
(A.13)
We have a complex equation for 1[- in terms of ;. Once sol ved other quanti tics
like circulation, pressure lift can be obtained.
The vortex strength K g!'Ows the downstream dirf'!ction, proportionally ta XI
In the real flow, you have a vortex sheet shedding from the leading-edge and being
convected into the vortex core, thus providillg this iucrease in strength. Howcver
A-3
""'"
,
this model takes no account of this s}led vorticity and t hus circulation and th('rcfore
circulation is apparently being created in the depth of the fluid, in \'iolation of Kelvin's
theorem [51].
A.2 Brown and Michael's Model
We have the following physical situation: for a flow about a slcnder delta wing on
which there is leading-edge separation, the streamlines of the flow which wct the wing
do not pass Crom the lower surface to the upper surface but rather come from both
surfaces and leave at the leading edge. Such a condition would produce a conicru
spiral vortex sheet above the wing and the boundary condition of the probl('m would
be that no fluid pass through the wing surface and that the pressure across the vortex
sheet be continuous.
Legendre's model consisted of replacing the vortex shed by a conccntrated vortex
core. For conicaI flow, however, the net vorticity in the sheet is lincarly increasing in
the downstream direction, hence the concentrated vortex must be of lincarly increas-
ing strength aIso. The increase in sbength must be accompli shed by a fccding sheet
of vorticity in arder ta satisfy Kelvin's theorem.
Introduce a eut going from the leading-edge ta the vortex core, this cut is a doublet
sheet [43] = r Such a doublet sheet corresponds to vorticity lying in the
cross-flow plane. Vorticity in this direction does not affect cross-flow ve)ocities sa the
form of the velocity field is not aItered {rom the model of Legendre, and the KuUa
condition remains the same. However this eut does sustain a preF;&Ure diffcrcnce:
1 2 r
= '2PUootlCp = = -pUoo t
(A.14)
The force on an infinitesimallength 5t is then
(A.15)
A-4
~
The veloeity component normal to the line vortex is (v + iw)" - Uoo't, and there-
fore on an element of length 6t the force due to this is then, assuming small angles:
(A.l6)
The boundary condition is that the system of line vortex and eut, whieh models
the leading-edge vorte'1C: experiences no overall forces; t h ~ force generated on the
vortex exactly balances the force on the eut. We also note that sinee I1p 011 the Cllt is
independent of (Z2' Z2), the force on the eut is independent of its shape, an thus to
appromimate it into a straight eut Sf'ems correct. The new condition can be written:
(
.) ("YI) dW"
V - IW Il = K U 00 2 T - 1 = Tt at t = 'YI
(A.17)
We have again a complex equation to solve for 'YI.
A-5