NASA - CR-1999-209324 - B757 HLFC & Slat Design - Boeing

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?
R=19990052586 2018-03-03T01:33:16+00:00Z
NASA / CR-1999-209324
High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar

Flow Control (HLFC) Flight Experiment
II. Aerodynamic Design
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

under Contract NAS1-18574
Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199
April 1999
The data in this volume, D6-55648-2, was collected by members of The Boeing Company in a
cooperative effort with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the United
States Air Force under contract NAS 1-18574.
Available from:
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI) National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076-1320 Springfield, VA 22161-2171
(301) 621-0390 (703) 605-6000
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Technical Approach ................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Program Tasks ........................................................................................................ 4
2.4 Boeing 757 Wing Description ................................................................................ 4
2.5 Design Objectives and Constraints ......................................................................... 8
2.6 Surface Quality Requirements .............................................................................. 11
3.0 HLFC Wing Section External Contour Analysis and Design ........................................... 15
3.1 Analytical Methods .............................................................................................. 15
3.2 Original 757 Wing Surface Pressures ................................................................... 18
3.3 Design of the Modified Wing Contour ................................................................. 19
3.4 Calculated Pressure Distributions on the Modified Wing .................................... 24
3.4.1 Design Conditions .................................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Off-Design Conditions ............................................................................. 27
4.0 Boundary Layer Stability Analysis and Determination of Suction Requirements ............ 33
4.1 Stability Prediction Methodology ......................................................................... 33
4.2 Suction Requirements at Individual Span Stations .............................................. 36
4.3 Overall Suction Requirements .............................................................................. 49
4.4 Adjustments to Theoretical Suction Distributions ................................................ 54
5.0 Attachment-Line Flow Treatment ..................................................................................... 57
5.1 Background and Design Criteria ........................................................................... 57
5.2 Attachment-Line Flow Conditions on the Modified Wing .................................. 57
5.3 Attachment-Line Flow Stabilization by Passive Suction ..................................... 57
6.0 Leading Edge Device Aerodynamic Design ..................................................................... 61

6.1 Design Requirements and Approach .................................................................... 61
6.2 Preliminary Studies .............................................................................................. 6]
6.3 Design Integration ................................................................................................ 64
6.4 Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Test .............................................................................. 65
7.0 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................... 75
7.1 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 75
7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 76
8.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix A. Geometry Comparisons between the HLFC and the 757 Wings .......................... 79
Appendix B. Normal Cuts of I-ILFC Airfoil Sections ................................................................ 91
Appendix C. Leading Edge Radius ............................................................................................ 97
Appendix D. Pressure Distributions at Design Condition .......................................................... 99
Appendix E. Isobar Plots for the FILFC Test Panel ................................................................. 111
Appendix F. Boundary Layer Growth on the HLFC Test Surface .......................................... 117
Appendix G. Detailed Results of Boundary Layer Stability Calculations ............................... 121
iii
FIGURES
Page
2.4-1. GeneralArrangementandMain Dimensionsof theBoeing757-200............................ 5
2.4-2. Boeing 757Wing StructuralArrangement..................................................................... 6
2.4-3. Wing PlanformandCoordinateDefinitions ................................................................... 6
2.4-4. Boeing757 Leading Edge Slat Design ........................................................................... 7
2.4-5. Leading Edge Slat Positions ........................................................................................... 8
2.5-1. Design Point Selection .................................................................................................... 9
2.5-2. Desired Features of HLFC Wing Pressure Distribution ............................................... 10
2.6-1. Surface Quality Specifications for the Suction Region ................................................ 12
2.6-2. Surface Quality Specifications for the Nonsuction Region .......................................... 13
2.6-3. Equivalent Roughness of Suction Strcarntubes ............................................................ 13
3.1-1. Numerical Model for Three-Dimensional Transonic Flow Analysis ........................... 16
3.1-2. Gridding of the 757 Wing for Flow Analysis ............................................................... 16
3.1-3. Correlation of Computed 757 Wing Pressure Distributions With
Wind Tunnel Test Data ................................................................................................. 17
3.2-1. Theoretical Pressure Distribution on the Basic 757 Wing at Design Condition
M -- 0.80, CL = 0.50 ...................................................................................................... 18
3.3-1. Philosophy of Wing Contour Modifications ................................................................. 19
3.3-2. Extent of Leading Edge Contour Modifications on the I-ILFC Test Panel ................... 20
3.3-3. Effect of Leading Edge Blunting Near the Nacelle ...................................................... 21
3.3-4. Wing Geometry SmoothingmSpanwise ....................................................................... 22
3.3-5. Wing Geometry Smoothing---Chordwise ..................................................................... 23
3.4-1. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for the Modified 757 HLFC Wing; M = 0.80,
CL = 0.50, and R/ft = 1.61 million (h - 39,000 ft) ................................... :................... 24
3.4-2. External Pressure Variations Along Constant Chord Lines ......................................... 25
3.4-3. Isobar Patterns Along the Suction Surface ................................................................... 26
3.4-4. Off-Design Analysis Plan ............................................................................................. 27
3.4-5. Theoretical Wing Pressure Distributions ...................................................................... 28
3.4-6. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for Off-Design Conditions .................................... 29
3.4-7. Theoretical Pressure Distribution for Off-Design Conditions (Continued) .................. 30
3.4-8. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for Climb and Descent .......................................... 31
4.1-1. Main Steps of the Computation Sequence in the USS Code ........................................ 34
4.1-2. Scheme of Transition Prediction Method ..................................................................... 35
4.1-3. Empirical Trend of Crossflow and ToUmien-Schlichting Amplification Factors at
Transition ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.2-1. Effect of Suction on Amplification Characteristics ...................................................... 36
4.2-2. Suction Distribution Tailoring Sequence ...................................................................... 38
4.2-3. Scope of Boundary Layer Stability Calculations .......................................................... 39
4.2-4. Comparison of Pressure and Suction Distributions at WBL 311 and 477; M = 0.80,
CL= 0.50, and R/ft = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft) ........................................................ 40
4.2-5. CF and TS Amplification Factors at WBL 311 and 477; M - 0.80, CL = 0.50,
and R/ft -- 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft) ......................................................................... 41
4.2-6. Comparison of Contour Plots of Amplification Factors at WBL 311 and 447;
M = 0.80, CL = 0.50, and R/ft = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft) ...................................... 42
iv
FIGURES
Page
4.2-7. Summary of Stability Analysis Results at WBL 311 and 447; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
amd R/ft = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft) ........................................................................ 43
4.2-8. Typical Effects of Suction Tailoring--T_e A to Type B Distribution; M = 0.80,
CL - 0.50, h = 35,000 ft, Re = 23.1 x 10 °, WBL 479 ................................................... 45
4.2-9. Typical Effects of Suction Tailoring--Ty]pe C to Type D Distribution; M = 0.80,
CL - 0.52, h = 39,000 ft, Re - 19.77 x l0 t', WBL 479 ................................................. 46
4.2-10. Effect of Increased Suction in the Vicinity of the Engine Nacelle; M = 0.80,
CL - 0.50, h = 39,000 ft, Re = 28.8 x 104, WBL 270 ................................................... 47
4.2-11. Effect of Altitude on Amplification Characteristics; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
W'BL 479 .................................................................................................................. 48
4.3-1. Spanwise Variation of Tailored Suction Flow Rates .................................................... 50
4.3-2. Predicted Extent of Laminar Flow, Design Condition ................................................. 51
4.3-3. Effect of Lift Coefficient on Suction Rates and Transition; M = 0.80, h = 35,000 ft.. 52
4.3-4. Effect of Altitude on Suction Rates and Transition; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50 ................... 53
4.4-1. Adjusted Final Suction Requirements .......................................................................... 55
4.4-2. Spanwise Variation of Adjusted Suction Flow Rates; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
and R/ft = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft) ......................................................................... 56
5.2-1. Attachment Line Reynolds Number ................ . ............................................................ 58
5.3-1. Attachment Line Suction Concepts .............................................................................. 59
5.3-2. Automatic Suction Arrangement for Attachment Line Flow Control .......................... 59
5.3-3. Range of Movement of the Attachment Line at Cruise Conditions ............................. 60
6.2-1. Two-Dimensional Wind Tunnel Test of a Dual-Purpose Krueger Hap ....................... 62
6.2-2. Test Results on the Effectiveness of the Krueger Flap as Insect Shield ....................... 63
6.2-3 Comparison of Theoretical Trajectory Predictions of Fruit Hies Versus
Test Results at 0 and -4 deg Angle of Attack ............................................................... 64
Comparison of the Requested and Produced Krueger Geometries ............................... 65
Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Model of the Boeing 757 With HLFC Modifications
Installed in the UWAL Wind Tunnel ........................................................................... 67
Notches in the Krueger Leading Edge .......................................................................... 68
Mismatch of Krueger and Slat Contours at the Outboard Edge of the HLFC
Test Area ..................................................................................................................... 69
Low-Speed Test Results---Rolling Moment ................................................................. 70
Effect of Krueger End Seal on Wing Flow Pattern--China Clay How
Visualization ................................................................................................................. 71
6.4-6. Low-Speed Test Results---Lift Curves ......................................................................... 72
6.4-7. Low-Speed Test Results----Drag Polars ........................................................................ 73
A-1. HLFC and Original 757 Airfoil Contours, WBL 270 ................................................... 78
A-2. I-ILFC and Original 757 Airfoil Contours, WBL 290 ................................................... 79
FIGURES
Page
A-W. HLFC and Original 757 Airfoil Contours, WBL 416 ................................................... 84
B-I. Locations of Normal Cuts ............................................................................................. 89
B-2. HLFC Wing Contour - Normal Cut at OSS 322 ........................................................... 90
B-3. HLFC Wing Contour - Normal Cut)at OSS 441 ........................................................... 91
B-4. HLFC Wing Contour - Normal Cut at OSS 562 ........................................................... 92
C-I. Leading Edge Radius Comparison ............................................................................... 94
D-1. Calculated Cp Distribution at CL = 0.50, Mach 0.80, WBL 270 .................................. 96
D-2. CalculatedCp DistributionatCL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 290 .................................. 97
D-3. CalculatedCp Distributionat CL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 311 .................................. 98
D-4. CalculatedCp DistributionatCL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 334 .................................. 99
D-5. CalculatedCF DistributionatCL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 360 ................................ 100
D-6. CalculatedCp DistributionatCL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 387 ................................ 101
D-7. CalculatedCp DistributionatCL = 0.50,Mach 0.80,WBL 416 ................................ 102
D-8. CalculatedCp DistributionatCL = 0.50, Mach 0.80,WBL 447 ................................ 103
D-9. at CL = 0.50, Mach 0.80,WBL 479 ................................
CalculatedCp Distribution 104
D-10. Calculated Cp Distribution at CL = 0.50, Mach 0.80, WBL 513 ................................ 105
E-1. Upper Surface Isobars on the HLFC Test Panel, CL = 0.50, Mach 0.80 .................... 108
E-2. Lower Surface Isobars on the }flNC Test Panel, CL = 0.50, Mach 0.80 ................... 109
E-3. Developed-Surfac_ Plot of Upper Surface Leading Edge Isobars .............................. 110
E-4. Expanded-Scale D_veloped-Surfac¢ Plot of Leading Edge Isobars ........................... 111
F-I. Boundary Layer Velocity Thickness ..................................................... ..................... 114
F-2. Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness .................................................................. 115
G-I. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 290 ............................................ 118
G-2. Crossflow Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290 ......................................... 119
G-3. Tollmien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290 ........................ 120
G-4. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290 .......................... 121
G-5. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290 .......................... 122
G-6. Application of Transition Criterion, WBL 290 .......................................................... 123
G-7. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, W'BL 311 ............................................ 124
G-8. Crossfiow Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 311 ......................................... 125
G-IO. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 311 .......................... 127
G-f1. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 311 .......................... 128
G-12. Application of Transition Criterion, WBL 311 ................... :...................................... 129
G-13. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 360 ............................................ 130
G-14. Crossfiow Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 360 ......................................... 131
vi
FIGURES
Page
G-18 Application of Transition Criterion, WBL 360 .......................................................... 135

G-19. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 416 ................................ 136
G-21. ToUmien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416 ........................ 138
G-22. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416 ......................... 139
G-23. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416 ....................... 140
G-24. Application of Transition Criterion, W'BL 416 ...................................................... 141
G-25. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 447 ............................................. 142
G-27. Tollmicn-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, W'BL 447 ........................ 144
G-31. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 513 ............................................. 148
G-32. Crossflow Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513 ............................. 149
G-33. Tollmien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513 ...................... 150
G-34. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, W'BL 513 .......................... 151
G-35. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513 ........ . ................. 152
vii
PREFACE
The program was jointly sponsored by NASA; the United States Air Force, Wright
Laboratory, Flight Dynamics Directorate; and The Boeing Company. The contract was
managed by Mr. R. D. Wagner, Head of Laminar Flow Control Project Office, and Mr.
D. V. Maddalon, Technical Monitor. Mr. R. L. Clark was the Wright Laboratory
(WIJFIMM, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH) Program Manager. The period of
performance was from December 1987 through August 1991.
The program was conducted by the Advanced Development Aerodynamics organization

of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG), supported by the BCAG Nacelle, Strut,
and Propulsion System Engineering, BCAG Structures Engineering, BCAG
Mechanical/Electrical Systems Engineering, and BCAG Flight Test organizations.
The principal contributors to the work described herein are Mr. D. George-Falvy,
principal analyst; Mr. A. W. Chen, wing contour design; Ms. R. Behbehani, stability
calculations; and Mr. D. W. Lund, low-speed wind tunnel testing. Mr. F. J. Davenport
provided technical and document integration services. Mr. A. L. Nagel of BCAG
Aerodynamics Technology, HLFC program manager, gave guidance and suggestions
throughout the course of the design effort.
VIII
Special thanks are owed to Mr. R. D. Wagner and Mr. D. V. Maddalon of NASA Langley
Research Center, who generously contributed time and effort to make their unique
backgrounds of laminar flow expertise and flight test experience available to Boeing
personnel.
Finally, the authors wish to acknowledge the vital contribution of Dr. Werner Pfenninger.
In addition to being a mentor to all participants in modem laminar flow control work, he
made several specific contributions to the present flight test program.
ix
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A Disturbance amplitude
Ao Disturbance amplitude at neutral stability point
c Wing chord (local),

ft
Cl Sectionlift
coefficient
CL Airplanelift
coefficient
CD Airplanedrag coefficient
CRM Airplaneroilingmoment coefficient
c1, Local pressure coefficient
Cq' Local suction flow coefficient, (mass flow per unit arca)/p.. V..
Cq Chord suction flow coefficient, (mass flow per unit arca)/p.. V.,,
cQ Total suction flow coefficient (referred to suction panel reference area)
D Drag, lb
d Width in protuberance
g Accelerationof gravity
GW Airplanegross weight, Ib
h Altitude,ft,or surfacewave height,in
k Protuberanceheight,in
L Lift,l
M Mach number
N Naturallogarithmof disturbanceamplificationfactor
P Pressure,Ib/ft
2
R Airfoilnose radius,in
Reynolds number based on wing chord
R1 Unit Reynolds number, V/v, ft"I
R0al Attachment-lineReynolds number, W0al)/V
q Dynamic pressure,pV2/2, Ib/ft

2
Q Suction volume flow rate, ft3/s

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
S Srreamwise distance from attachment line along wing surface, ft
S Wing reference area, ft 2
Ssp Suction panel reference area, fi2
U Velocity component normal to the leading edge, ft/s
Vw Equivalent suction inflow velocity (uniformly distributed ), fffs
V Velocity component parallel to free stream, ft/s
¢¢ Suction weight flow, lb/s

W Velocity component parallel to the leading edge, ft/s
X Chordwise distance, in
Ysp Spanwise length of suction panel, fi
Z Vertical coordinate, in
¢Z Disturbance wave number, ft "1
g Angle of side slip, deg
8 Boundary layer velocity thickness, ft, or Krueger flap deflection, deg
8* Boundary layer displacement thickness, ft
AZ Krueger trailing edge height above chord plane, in, or vertical coordinate, in
0 Boundary layer momentum thickness, fi
n Fractional semispan location
k Wave length, ft
A Wing sweepback angle
g Viscosity, lb-s/ft 2
V Kinematic viscosity (I_/P), fi-lb-s/slug
P Density, slugs/ft 3
CO Disturbance frequency, Hz
Wave angle
xi
SUPERSCRIPTS
Time rate of change
SUBSCRIPTS
oo Freestrcam condition
al Attachment line
e Edge of the boundary layer
K Krueger flap
LE edge
Max Maximum
O Initial condition
sp Suction panel
w Condition at the wall
ABBREVIATIONS
BSTA Body station
CF Crossflow
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
HLFC Hybrid laminar flow control
MAC Mean aerodynamic chord
NLF Natural laminar flow
OSS Outboard slat station
Rn Reynolds number
TS ToUmien-Schlichting
USS Unified Stability System
UWAL University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory
WBL Wing buttock line
xii
1.0 SUMMARY
The aerodynamic design of an experimental hybrid laminar flow control (HLFC) wing panel on a
Boeing 757 airplane has been developed. The modified wing is intended both to provide a facility
for flight research on high Reynolds number HLFC and to demonstrate practical HLFC operation on
a full-scale commercial transport airplane. The 17-ft-long test panel provides a flow-controlled span
of nearly 14 ft, beginning just outboard of the left engine nacelle.
The aerodynamic design comprises---
a. A revised wing contour designed to produce a pressure distribution favorable to laminar

flow.
b_ Definition of suction flow requirements to laminarize the boundary layer and predict
the extent of laminar flow achievable in the test area.
Co Design of provisions at the leading edge of the inboard end of the test panel to prevent
attachment-line boundary layer transition.
do Geometric design and experimental verification of the effectiveness of a Krueger

leading edge flap that serves both as a high-lift device equivalent to the original 757
leading edge slat and as a shield to prevent insect impingement on the laminar flow
sUl'face.
The development of the revised wing contour was carried out using an enhanced version of
Jameson's transonic inviscid flow code (ref. 1) in conjunction with a Boeing-developed three-
dimensional boundary layer analysis code (ref. 2). No high-speed wind tunnel testing was done in
support of this effort. The selected design point was M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50 at 39,0(K_ft altitude,
which is the same as the recommended long-range cruise condition of the Boeing757 airplane. The
HLFC wing profile modification was limited to the portion ahead of the front spar. A slightly blunter
leading edge was used, providing more rapid initial acceleration than the original 757 wing. Aft of
the front spar, the desired gently favorable pressure gradient and aft pressure recovery were already
present. The lower surface of the leading edge formed the upper contour of the Krueger flap when
it was deployed. To increase the Krueger's effectiveness as a leading edge device, the very flat 757
contour was replaced by a slightly bulged form.
The suction flow rates were determined using the Unified Stability System (USS) computer code
developed by Boeing under NASA sponsorship (ref. 3). The USS code calculates disturbance
amplification ratios for crossflow (CF) and Tollmien-Schlichting (TS) instabilities, including the
effects of suction, in three-dimensional compressible flow according to Mack's stability code
(ref. 4). The transition criterion used in the present study was a curve on a plot of TS versus CF
amplification ratios based on data from flight experiments on the F-111 and Boeing 757 natural
laminar flow "gloves" (refs. 5 and 6). It showed high sensitivity to crossflow instability, resulting
in a requirement for high suction rates near the leading edge.
The stability and suction requirement calculations were carried out over a range of lift coefficient and
Math number surrounding the design point. The calculations indicated that laminar flow could
usually be sustained back to the pressure recovery point (or shock location), normally around 45%
to 50% of chord. However, the predicted laminar run was less than 45% chord over the inboard
portion of the HLFC test panel, because of early pressure recovery. At lower CLS, (around 0.40),
more suctionwas requiredand lesslaminarflow predictedthanathigh lift
coefficients
(around 0.60)
because of changes in the pressuredistributions.
Th_ calculationsalsoindicatedthat,because of
decreasing Reynolds number, a greaterextent of laminar flow could be expected as altitude
increased, and less suction flow would be required to attain it.
The predictedtotalsuctionflow coefficient (CQ) at thedesign condition(M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50

at 39,000 ftaltitude)
was 4.72 x I0"5and thecorresponding totalvolume and mass flow rateswere
6.97 ft3/sand 0.1368 Ib/s(8.2Ib/min),respectively.
After thesuctionrequirementshad been definedand the suctionsystem had been designed to meet
them, additionaldatabecame availablefrom fight experiments on thevariable-sweepF- 14 VSTFE
airplkne(ref.3),indicatingthatsomewhat highercrossflow amplificationwould be acceptable,so
lower suctionratesnear theleadingedge would be adequate. However, itwas notconsideredprudent
to redesignthe system fora lower suctioncapabilityat thatpoint,and itwas decided toregard the
USS code's predictionas a conservativeupper boundary. The suctionsystem controlswould permit
inflightverification
of the lower suctionrequirements.
The attachment-line boundary layer momentum thickness Reynolds number was expected to be at
or near the critical value of 100 along most of the span affected by HLFC, so it was considered
advisable to take steps to reduce it. A suction"patch" was therefore provided at the leading edge just
inboard of the HLFC test area, vented to a low-pressure point further downstream on the lower
surface. The passive suction provided was estimated to have reduced the attachment-line Reynolds
number to about 30.
A low-speed wind tunnel test of a Boeing 757 model with modified leading edge devices showed that
the maximum lift capability was only slightly compromised by replacing two of the five slats with
dual-purpose Krueger flaps, and the test also showed that the HLFC leading edge modification would
not significantly alter the low-speed performance and handling qualities of the test airplane.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND
The potential for reducing wing friction drag by increasing the extent of laminar flow was recognized
more than halfa century ago. However, boundary layer instabilities associated with high Reynolds
number and with sweepback prevented achievement of significant laminar runs on the wings of large
high-performance airplanes. In the 1960s, the USAF X-21 program (ref. 7) showed that those
problems could be overcome by using slot suction to stabilize the boundary layer, prodded that care
was taken to control wing surface roughness and waviness. The program failed as a demonstration
of practical laminar flow control because of a flawed joint design that required continual repair or
replacement of aerodynamic smoothing material. There was also debate as to whether the
complexity of a suction system that covered the entire wing with slots and subsurface ducts was
justified by the performance gain.
The concept of Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC), invented by L. B. Gratzer of The Boeing
Company (U.S. Patent No. 4,575,030), greatly simplifies laminar flow control by confining suction
surfaces and pneumatic system components to the leading edge. HLFC maintains laminar flow
downstream of the wing front spar solely by tailoring the pressure distribution.
Other concerns relating to anti-icing and to clogging or roughening of suction surfaces as a result of
insect accretion were addressed by the NASA Leading Edge Flight Test Program (refs. 8, 9, and 10).
A modified Lockheed Jetstar airplane equipped with a partial-span leading edge suction system was
flown in a variety of hostile environments and demonstrated reliable operation of the system.
The present program was sponsored by NASA, with partial USAF sponsorship and Boeing
participation, in order tc>---
a. Perform high Reynolds number flight research on HLFC.
b. Obtain data on the effectiveness of HLFC on a large, high-subsonic-speed transport

airplane.
c. Develop and demonstrate practical design concepts for HLFC systems.
2.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH
A Boeing-owned 757 airplane was modified to include all the critical systems for a full-scale HLFC
application, plus flight-operable suction controls and extensive instrumentation to meet HLFC
research requirements. The 757 was ideally suited for the program because its advanced aerodynamic
technology wing permitted attainment of the needed HLFC pressure distribution with only a small
contour change ahead of the front spar, and the smoothness of the existing between-spar structure
allowed the test to be conducted with minimal fairing or coating beyond normal paint. This ensured
that the data obtained would have practical application to standard production wings, and not be
restricted to ideally smooth surfaces.
2.3 PROGRAM TASKS
The program effort consisted of---
Aerodynamic Design. Definition of the surface pressures and suction quantities required to achieve
extended laminar flow, followed by geometric design of the wing contours needed to obtain the
surface pressures. This task is treated in detail in this volume.
Leading Edge Structural Design and Fabrication. The design, construction, and installation of
a 22-ft section of wing leading edge, having provisions for suction through a porous outer skin and
for a Krueger-type leading edge flap serving both as an integral part of the airplane high-lift system
and as a shield against insect accretion at low altitude. The leading edge was required to meet
stringent aerodynamic smoothness and waviness requirements under load, as well as to provide
structural integrity. This task is treated in detail in volume HI.
Suction System Design and Manufacture. The design of the system of air passages, ducts, valves,
and pump, and the specification of leading edge outer skin porosities. The system was required not
only to provide the suction flows required for laminarization, but also to demonstrate anti-icing
capability. To achieve this, hot pressurized air was required to flow out through certain portions of
the porous skin. The system was also required to provide for a wide range of suction flow adjustment,
so as to permit optimization of I-ILFC suction quantities and to permit generation of boundary layer
behavior data under a variety of suction conditions, in support of research on boundary layer analysis
methods. This task is reported in detail in volume IV.
Flight Test and Data Analysis. The definition and installation of suitable instrumentation to
evaluate boundary layer conditions and suction system performance, followed by the conduct of the
tests, data acquisition, and evaluation of test results. This task is reported in volume I, along with
an overview of the program.
2.4 BOEING 757 WING DESCRIPTION
The HLFC test panel replaced part of the left wing of a Boeing 757. The general arrangement and
principal dimensions of the airplane are shown in figure 2.4-1, and the wing structural arrangement
is shown in figure 2.4-2. The wing primary structure consisted of outboard spar boxes cantilevered
from a center section box contained within the fuselage. All three boxes were sealed to form integral
fuel tanks. Each box was built up of front and rear spars, lower panels, and upper panels. The
outboard wing boxes incorporated fibs normal to the outboard rear spar. The inboard wing had a
trailing edge extension to accommodate the landing gear support beam. The movable elements of
the wing included an aileron at the wingtip, six spoilers aft of the rear spar, two double-segment
trailing edge flaps, and five leading edge slats.
Various components of the wing were defined in different coordinate systems for design and
manufacturing convenience. For aerodynamic analysis, spanwise location was given by the wing
buttock line (WBL), and the fore-and-aft coordinate was given as a fraction of local wing chord
(sometimes supplemented by body station (BSTA) where an absolute reference was needed). For
I-ILFC structural and suction system design and analysis, outboard slat station (OSS) was used for
spanwise locations. Definitions of BS, OSS, and WBL are shown in figure 2.4-3.
2i' 4in
t"l
i 155 ft, 2.9 it, ._J
l_ft, 2 in l_rft _'__ / _'_ft
_ ............
°_ ...........
_ j._,n
153 ft, 10.2 in _i
124 ft, 6.3 i,,
r4-'24 _
Figure 2.4-I. General Arrangement and Main Dimensions of the Boeing 757-200
Access doors GL
(22 places)
. Airplane
Nacelle ,,-c.._
Fueltank _ )_"'_'_ '_ L..

,_'_ ! Fueltankend
Dry bay " ]\
5 ]1" -J .._ Rear

sp_
(inboard)
S,.,rgetar__ ,_f..,\c,\_-l\ _..V..._..j.._L...._
Spoilers
spar _ CE Flap track Flap track

Flap track
Rear spar J
(outboard)
Figure 2.4-2. Boeing 757 Wing Structura/ Arrangement
Abbreviations:
BSTA body station C_k

OSS outboard slat station o \ BSTA
WBL wing buttock line "o..,,
-- BSTA 831.27
%\ _ _o I
-- BSTA 1192.12
I [ I [ I I I
700 600 500 400 300 200 1O0 0

WBL
Figure 2.4-3. Wing P/anform and Coordinate Definitions
6
Leading edge features are shown in figure 2.4-4. The fixed part of the leading edge structure
consisted of machined aluminum alloy ribs with bonded fiberglass honeycomb stabilized surfaces.
The lower surface was made up of Kevlar laminate panels that were removable for access. Four
individual tapered-chord slats were outboard of the engine nacelle, and a single constant-chord slat
was inboard of the nacelle. Each slat was supported by two circular arc steel tracks and moved by
two rotary actuators driven by an electric motor via a torque tube. The slats had two deployment
positions: ungapped for takeoff and gapped for landing, as depicted in figure 2.4-5. (Note that
actuation of the Krueger flap on the I-ILFC test panel was required to be integrated with the actuation
of the slats on either side of it.)
Emergency
Main downstop
,support .._
track "_, _...,--__ _ _--..,..._ Auxiliary track .--,
/ /¢ / i" _-- Sector gear _¢ j_r
/ to
/ _ _ _ _ I "- Auxiliary arm
/ / "_- Emergency upstop
(integral with track) / /_\,_"
Section A-A Support Track and Drive Section B-B Auxiliary Track and Arm
High-speed
torque input
!
!
I
!
I
I
I
Rotary
actuator
I
i
I
i
1
Auxiliary track
Main support
track
Wing Slat Drive--Pinion Drive Locations
Figure 24-4. Boeing 757 Leading Edge Slat Design
7
Takeoff Position (No Gap) Landing Position {Gapped)
Figure 2. 4-5. Leading Edge Slat Positions
2.5 DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS
The 757 long-range cruise condition, M = 0. 80 at CL = 0.50, was the design point chosen for the HLFC
flight experimenL This was slightly faster than the point for highest M(L/D), as shown in figure 2,5-1.
The variation of altitude with gross weight at the design point condition is also shown. The applicable
weight range of the test airplane was from 160,000 to 220,000 lb.
Because the portion of the test panel forward of the front spar was to be completely rebuilt, it was
possible to refine the external contours to provide a pressure distribution more favorable to HLFC
than the pressure distribution of the original 757s. Previous studies (refs. 11 and 12) had indicated
a number of desirable features for HLFC airfoil sections on a sweptback wing. As shown in figure
2.5-2, these features included--
a. Rapid initial acceleration to limit the extent of the region where suppressing crossflow
instability required intensive suction.
b. A slight negative pressure peak at the end of the initial acceleration to attenuate the
crossflow boundary layer.
c. Gentle acceleration aft of the suction region just sufficient to keep the Tollmien-
Schlichting (TS) instability in check.
d. Late recovery (i.e., shock location), possibly aft of 65 % chord, with local Mach num her
not exceeding I. 15.
While a stronger pressure gradient aft of the suction region would be favorable for the TS
amplification, the associated crossflow boundary layer would be vulnerable to CF instability.
Furthermore, because of the limitation on Mach number at the shock, the favorable pressure gradient
would reduce the achievable lift coefficient.
The modifications to the wing contours in the HLFC test section were aimed at fulfilling the above
objectives as far as the constraints imposed on the design permitted.
1.0
Design point (M = 0.80, C L
Test
envelope
0.8
0.6
CL
0.4
0.2
= constant I
I
I I I I
0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90
Mach number
45
/-- Design point "

4O
%
x
.1::
Q
. 35
nO 34,300 tt
-L
I
I
¢G
I
P
I
I
30
GW_min GW max
a. =
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,=
Test weight range
v=
25
I
I I I I I
160 180 200 220
Aircraft gross weight, Ib x 103
Figure 2.5-1. Design Point Selection
9
Cp
\
0
Legend:
E_ Rapid initial acceleration
[_ Slight pressure peak to attenuate crossflow effects
[_ Slight acceleration aft of suction
I_ L.ate recovery
I I
0.2
x/c
Figure 2.5-2. Desired Features of HLFC Wing Pressure Distribution
One such constraint was that no contour changes were allowed aft of the front spar, preventing
postponement of the pressure recovery point. Another was that no change in slope was permitted at
the mating point of the leading edge and the spar box. This, in conjunction with other design
guidelines regarding the curvature distribution of practical transonic airfoils, limited the allowable
steepening of the initial pressure gradient.
Because of the requirement to protect the leading edge from insect accretion during landing and
takeoff and the need to eliminate gaps on the upper surface, leading edge slats Nos. 3 and 4 were
replaced by Krueger flaps. These flaps were required to provide low-speed flight characteristics
comparable to those of the original 757.
The initial design called for suction to be applied along the entire 22-ft length of the new leading edge,
but the suction region was later reduced by 5 ft to adapt the design to the capacity of the available
suction pump.
10
2.6 SURFACE QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Guidelines for two-dimensional (2D) surface quality requirements on laminar flow airplanes were
fwst established during the Northrop/USAF X-21 LFC research program (ref. 7), using the extensive
database of previous boundary layer research and the results of specific LFC-related experiments.
More recent flight and wind tunnel tests by NASA, Boeing, and others (refs. 13, 14, and 15) have
added to this database, resulting in further refinements but not substantially changing the Northrop
criteria.
There axe two categories of surface imperfections to be dealt with: 2D imperfections, such as
waviness, steps, gaps, joints, rivets, and dents (depending _ the value of d/k), and three-dimensional
(3D) types, such as insect residue, paint graininess, and accumulated dirt, all of which behave in the
same manner whether they are individual protuberances or sparsely distributed when the values of
d/k are in the general vicinity of 0.5 to 10. At Mach numbers up to moderate supersonic speeds, 2D
imperfections introduce TS-type disturbances into the boundary layer, and their effects on transition
are affected by boundary layer stability, whereas 3D surface imperfections bypass stability effects
and cause premature transition very near the individual imperfection when it is a critical size.
Surface tolerances are generally more stringent in the forward region, where the boundary layer is
relatively thin, but other factors may mitigate this rule. For example, suction or a strong favorable
pressure gradient may allow wider tolerances for waviness but they may also promote transition due
to a 3D discontinuity. Increasing unit Reynolds numbers (decreasing altitude) leads to tighter
tolerances for both 2D and 3D protuberances, but in a different manner. For 2D, increasing unit
Reynolds number increases the growth of the 2D type of boundary layer disturbances, leading to a
forward movement in transition. For 3D, increasing unit Reynolds number decreases the height of
3D roughness that triggers immediate transition near the roughness. Also, crossflow in the leading
edge may reduce the size of the tolerable 3D protuberances. The limits specified for the 757 HLFC
test section at the design condition are summarized in figures 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 for the most common
types of surface imperfections. Surface quality requirements are also discussed in volume 11"Iof this
report.
Finally, figure 2.6-3 illustrates so called "aerodynamic" roughness, which arises from the fact that
the strearntubes sucked in to perforations create an uneven "virtual surface" that is analogous to a
physical surface with distributed roughness. While there are no data available to prove that this effect
actually exists, it was regarded as prudent to allow for the possibility. An unpublished analysis
attributed to Pfenninger (who also provided the figure) indicates that the originally contemplated
hole spacing of 0.025 in wouldproduce an equivalent roughness height K = 0.003 in, but a maximum
value of k of only 0.001 in was allowable close to the airfoil nose. The analysis also showed that
reducing the spacing to 0.010 in would reduce k to the required value. The 0.010-in spacing was
accordingly adopted for the most forward perforation area.
11
Allowable Waviness Allowable Rouqhness Height
• Multiple waves; for single waves, triple the • Rivets, dents -_d ~ 1501
indicated allowable wave height.
• Wavecrests are parallel to span; for wavecrests parallel

to chord, double the ellowable wave height.
z=o :_=00031- _,
_ o. _ o.ool
01 , J , t i = i _ 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 < 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wavelength (Z), in Streamwise distance from leading edge (x), in
Sl_Br-Joint Step or Gap--Maximum Allowable Discontinuity Aft
f' Down-step r _
"7"7"3_/"2"_ T 0.001 in
_ _ _ ooo2io
Rounded up-step _lr
C Square
/_7 up-step 0.003 in
0.025 in
Suction Surface Splice Step or Gap--Maximum Allowable Discontinuity

Outboard
Square up-step
Streamwise _ _ 0.001 in
I o.oo ,
o.oo i°
Figure 2.6-1. Surface Quafity Specifications for the Suction Region
12
Allowable
Waviness Allowable Roughness Height
• Applicable
to multiple or single waves • Rivets, dents, (d-150)
• Wavecrests are parallel to span; for wavecrests
parallel to chord, double the allowable wave height.
0.008 0.016
_ 0.006 "i 0.014

0.012
"_ 0.010
,_ 0.004 = 0.008
cm 0.006
_cn 0.004
0.002
® 0.002
I I _ 0 I I I I I I
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 _ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Streamwise distance from leading edge, in
Wavelength (;_, in
Allowable Steps and Gaps
Square up-step Flow Flow across a gap
Flow
Flow Square down-step
Rounded up-step
0o04 717/////
0.012 in//v/_/j,.///
Flow along a gap '_ 0.066 in
Figure 2.6-2. Surface Quality Specifications for the Nonsuction Region
Sucked
streamtubes
Flow
Typical row of holes

Equivalent roughness height - streamtube height, k
k is proportional to.,_J mass flow per hole

ii
Figure 2.6-3. Equivalent Roughness of Suction Streamtubes
13
This page intentionally left blank.
14
3.0 HLFC WING SECTION EXTERNAL CONTOUR ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Before the present contract, preliminary studies had been carried out regarding the feasibility of the
HLFC experiments on the Boeing 757 airplane. This work included computation of pressure
distributions, boundary layer stability characteristics, and preliminary estimates of suction
requirements, as well as the extent of laminar flow achievable on the basic 757 wing. The conclusion
of these studies was that the 757 was well suited for the proposed flight experiment.
Preliminary work on the design of the HI.,FC wing modification had also been started. It focused
mainly on delineating trades between airfoil contour changes, suction requirements, and the
achievable extent of laminar flow. By the time the contract was awarded, the applicable trades and
limitations were fairly well understood, and a sound basis for the final design was established. These
studies confirmed Pfenninger's recommendations (ref. 16) that it would be advantageous to start the
suction as close to the attachment line as possible and to make the forward suction peak high and
narrow, rather than low and wide. The required suction could be reduced by shortening the zone of
acceleration (i.e., by steepening the initial pressure gradient) and allowing a slight pressure peak to
form following the initial acceleration. This could be achieved by using a blunter leading edge.
3.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS
The principal analytical design tool for the wing contour modifications was a three-dimensional (3D)
transonic viscous flow computer code system capable of computing flows around wing/body/nacelle
configurations. Major components of this system are an enhanced version of Jameson's FLO28
transonic inviscid flow code (ref. 1) and a 3D boundary layer analysis by McLean (ref. 2). Other
components include a grid-generation program that treats the wing, fuselage, nacelles, and struts
simultaneously, so that all mutual interference effects are included. Figure 3.1-1 shows the grid on
the airplane surface.
The flowfield is discretized by the the grid-generation program, and a finite-volume method is used
to solve the full potential equation for the external flow. Artificial viscosities axe applied to all three
directions in the supersonic region to capture shocks. The surface velocities, together with Reynolds
number and temperature, are used to calculate the boundary layer on the wing. Boundary layer
transition on the wing is assumed at the f'wst appearance either of an adverse pressure gradient or of
laminar separation, and is assumed fixed at 2% chord on the lower surface.
The wing geometry is then updated by the displacement thickness of the boundary layer, and the
inviscid flow is computed again. The new surface velocities are then used to compute the wing
boundary layer, and the process is repeated until the the solutions stabilize, usually within six to eight
cycles.
The gridding of the 757 wing for the 3D boundary layer analysis is shown in figure 3.1-2. Near the
expected shock location and the leading and trailing edges, the chordwise paneling was made more
dense. In the vicinity of the engine nacelle and the side of the body, denser spanwise spacing was also
provided.
Figure 3.1-3 shows a comparison of pressure distributions computed by this system of codes with
wind tunnel test data for the original 757 wing. The agreement is generally fairly good, although
some tendency for underpredicting the peak pressures can be observed. (The pressures encountered
in flight can be expected to differ even more, because the analysis paneling is more faithful to the wind
15
Figure 3.1-1. Numerical Model for Three-Dimensional Transonic Flow Analysis
Pressure defining stations

- 290 in the HLFC test area (WBL, in)
1
334
-387
447
479
513
L
I
t
I i I , I , I I I , I , I , I J
1O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 750

0
WBL. in
Figure 3.1-2. Gridding of the 757 Wing for Flow Analysis
16
tunnel model than it can be to the real airplane wing, which not only is more complex in detail, but
is subject to varying aeroelastic deformation at different weight conditions. Furthermore, computational
fluid dynamics code calibration has mostly been done using plentiful wind tunnel pressure data at
relatively low Reynolds number, rather than with flight test surveys at full scale.)
ooo\ /
Section
Sectlon
A
B
Section E-_ _,111 t_ Section C
legend:
Condltlons: Computed
-I ._'
•M. - 0.80
-1.2]'. * * Measured
• . .C L =0.45
-0.E
•_. "R/ft = 3"5 x 106
-0.4
-0._
%
C CpO'o!/ ' '-"'-" :'\" 10
e
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8"N_o1.0 I( 0.20.40.80.8'-,,_,;.
_c
0.4 0 4_ x/c
Section A
0"8_ Section B
0.8
-1.2 -1 .;
_e
-0.8
-0.4 -0._
-O.IE
Cp Cp
0
02 04 08--_10
_'o 2 o%08_' o
0.,1 x/c 0.4
Section C Section D
0._ 0._
-1 ._, -I .2
-0._
-0.4 -0.4
_,, -0.8
Cp Cp
C 0
_" o.2 o.4 0._-_..._ ; '-.J_0.2 0.4 0.60_t_..._ 1.0
x/c
0.4 x/c 0.4
Section E Section F
0.8 O.E
Figure 3.1-3 Correlation of Computed 757 Wing Pressure Distributions With Wind Tunnel Test Data
17
3.2 ORIGINAL 757 WING SURFACE PRESSURES
Computed pressure distributions for the original 757 wing geometry at three spanwise stations within
the prospective HLFC test region are shown in figure 3.2-1. The CP distributions at the center and
outboard sections closely resemble the one desired for HLFC (fig. 2.5-2) in that they show a rapid
acceleration at the leading edge, followed by a gende favorable pressure gradient until the recovery
point is reached at about 40% to 50% chord. However, in the vicinity of the nacelle, the pressure
distribution is less favorable, having an early recovery point pre, cede.xt by a moderately strong
acceleration due to local unsweeping of the isobars. This behavior is attributed to intcTference due
to the engine nacelle, and it caused some difficulty in the design of the I-H.,FC leading edge.
-0.8"
-0.4.
WBL 29O
WBL 387
Unsweeping of isobars
due to engine nacelle
WBL 479
Cp -0.4-
o4
x/c
05
Figure 3.2-1. Theoretical Pressure Distribution on the Basic 757 Wing at Design Condition
M = 0.80, CL = 0.50
18
3.3 DESIGN OF THE MODIFIED WING CONTOUR
Figure 3.3-1 illustrates the approach to contour modifications: A more rapid initial acceleration for
crossflow attenuation could be obtained by a slight blunting of the leading edge. At the same time,
the lower surface of the leading edge could also be revised to improve the characteristics of the
Krueger flap, which replaced the slat used on the basic 757 airplane. The lower surface contour ahead
of the front spar forms the upper side of the extended Krueger flap. It is very flat where a curved
contour would be more desirable. This could readily be achieved by adding a shallow bulge to the
lower surface and by adding a folding blunt leading edge (called a "bullnose"). The extent of actual
leading edge contour modifications relative to the basic 757 wing contours is shown in figure 3.3-2
for four sections of the I-ILFC test panel. (Appendix A provides additional cross sections on gridded
plots. Data relating to leading edge radii, which affect attachment-line flow characteristics
(discussed in sec. 5), are given in appendices B and C.)
At the beginning of the program, it was planned that the suction area would start just outboard of the
nacelle, at WBL 270 (36% semispan), and extend through the area occupied by slats Nos. 3 and 4,
ending at WBL 495 (66% semispan). Later, the inboard boundary of the suction zone was moved
outboard to WBL 330 (42% semispan) to eliminate the need for a second turbocompressor. Because
this was done after completion of the aerodynamic analysis, airfoil contours and computation results
are shown for inboard sections that were subsequently excluded from the HLFC test span.
Upper Surface
-- Bump to provide steeper

initial pressure gradient
and more room for Krueger
Cp
Lower Surface
• . Modified
Bulge to provide
more curvature
Figure 3.3-1. Philosophy of Wing Contour Modifications
19
WBL 334
WBL 290
WBL
WE
WBL 447
WBL 387
Figure 3.3-2. Extent o/Leading Edge Contour Modifications on the HLFC Test PaneJ
The unswccping of the isobars in the vicinity of the nacelle had significant impact on the design of
the I-ILFC suction surface. It was not desirable to have large pressure variations along the "flutes"
(spanwise channels under the perforated skin that collect the suction flow), so the flutes were laid out
along isobars. Curved isobars require curved flutes, adding to fabrication complexity. It was
therefore desirable to design an I-ILFC wing leading edge with parallel isobars. However, the
distortion of the pressure pattern resuhing from to the high-bypass-ratio turbofan engine's large
nacelle limited compliance with this objective.
After the modified contours were tentatively dcf'mcd, an attempt was made to eliminate the
unswccping of the isobars near the nacelle by further increasing the bluntness of the leading edge to
increase the initial acceleration. This exercise, however, did not significantly improve the isobar
2O
pattern, even with a very large bump on the leading edge near the nacelle. Figure 3.3-3 shows the
airfoil shapes and pressure distributions for the basic 757 wing, the baseline HLFC modification, and
the blunt leading edge almrnative. The nacelle effects evidently overpowered the airfoil shape
effects, because the pressure distributions did not change much, even though the airfoil was
considerably more blunt. Furthermore, past experience has shown that under off-design conditions,
that is, at lower Mach numbers, the blunt airfoils tend to develop a strong pressure peak near the
leading edge that could have some adverse effects, such as premature shock and increased drag.
Therefore, the blunter leading edge design was not accepted for the final HLFC configuration.
Nose Profiles (WBL 270)
Legend:
Original 757
Baseline HLFC
Blunt leading edge
Leading Edge Upper

Surface Pressure (WBL 270)
-0.8
cp
O.
I I I I I I
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28
X/C
Figure 3.3-3. Effect of Leading Edge Blunting Near the Nacelle
21
The design process was complct¢d by smoothing the wing contour lines in both spanwis¢ and
chordwise di_ctions. This was necessary because airfoil sections were defined at given stations,
while coordinates of intermediate sections were derived by interpolation. This resulted in a slighdy
bumpy initial shape that did not have continuous curvature in the chordwise direction (which is
desirable aerodynamically), and that was not wavc-fre_ in the spanwis¢ direction (which is desirable
for fabrication as well as for aerodynamic reasons). Figures 3.3-4 and 3.3-5 show the msuhs of the
smoothing process.
From _ew of Slxmllrms
Initial shape
10
t-
._,,
240
J
280
z
320
)
360
z
400
z
440
z
480
z
520
2
0.2
560
z _q_ WBL Spanlines
WBL, in
10
XLE
8
Smoothed
C
10
2 2
0 _ 0.2
.2 I ,, I , I I I I I I
24O 280 320 360 400 440 480 520 560
WBL, in
Figure 3.3-4. Wing Geometry Smoothing--Spanwise
22
d2y
dx 2
Cu_a_re=
I,._lgelld:
Smoothed
.... Unsmoothe¢l
/*'_t
i r;i
20 25 30 35 40
1. _. ---
I I
_o.
o_ --, , --7"-'---_ , //
20 25 30 35 40 //
1.
0. .
0 I'- ".-'-'- I I -- _ I
20 25 30 35 40 Front_ -
Arc length from front spar, So , in spar
Figure 3.3-5. Wing Geometry Smoothing--Chordwise
23
3.4 CALCULATED PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS ON THE MODIFIED WING
3.4.1 Design Conditions
Theoretical pressure distributions for the modified HLFC test panel at M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50 are
shownin figure 3.4-1. (Gridded plots, for all stationsanalyzed, are presented in app. D.) Comparison
with figure 3.2-1 shows that the contour changes succeeded in steepening the initial pressure gradient
at midpanel and outboard, but the pressure recovery point was not affected much because the
modification was entirely ahead of the front spar. The unsweeping of isobars near the nacelle causes
large spanwise pressure variations along constant chord lines near the leading edge, as illustrated in
figure 3.4-2. If the internal flutes had been located along these lines, the external pressure variation
could have resulted in excessive suction inboard and inadequate suction, or even outflow, outboard.
(Outflow could have been expected to cause immediate boundary layer transition, and so was not
permissible.) It was therefore necessary to choose between placing separator dams in the flutes or
laying out the flutes along isobars. While dams in the flutes appeared to be a simple solution, they
could have caused abrupt spanwise steps in suction level, which would have had unpredictable
effects on transition. Therefore, it was decided to take the conservative approach of building curved
flutes that ran along isobars. The theoretical isobar pattern within the front 0.5 in of the suction
surface is shown at left in figure 3.4-3. The flute layout in this region followed the same pattern.
(Larger scale isobar plots are provided in app. E.)
WBL 290
x/c
0.4
_WBL 290. ,_ 02 05 0_0

WBL 387
-0.4
q, -0.8
L 387 0
0.4
-0.8
-0.4
q,
I
0
0.5 0.6_.8 _ .0
_c
0.4
Figure 3.4-1. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for the Modified 757 HLFC Wing; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
and R/ft= 1.61 mi//ion (h = 39,000 ft)
24
Flute
Dams would be required in the flutes to prevent large differences

in suction rates or outflow at the low-pressure end.
Flute
-1.0
®
-0,8
®
-0.6
®
-0.4
-0.2
Cp 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
I I I I t t I I I I I I i
1.0 i
3O0 340 380 420 460 500 540 580
OSS, in
Figure 3. 4-2. External Pressure Variations Along Constant Chord Lines
25
q_
26
Farther aft, the isobars curved back sharply, as illustrated at the upper right of figure 3.4-3. There,
it was not feasible to lay out the flutes along the isobars. At the design condition, the desired
distribution of suction quantity could have been obtained by varying the skin porosity over flutes laid
out along approximately straight lines. There is a penalty, however, for departing from the isobars.
Because outflow can be expected to cause immediate transition, the entire flute must always be
sucked hard enough to prevent outflow over its entire length. At off-design conditions, a mismatch
in external and internal pressures will inevitably be present, requiring local oversuction and a
consequent increase in compressor load.
3.4.2 Off-Design Conditions
After the airfoil contours were finalized, the flow analysis was extended to a number of off-design
flight conditions where operation of the HLFC system was planned. These conditions included
variations in Mach number and lift coefficient at cruise, as well as climb, descent, and holding at
various speeds and altitudes. Figure 3.4-4 illustrates the range of off-design conditions analyzed.
An overview of the effects of Mach number and lift coefficient on the chordwise pressure
distributions at the test panel midspan (WBL 387) is presented in figure 3.4-5. It is evident that at
low Mach numbers (M < 0.78) an acute pressure peak develops near the leading edge and the
subsequent adverse pressure gradient will not allow much laminar flow. On the other hand, at Math
numbers and lift coefficients higher than the design values (M > 0.80 and CL > 0.50), the pressure
recovery point shifts rearward and the extended region of mildly favorable pressure gradient may
allow more laminar flow. In fact, the most extensive laminar flow could be expected not at the design
point of M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50, but at somewhat higher Math numbers and lift coefficients.
1.0
Design point (M = 0.80. CL= 0.50)
off-design
envelope
0.8
Primary off-design
envelope
0.6
Descent
CL
0.4
0.2
0 I I I I I I
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95
Mach number
Figure 3.4-4. O#-Design Analysis Plan
27
HLFC Test Section Mldspan ~ WBL 387
CL - 0.60
C L =,0.55
x/c
M = 0.70 M = 0.78 M = 0.80 M = 0.82
Figure 3.4-5. Theoretical Wing Pressure Distributions
More detailed comparisons for the effects of Mach number and lift coefficient within the primary and
secondary test envelopes are presented in figures 3.4-6 and 3.4-7. These comparisons give further
support to the observation that the most favorable conditions for extended laminar flow would be
found at somewhat higher Mach numbers and lift coefficients than the design condition.
Figure 3.4-8 shows pressure distributions for climb and descent conditions at M = 0.60 and M = 0.70,
respectively. Normal climb above 10,000 ft takes place at a calibrated airspeed of 290 kn,
corresponding to a lift coefficient of approximately CL = 0.40, with gradually increasing Math
number as the airplane gains altitude. Optimum calibrated airspeed for descent is 250 kn
(approximately CL = 0.50) with gradually decreasing Mach number from M = 0.80 to M = 0.38 as
the airplane loses altitude. In both climb and descent, a pronounced pressure peak is present near the
leading edge, which is expected to preclude the achievement of extensive laminar flow.
28
Effect of Mach Number at C L = 0.50
WBL 290
-1.0
Cp
0 WBL 387
WBL4_
Effect of C L at M = 0.80
.1.0
-1,0
Cp
Figure 3.4-6. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for Off-Design Condfions
29
Effect of CL at M = 0.80
" 1.0 WBL2_
0.60
ii'° WBL387
Cp
WBL4_
x/c _o
Effect of CL at M = 0.82
Cp
WBL2_
-1.0
0 .0
= 0.55
-1.0
C L = 0.38
WBL 387
0 .0
0 WBL 479
.0
Figure 3.4-7. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for Off-Design Conditions (Continued)
3O
M : 0.60
WBL2_
-1.0
Cp
WBL 290
-1.0
_.0 WBL 387
Cp
WBL 479
10
Figure 3.4-8. Theoretical Pressure Distributions for Climb and Descent
31
This page intentionally
leftblank.
32
4.0 BOUNDARY LAYER STABILITY ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
OF SUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Once a geometry forthetestpanel had been determined on thebasisof theHLFC guidelinesand the
corresponding pressuredistributions
were known, the next aerodynamic design taskwas todefine
an economical suctiondistribution
thatwould providethemaximum practical
extentof laminarflow.
4.1 STABILITY PREDICTION METHODOLOGY
The principalanalytical
toolforthiswork was theUnified Stability
System (USS) computer code,
developed by Boeing under NASA contract(ref.3). This code uses Mack's method (ref.4) to
generatethe disturbanceamplificationcharacteristics
of the two major boundary layer instability
modes in three-dimensionalcompressible flow, for given distributions
of externalpressureand
suction flow.
The code is a combination of several subprograms: First, boundary layer velocity profiles (both
tangential and crossflow (CF'), including the effects of suction) are calculated using the method of
reference 2. This is followed by analyses of both Tollmien-Schlichting (TS) and CF instabilities to
determine amplification rates. The mathematical basis and solution procedure in both are very
similar, but the TS procedure treats waves that propagate more or less in the direction of the local
external flow, while the CF procedure analyzes waves that propagate across it.* The amplification
rates are integrated separately to obtain amplification ratios. The natural logarithms of the
amplification ratios (referred to as "N-factors") are more convenient to plot and discuss than the
ratios themselves. Figure 4.1-1 shows the computation sequence and indicates the appearance of the
data. -
The method of transition prediction is illustrated in figure 4.1-2. The TS amplification exponent,
NTS, is plotted against the CF amplification exponent, NCF, with the distance al9ng the surface, s/
c, as a parameter. Transition is predicted when this curve crosses the transition criterion line, an
empirically derived boundary. When CF effects are dominant, the trajectory of N-factors leans to
the right, but when the amplification is mainly due to TS instability, it runs more or less parallel to
the NTS axis. Where NCF remains very small, the analysis may carry into the pressure recovery
region, and computation of NTs may be subject to considerable uncertainty. In those cases, judgment
must be applied to estimate a transition Point. (The stability calculations for WBL 447, discussed
below in sec. 4.2, are an example.)
Figure 4.1-3 shows the transition criterion used in the present design study. It was based on
correlation of N-factor computations by the USS code with experimental transition data for the
NASA F-111 NLF glove (ref. 5) and the Boeing 757 NLF glove (ref. 6).'t" A point from Boeing
experiments on aT-33 with an NLF glove (ref. 15) is also shown. Boundaries of the data scatter band
are shown by the dotted lines.
* The wave angle, defined as the angle between a normal to the wave front and the flow direction, will be near 0 deg
for"IS waves in incompressible flow, or 0 to 70 deg in compressible flow. Wave angles for CF disturbances are from
70 to 90 deg.
"tCorrelation of N-factor computations by the USS code with experimental transition data shows considerable scatter.
Use of such a criterion is an empirical expedient in the absence of a more rigorous method. One of the objectives of
the present program is to provide additional experimental data to support development of improved transition
prediction methods.
33
• Boeing laminar boundary layer code
• Infinite swept wing
• Compressible
l"OFBoundary Layer I
I_ Vel°city Pr°flles_ Potentiai
y/8 0.5
0
[Z I 0.5 1.0
direction
Velocity ratio
Disturbance Amplification Characteristics
Tollmkm-Schlichting Dlstu_ Crossflow Disturbances
Amplification
factor,
NTS NCF
Diffarent
Different
requencies wave numbers
Distance x/c
N-Factor Envelopes
Integrated
amplifica_on
factors,
NTS, NCF l_ NTS
NCF
Distance x/c
Output to check against transition criterion
Figure 4.1.1. Main Steps of the Computation Sequence in the USS Code
34
10
(calculated, using USS code)
Disturbance N-factor trajectory
0.60
i!i_:_
..... Predicted transition zone
Turbulent
Empirical transition
criterion (mean line
through data band)
x/c 0.4 7 Laminar
0.30_
I I ! I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Crossflow disturbance amplification factor, N CF
Figure 4.1-2. Scheme of Trans#ion Prediction Method
14
12 I
Legend:
• 757 NLF
10 - :_i_:.
_ • F-111 NLF
ii;:. T-33 NLF
::j::iiii:.
%.
NT s
_ ::!!i!!!_:.
%!::::..•
/
- __ ....... " - ik-,...... _ Transition critedon
__!:.:.- .............•-- /" .. ,

........=, / ",_
_ I1_•
I _ _ _ _ ============================
...,.:.::::::::::.,
,.
• •
- " "- .. .....

I1%:iii
I I ! I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NCF
Figure 4.1-3. Empirical Trend of Crossflow and Tollmien-Schlichting Ampfification Factors at Transition
35
4.2 SUCTION REQUIREMENTS AT INDIVIDUAL SPAN STATIONS
Moderately swept transport airplane wings usually have sufficient CF to cause early transition.
Controlling CF instability is therefore of paramount importance. CF instability can, to some extent,
be mitigated by geometric means (that is, airfoil tailoring) but boundary-layer suction is the most
direct means of preventing crossflow-induced transition. The influence of suction on the N-factor
trajectory is illustrated in figure 4.2-1. Without suction, the uncontrolled CF instability pushes the
amplification trajectory to the right, where it intersects the transition criterion line at a low value of
s/c. For the case shown, transition would be expected to take place at about 14% chord. With
adequate suction, the trajectory moves closer to the NTS axis (i.e., showing low CF amplification),
and NTS is somewhat reduced as well. The intersection with the transition boundary now takes place
at about 50% chord. Generally, the practice was to apply sufficient suction to bring the trajectory
close to the NTS axis, and if possible, to keep it clear of the transition data scatter band.
In the discussions below, three different nondimensional suction quantity parameters are used. They
al'¢--
CQ = total suction coefficient = (total suction mass fiow)/p**V**Ssp,
12
757 Midspan Section
iii!:
_
10
• Without suction
K
Wdh suction _ data scatter
!
8
_ _-., ............ i.J 0.50
NTS
criterion
6
.... ..... o.3s
_!i_::3":_.,.
_iii'...................... -'_'_"_.-
- "
_._
D-
,Ip
o o o o o o
0 .L.. "1 I I I I I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NCF
Figure 4.2-1. Effect of Suction on Amplification Characteristics
36
where Ssu is the area of the HLFC suction panel. (The "HLFC suction panel" includes all the win_
chord, to the trailing edge, over the span where suction is applied. In the present case, Ssp = 190.78 ft z
Cq = chord suction coefficient = (suction mass flow per unit span)/p**V**c,
where c is the local streamwise wing chord, and
Cq' = local suction coefficient = (suction mass flow per unit area)/p**V**
The actual process of determining suction requirements for the FILFC test panel began with stability
analyses at several spanwise stations, using an assumed initial cq' distribution. The calculations then
were repeated with revised Cq' values until Cq was minimized, while maintaining the maximum extent
of laminar flow. The typical tailoring sequence is illustrated in figure 4.2-2.
First, the suction peak (A) in the high-crossflow region was made narrower (B), resulting in lower
Cq, but at the expense of slightly NCF. Then the peak itself was lowered (C) until the predicted
transition moved forward. Finally, adding a little more suction in the region between the high-
crossflow and low-crossflow sectors (D) reduced NCF to the level lost in the first suction peak
reduction, while still giving a net reduction in cq, relative to the starting point.
Stability calculations were also carried out for a number of off-design conditions. Their extent is
illustrated in figure 4.2-3. Altogether, nearly 100 cases were analyzed, including 10 flight conditions
each at three spanwise stations (WBL 290, 387, and 479) with suction variations, plus six additional
spanwise stations (WBL 270, 311, 360, 416, 477, and 513) at the design condition. Altitude
variations were also included in the calculations, to investigate Reynolds number effects. A
summary of boundary layer growth at the stations is given in appendix F. Detailed results of
boundary layer analysis are included as appendix G.
Because of the differences in pressure distribution between inboard and outboard stations, two
distinct behaviors were found in the effects of cq' tailoring on transition. WBL 311 and WBL 447
will be discussed. At WBL 311 the initial flow acceleration is more gradual than at WBL 447 because
of the nacelle interference effect described in section 3.3, resulting in a longer CF region, whereas
at WBL 447 the acceleration takes place within the fwst 5% of chord. Figure 4.2-4 compares the
pressure and suction distributions at these two stations. The computed amplification factors are
shown in figure 4.2-5. The graphs show the CF amplification factors for a range of wave numbers
at zero frequency and the TS amplification factors for a range of frequencies at a wave angle of
50 deg, which are the most critical conditions. The dominance of CF amplification at W'BL 311 is
very evident, whereas TS amplification is approximately the same at both stations. The range of CF
wave numbers and TS frequencies is illustrated in the contour plots of figure 4.2-6. Finally, the
impact of pressure distribution on the boundary layer instability and predicted transition is illustrated
in figure 4.2-7, where the pressure distributions, the NTS and NCF envelopes, and the transition
criterion (NTs-NCF) diagrams for the two cases are shown together. (Note that in constructing the
NTs-NCF diagram, the envelopes of the individual amplification factor curves were used. For the
remainder of this discussion, only the envelope curves will be shown.) At WBL 311, transition is
predicted at about 36% chord, while at WBL 447 it is near 50%, but in both cases the limits are
imposed by the onset of pressure recovery. At WBL 311 more suction could further reduce the CF
instability, but not much laminar flow could be gained because of the early recovery point. At WBL
447 the CF instability is almost entirely eliminated, but again the pressure recovery at 50% chord
limits the extent of laminar flow.
37
0
0 O.04 O.O8 0.12 0.20
s/c
16
T,..
12
TypeC I Step 2 I
0
x 8
O"
0
I I , I I I
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
$/C
16
12
I Step 3 I
,0
,,- 6
x
O"
¢,1,
TypeC
4 __ TypeD
0 I I , ,!
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
S/C
Figure 4.2-2. Suction Distribution Tailoring Sequence
38
0.65
Secondary off-design envelope
0.60
39K [__ kDesign
_ .... point ._9K
(M = 0.80, C L = 0.50)
0.55
,I
I "',
I // _ \\ I
I" 42K' I_ 39K
0.50
..J
(3 L.35K / I
.
C I \ / J
._o /
¢= \ / I
8 0,4s
-J I
I
0.40 _K tS]---_K D _2K
L_. Primary off-design envelope

0.35 i
I I I I I
0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.83
Mach number
Note: At each condition at or above M = 0.79, three spanwise stations (WBL 290, 387, and 479) were
analyzed, except for the design condition at 39K-ft altitude, in which case five additional stations
were also analyzed (WBL 311,360, 416, 447, and 513).
Figure 4.2-3. Scope of Boundary Layer Stability Calculations
39
4O
WBL 311
Crossflow AmpUflcatlon TS Amplification
o¢= 281/f't = 50 deg
225
o_, Hz
4 4 3,033
179 3,211
2,555
NCF NT S 3,400
3 143 3
2,152
3,601
14
1,919
2' 2
1(3,812
bl
' 1,712
r
73
1 1 ,1,527
r
,1,362
_4,037
z I I
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
_c X/C
WBL 447
Crossflow AmpllflcatJon "iS Amplification
m=0Hz u/= 50 deg

oo,Hz
/ 3,009
j_3,388
N t 2,673
f 3,594
1/.//:./'2,374
NCF NTS /3,814
//7//_ (1,987
o¢=775_tt __4,o47
¢z=615
/1,873
=,489
" !4 294
_76
l,N//27/gAZ. 1.392
=1 ,(_.
, _4,556,
0
V_-_ _'_'_'_'_'-- 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
x/c X/C
Figure 4.2-5. CF and TS Ampfification Factors at WBL 311 and 447; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50, and
Rift = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft)
41
WBL 311
CF Amplification TS Amplification
1,400 14,000
e)- 0 Hz ¥ = 50 deg
1,200 12,000
1,000 1 0,000
N
-i-
NCF
800
0.S _ 8,000
E
1.0
C 1.S
0
•
a
600 s.ooo
u.
o
4OO 4,000 -
200 2,000 "
I I I I I I 1 I I
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
x/c WBL 447 x/c
CF Amplification TS Ampllflcatlon
1,400 14,000
eo-O HZ ¥ = 50 deg
1.200 12,000
1,000 10,000
_E N
"1-
_U
=,. 8OO 8,000
Q
JD
E
Q --
¢,-
0"
>:600 _ 6.000-
LL I-- _
o
4O0 4,000 -
2,000
200 I
O" t I I I = i 0 I I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
_c _c
Figure 4.2-6. Comparison of Contour Plots of Amplification Factors at WBL 311 and 447; M = 0.80,
CL = 0.50 and R/ft= 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft)
42
Pressure Distribution
-1.0
s WBL 311
WBL 447
Cp
0.4 I
I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
X/C
Amplification Ratios
NTs
6
NTS 4
NCF3
WBL 447
0 I I
0 0.2 0.4
x/c
Figure 4.2-7. Summary of Stability Analysis Results at WBL 311 and 447;
M = 0.80, CL = 0.50, and Rift = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft)
43
The effects of suction distribution tailoring are illustrated in figures 4.2-8 through 4.2-10. Narrowing
the high suction region (i.e., going from type A suction to type B as indicated in fig. 4.2-2) allows
some reduction in cq at the expense of slightly increased CF amplification (fig. 4.2-8). A small
increase in Cq' at the "comer" (a type D distribution) can restore the condition of near-zero NCF at
transition (fig. 4.2-9). While this remedy was effective over the outer portion of the HLFC panel,
it did not work at the inboard end, where the slow acceleration caused the CF instability to be very
strong. Figure 4.2-10 shows the stability analysis results for WBL 270 (just outboard of the nacelle)
with a type C suction distribution at Cq = 2.74 x 10 "_ and also with an unorthodox distribution (E) that
puts a large amount of extra suction in the corner at Cq = 5.79 x 10 "5. With the conventional suction
distribution, crossflow-induced instability is the dominant factor, and transition is predicted at about
26% chord. The extra suction does bring the amplification trajectory closer to the NTS axis but not
enough to affect transition very much. Thus a 211% increase in suction produced only a 5% chord
increase in the extant of laminar flow. The effect of a further increase of suction (1:) could not be
evaluated because the stability code would not converge on a solution. In any case, because pressure
recovery at this station begins not far past 30% chord, the potential for additional improvement is
small. 0,Vhen the test panel span was later reduced to adapt to the capacity of a single turbocompressor,
WBL 270 was outside the laminarized region anyway.)
The typical effects of altitude (more pre, ciscly, of unit Reynolds number) are shown in figure 4.2-11.
The data pertain to WBL 479 at CL = 0.50, M = 0.80, and h = 39,000 and 42,000 ft (R l = 1.61 million/
ft and 1.40 million/ft, respectively). At the higher altitude, both the CF and the TS amplification
factors are reduced, but the effect is more pronounced on the TS amplification. In both cases,
transition is caused by TS instability, but it is postponed by 5% chord at the higher altitude.
44
External Pressure and Suction Distributions
-1.2 20 f
End of high-
Type B suction region
-0.8
16rN j- Type B; Cq= 5.33 x 10 .5
Upper surface II_.J

12 P 5
"o- _ Type A; Cq = 5.58 x 10"
0.4
0.8
I I I I o , .... ,.... :1
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0,16 0.20 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
yJc S/C
NT S
I 12
I
I
5 _ 10 Transition
"criterion
NTS
Data
NTs 8
4 scatter band
NCF
%
%,
%
20
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/c NCF
Figure 4.2-8. Typical Effects of Suction Tailoring_Type A to Type B Distribution; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
h =35,500 ft, Rc=23.1x 10 6 WBL 479
45
-1.2 2O
Type C End of high-
suction region
-0.8 16
,l¢
0
-0.4 x12 __Type D; Cq = 5.36 x 10 -5

"0"
0
0 8
Type C; Cq = 5.03 x 10 -5
0.4 4
0.8 I I I I 0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
x/c s/c
NTS
12
t
I
10
NTS 4 NTS 8 t :ili_:::i,

_' Data scatter bane
__tlt _ Transition criterion
"::_: i: "'.
NCF
3 6
2 4
....
_d_tt x/c %
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 10

_c NCF
Typical Effects of Suction Tailonng--Type C to Type D Distribution; M = 0.80, C L = 0.52,

h =39,00Oft, Rc= 19.7-/x 106, WBL 479
46
-1.2 20
/--- Increased suction (Type E)

-0.8 16
--!-,,,, / cq . 5"79 x 10"5

-0.4 _ 12
q, X
(computation
_" failed)
0.4 4 _ //Type F
k L_ ' ' I.
0._ I I I I 0 I I I I I
0 0.04 0.08 0,12 0.16 0.20 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
x/c S/C
NCF
121
10-
_ Transition criterion
NTS
NCF i \ . ss¢# -k
i
i
i
i
!
4 """ / _ 25
" "_j:_" ...... .... _-_
xlc % // ° /
2 - 20_F/l_llllllllm R j_20
1,_/'
0 _ 1_r0"15 , 5 , lO_m 15 '

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 2 4 6 8 10
x/c NCF
Figure 4.2-10. Effect of Increased Suction in the Vicinity of the Engine Nacelle; M = 0.80, C L = 0.50,
h = 39,000 ft, R c = 28.8 x 10 6, WBL 270
47
ExtamaJ Pressure and Suction Distributions
-1.2 2O
-0.8 16_
°0.4 ,_ 12 Type C; Cq = 5.03 x 10"5

O
,r--
x
cp "O"
O
0 8
0.4 4
I
0.8 I I I I 0 I I I I I
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
yJc S/C
Amplification RaUos
I
12
I
I
I Transition criterion
I
10
I
I
NTS 4 NTS Data

8
scatter band
NCF
3
42,000 ft
2 4
NC %
0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 2 4 6 8 lO
x/c NCF
Figure 4.2-11 Effect of Altitude on Amplifica_on Characteristics;

M = 0.80, CL = 0.50, WBL 479
48
4.3 OVERALL SUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Figure 4.3-1 shows the calculated suction requirement over the whole span of the HLFC panel for
the design condition (M = 0.80, CL = 0.50, and h = 39,000 ft). The symbols show theWBL span
stations where calculations were made. The section Cq increases going outboard, but the suction flow
per unit span (proportional to c times Cq) diminishes, except at the inboard end. There, the early
pressure recovery limits the extent of laminar flow, so additional suction would have no effect. The
mean values Of Cq and CCq over the HLFC panel axe 4.9 x 10 -5 and 6.8 x 10 -4 ft, respectively. The
slight dip in Cq at WBL 387 amd 416 is not considered significant because of the "cut and try" nature
of the optimization procedure.
The stability calculations indicate laminar flow at least up to the pressure recovery line (the
approximate location of the shock), as shown in figure 4.3-2 by the dashed line. It runs approximately
along the 45% chord line outboard, then moves forward to about 24% chord at the inboard end.
However, prediction of the recovery line by the computer code is somewhat uncertain because the
computation tends to smooth out abrupt changes in pressure, such as at the shock. Therefore the
actual pressure recovery point may lie somewhat downstream of the computed one, and an additional
5% to 10% chord laminar flow may be possible. This region is marked by shading in the figure. The
potential laminar zone may therefore reach 50% to 55% chord over the outboard half of the test area,
decreasing gradually to about 30% to 40% chord at the inboard edge of the suction region (WBL 330).
For off-design conditions, the stability calculations were carried out for only three spanwise stations,
resulting in a sparse definition of the cq distribution. Nevertheless, the trends with Mach number,
CL, and altitude axe clearly identifiable. Figure 4.3-3 shows the effect of varying CL in the range from
0.40 to 0.55 on the required cq and predicted transition at M = 0.80 and h = 35,000 ft. More suction
is required at lower CLS but in spite of this, less laminar flow would be obtainable. This is true because
the pressure distributions are more conducive to laminar flow at higher lift coefficients, particularly
in the central and inboard regions of the test panel.
The effects of altitude at M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50 are illustrated in figure 4.3-4, for h = 35,000 and
42,000 ft. At the higher altitude, less suction is required and the extent of laminar flow is increased.
Because both cases have the same pressure distributions, the difference is due to the decreased
disturbance growth at the lower unit Reynolds number.
49
I
i
I
: t
, I _
t i I
I I I I
_ I
_; Suction area:
i Initial ' i
Final =.l i
I !
I !
,0
to
o" 4
0 _...J_ II I I I I I '
500 460 420 380 340 300 26O
I I
8 ' WBL Tin i I
! I
6
.1=
)(
O"
o 4
x
tO
0 _ I I I I I I
500 460 420 380 340 300 260
WBL, in
F_gure4.3-1. Spanwise Variation of Tailored Suction F/ow Rates
50
I I
Possible extent of laminarflow (with recovery further aft)
I
rl
I I
Predictedt]'ansition front (limitedby
pressure recovery)
,. 60
.. 70
479 447 416 387 360 311 290 270
Stations for stabilitycalculations
I I I I I I !
550 500 450 400 350 300 250
Span station---WBL, in
Figure 4.3-2. Predicted Extent of Laminar Flow, Design Condition
51
6
wP
0
qp-
x
A
O"
0
C L = 0.40
x
o C L = 0.45
C L " 0.55
2:
I I I I I
500 450 400 350 300
Span station--WBL, in
Predicted extent of laminar flow/_,J_ CL =
3O
CL:
Suction region
% chord
60
70.
70
479 387 290
Stations for stability caJculations
I I I I I I I
550 500 450 400 350 300 250
Span station---WBL, in
Figure 4.3-3. Effect of Lift Coefficient on Suction Rates and Transition; M = 0.80. h = 35,000 ft
52
_
h = 35,000 ft, I:_ = 1.89 x 106
¢:
0
v-
x
O" 4
0
x
o
I I I I r !
500 450 400 350
WBL, in
Predicted extentof laminar flow 300
000 ft
3O
,. 40
% chord
• 60
• 70
X/C
70
479 387 290
Stations for stability calculations
I I I I I I I
550 500 450 400 350 300 250
Span station_WBL, in
Figure 4.3-4. Effect of Altitude on Suction Rates and Transition; M = 0.80, CL = 50
53
4.4 ADJUSTMENTS TO THEORETICAL SUCTION DISTRIBUTIONS
The analyses described above were done before the final configuration of the suction surface and
flute arrangement were established. The calculations were carried out independently for individual
sections. Consequently, the cq distributions showed some spanwise variation, as noted above in the
discussion of figure 4.3-1. Therefore, the theoretical cq' distributions were adjusted to make them
mutually consistent and compatible with the hardware design. The adjustments affected both the
forward region, where the flutes are curved to follow the external isobars, and the suction termination
point. The aftmost flute was eliminated to provide space for the joint between the suction surface
and the front spar. The adjusted Cq' distributions are shown in figure 4.4-1. The peak values of Cq'
are 14 x 10 -4 for CL = 0.40, 13 x 10 -4 for CL -- 0.50, and 12 x 10-4 for CL = 0.60, respectively (see
fig. 4.4-1 for connecting points A-B). The intermediate zone between the high- and low-suction
regions is defined by point C, where Cq' = 4.00 x 10-4, and point D, where s/c = 0.04. The low-suction
region, with Cq' -- 2 x 10-4, terminates at a fixed distance from the leading edge, and therefore at
increasing s/c with distance outboard (point E).
The adjusted spanwise distributions Of Cq and CCq for the design condition are shown in figure 4.4-2.
The irregularities have been eliminated and the Cq levels somewhat reduced. The average CCq is 6.54
x 10 -4 ft. The resulting total flow coefficient for the entire test area is
CQ = _(Ccq)dYsp / Spanel = 4-72x10-5 l-i- = _(CCq)dYsp = 4.72x10 -5

Ssp
The corresponding total volume flow rate is
Q = V**SpanelCQ-" 6.97 ft3/s
where
V** - 774.4 ft/s at M = 0.80 and h = 39,000 ft,
and the mass flow rate is
w = 13.. g Q = O. 1368 lb/s = 8.2 lb/min
These adjusted suction distributions were the basis for the internal flow system design. That activity
is described in volume IV of this report.
54
14 ®
r14 x 10 .4 _C L =, 0.4
12
Cq'ma x " _13x
L12 x 10"4
lO -4 f°r "LCL
c L -.0.5
o.6
10
8
',¢1"
o
x
°0" 447
0
6 WBL 416
----3 I
f 479
387
--711
360
4
-II I :
IIC) I
s/c - 4% II
X 10-4 Cq'-2xlo -4 ,, $1
2
I
I
I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
s/c, %
WBL, in c, ft s/c at (_), % ¢q x 105 (c x Cq) x 104

i
360 15.16 13.40 4.495 6.817
387 14.50 13.80 4.575 6.633
416 13.75 14.35 4.685 6.441
447 13.00 15.10 4.835 6.285
479 12.20 15.85 4.985 6.085
Figure 4.4-1. Adjusted Final Suction Requirements
55
I
i
i
Ssp= 190.78ft2 _ y
%
CQ =4.72x 10 -5
x 4
2 -
0 h I I I I
500 460 420 380 340 300 260
WBL
m
if
CQ = S_p (c x Cq) dysp= 4.72 x 10 .5
% Q. V. Ssp.%=697_/s
x 4 B O
03
,7 _r c_
X .J = p,_g.Q = 0.1368 lb/s
0 _3
V_== 774.3 Ws
2 --
_, Suction zone ,_
Ysp= 165 in = 13.75 ft
I
I
I
0 I| I I I I I I I
5O0 46O 420 380 34O 30O 26O 4oo
Span station--WBL, in
Figure 4.4-2. Spanwise Variation of Adjusted Suction Flow Rates; M = 0.80, CL = 0.50,
Rift = 1.61 million (h = 39,000 ft)
56
5.0 ATTACHMENT-LINE FLOW TREATMENT
5.1 BACKGROUND AND DESIGN CRITERIA
The third form of boundary layer instability that may cause early transition on swept wings is called
"attachment-line turbulence contamination." It was first observed during early laminar flow flight
experiments in England (refs. 17 and 18) and was encountered also on the NorthropAJSAF X-21
research airplane (ref. 19). Premature transition may be caused by turbulence convected by the
boundary layer of the spanwise flow along the leading edge attachment line, that is, the surface
streamline separating the flows above and below the wing. Disturbances may originate from
turbulent eddies in the fuselage boundary layer, from vortices forming at the wing/fuselage
intersection, or they may arise within the attachment-line boundary layer itself. The behavior of the
attachment-line boundary layer depends on its momentum thickness Reynolds number
palWalOal
Roal = ttal
where the subscript"al" denotes"attachment line." The attachment-line boundary layer momentum
thickness, 0al, depends on the sweepback angle, the unit Reynolds number, and the velocity gradient
normal to the attachment line. That gradient is strongly influenced by leading edge geometry.
Appendices B and C include wing cross sections normal to the leading edge and leading edge radius
data.
According to references 19, 20, and 21, Real should be kept less than 94 to 100 to ensure that the
flow stays laminar.
5.2 ATTACHMENT-LINE FLOW CONDITIONS ON THE MODIFIED WING
Figure 5.2-1 shows Roal (as calculated by a subroutine included in the transonic flbw computer code
discussed in sec. 3.1, above) for several flight conditions in the cruise envelope. It can be seen that
in the test region, R0al often approaches and sometimes exceeds the critical value of 100, particularly
at cruise altitudes below 35,000 ft. Consequently, some kind of treatment against attachment line
wansidon was deemed necessary.
5.3 ATTACHMENT-LINE FLOW STABILIZATION BY PASSIVE SUCTION
Initially, the application of a "Gaster-bump" (a bump on the leading edge that creates a local
stagnation point and thus diverts the leading edge boundary layer (ref. 22)) was considered. It had
been proven effective by previous experiments, such as the laminar flow test fixture on the Avro
Lancaster (ref. 23) and the NASA Jetstar/LEFT suction glove (ref. 8). Other schemes that had been
used before with success, such as a notch in the leading edge, used on the NASA/Boeing 757 NLF
glove (ref. 6), or a laminarized fence on the leading edge, used on the X-21 (ref. 7), were also
considered but judged not practical for the present case.
57
180
160
CorKIitions:
M CL Altitude, ft
0.78 0.41 32,000
140
0.80 0.50 35,000
120 °_ 0.80 0.50 39,000

0.78 0.60 39,000
ReAL
100
8o
6°
I
40
200
I
25O 300
I I
350
I
400
I
450
I
500
• I
55O 600
WBL
Figure 5.2-1. Attachment-Line Reynolds Number
It was finally decided to apply suction at the leading edge inboard of the HLFC test panel, because
a Gaster bump could always be added later if it were needed, whereas reu'ofimng suction would be
much more difficult. Two arrangements were considered (fig. 5.3-I), one using chordwis¢ slots
across the leading edge and the other using perforated skin. The former scheme had been reed
previously on the X-21, but perforations were chosen here because large areas of skin were to be
perforated anyway, and forming problems were foreseen for the slotted skin. It was convenient to
make the attachment-line suction independent of the main suction system, using the relatively high
external pressure at the attachment line and vendng to a low pressure region on the wing lower
surface, as shown in figure 5.3-2.
In selecting the size and location of the attachment-line suction area, the movement of the attachment
line with changing flight conditions and the associated variations of external pressures were
considered. The position of the attachment line could be inferred from the calculated pressures
(sec. 3.3). Figure 5.3-3 shows the theoretical location of the attachment line along the
HLFC test span for the design condition and the two extreme off-design conditions. At the design
58
_chment-line flow
Figure 5.3-1. Attachment-Line Suction Concepts
• Design condition: M = 0.80, h = 39,000 ft
-0.8 Upper surface
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 4O
S, in
®
L Pitot-static sensor
Suction chamber
Figure 5.3-2. Automatic Suction Arrangement for Attachment.Line Flow Control
59
WBL
Figure 5.3-3. Range of Movement of the Attachment Line at Cruise Conditions
condition, the attachment line lies 0.2 to 0.4 in below the leading edge (highlight). At lower CLS it
moves upward (closer to the highlight) and at higher CLs it moves downward. The total excursion
is about 0.6 in. The upper and lower boundaries of the suction area were placed I in above and 1.5 in
below the highlight. The span of the ac,achment-linc suction area was 6 in. At the estimated suction
rams, R0al in the most critical region could be reduced from the original level of I00 to about 30.
6O
6.0 LEADING EDGE DEVICE AERODYNAMIC DESIGN
As part of the I-ILFC flight experiment, a dual-purpose leading edge Krueger flap was incorporated
to serve both as a high-lift device and as an insect and debris shield. Before the contract effort was
begun, a Boeing-sponsored, two-dimensional wind tunnel test had been performed to investigate the
high-lift geometry trades and insect protection effectiveness ofa Krueger flap (ref. 24). The design
of the leading edge device used in the HLFC flight experiment was guided by the knowledge gained
from these preliminary experiments. Later, as part of the contract effort, a three-dimensional low-
speed test was conducted to evaluate the effects of the modified high-lift system on the low-speed
performance and handling characteristics of the test airplane.
6.1 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND APPROACH
The design requirements for the leading-edge device were--
a. The Krueger flap that replaces the Nos. 3 and 4 slats on the left wing must provide
comparable high-lift capabilities to the slats, and the resulting asymmetrical leading-
edge configuration must not cause unacceptable handling characteristics in low-speed
flight.
b. The Krueger flap and its actuating mechanism must be compact, in order to leave room
for the suction system ducting.
c. The Krueger flap in the deployed position must shield the suction surface leading edge
from contamination resulting from insect accretion and other forms of flying debris
during takeoff and landing.
d. The power to actuate the Krueger flap must be provided by the same torque tube that
drives the rest of the slats to ensure simultaneous operation.
Because of the difficult kinematics of matching deployment of the Krueger and the three-position
(retracted, gapped, or sealed) slat it was decided to modify the leading edge device control system
to eliminate the sealed-leading-edge (takeoff) slat position. Therefore, only a two-position Krueger
was required (retracted or deployed-with-gap).
6.2 PRELIMINARY STUDIES
Figure 6.2-1 shows the test setup and model configuration of the two-dimensional tests referred to
previously. The chord of the Krueger flap was 12% of the wing chord. The main geometry variables
were the flap deflection angle, the height of the flap trailing edge above the wing chord plane, and
the gap between the flap trailing edge and the wing. The best high-lift characteristics were obtained
at 45 deg deflection, with both gap and height at 2.2% chord.
61
Wing --_
Krueger flap -_ ( _ _ _-- Vane
_ Flap
High-Lift Airfoil With Leading Edge Krueger Flap

/
Krueger
deflection /
Az T Chord plane
High-Lift Optimization Parameters

/
Figure 6.2-1. Two-Dimensional Wind Tunnel Test of a Dual-Purpose Krueger Flap
62
An apparatus was developed to inject insects into the wind runnel flow. Three types of insects (spring
tails, aphids, and frait flies) were used for siz¢ variations, which at full scale would represent larger
ins¢cts. Two critical conditions were investigated with the Krueger flap at the optimum high-lift
position: (1) heavy insects at low angle of attack, as would be encountered during takeoff roll, and
(2) light insects at high angle of attack, as encountered during climbout and approach. Results of this
experiment are shown in figure 6.2-2 for all three species at the critical angles. These results are
_,_ a= 8deg
regions
__ a = I0 deg
7"
Spring Talls Impact Summary
a= Odeg
Impact regions
11"
Aphids Impact Summary
Impacts occurred;
but no remnants
Impact regions
_. cx= 0deg
FruR Flies Impact Summary
"Number of impacts
Figure 6.2-2 Test Results on the Effectiveness of the Krueger Flap as Insect Shie_
63
Logend:
-- _ Theoretical trajectories
Experimental impact regions
========================================= ......
_..:__.= ..-- ._o....o.O.o- _ ._
_.._-_-__.___- ....
-----_- ..... o,= 0 deg
__._--_---_-=--..= ........... :::=:::

"-__'-'_-"-_-__..__,.,= :_"::::::::::::
-------
_-::_____.__-=--:::..-" _....... ::
Figure 6.2-3. Comparison of Theoretical Trajectory Predictions of Fruit Flies

Versus Test Results at 0 and -4 deg Angle of Attack
consistent with predictions based on particle trajectories computed using, a two-dimensional

multielcmcnt airfoil code (ref. 25) with an empirical model for lift and drag of insects derived by
Bragg and Maresh (ref. 26) as shown in figure 6.2-3.
6.3 DESIGN INTEGRATION
A variable-camber Kruegcr flap similar to the one used on the Boeing 747 would have been n_ded
to match the optimum geometry determined in the two-dimensional test discussed above, but it also
would have added cost and complexity without contributing to the principal objectives of the
program. It was found that the design goals could be met by changing the shape of the wing lower
surface and incorporating a folding"bull-nose leading edge as described in section 3.3. Figure 6.3-1
64
compares the desired aerodynamic contours and the final design. Some compromises were allowed
in the hardware design to meet volume and kinematic consu'aints. For example, four small notches
were cut in the buU-nose to provide clearance from the supporting ribs with the Krueger flap stowed.
These arc described in more derail in volume III of this report.
6.4 LOW-SPEED WIND TUNNEL TEST
A three-dimensional low-speed wind tunnel test was performed on a 0.055 scale model of the 757
in the 8- by 12-ft wind tunnel of the University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory (UWAL),
with the HI..FC Krueger and modified leading edge installed. The purpose was to identify
Height (&z) I
0
-4
-8
OSS 542.7
12
16 I I I I I I I I I
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
X LE' in
Krueger Rap in Deployed Position

-T
Front spar
\=u,,-noyj/
_- Drive link "- Drive arm
Figure 6.3-1. Comparison of the Requested and Produced Krueger Geometries
65
incremental low-speed performance and stability and control changes attributable to the HLFC
modifications. The model was tested both in free air and in ground effect, as shown in figure 6.4-1.
Testing was conducted at a dynamic pressure of 60 lb/ft 2, which corresponds to a Reynolds number
of 1.3 million, based on mean aerodynamic chord.
The test included several trailing edge flap positions used during takeoff and landing. In addition to
the basic Krueger configuration, notches in the leading-edge bull-nose (fig. 6.4-2) were also
evaluated. A feature that caused some concern was the discontinuity between the Krueger and the
slat at the outboard end of the I-ILFC test span, as shown in figure 6.4-3. This discontinuity was
unavoidable because of the geometric differences between the two systems. Flow visualization
photographs revealed that there was a large area of separated flow downstream of the leading edge
discontinuity at high angles of attack. A large rolling moment resulted from the unsymmetrical stall,
as shown in figure 6.4-4. A Krueger end-seal was installed between the Krueger and the slat (see
fig. 6.4-2) was found to reduce the maximum unsymmetrical moment by more than 50% up to 24 deg
angle of attack. Figure 6.4-5 shows the observed flow patterns for the baseline wing and for the
modified wing with and without the Krueger end-seal at 18 deg angle of attack (just beyond stall).
The test showed that the lift capability of the modified wing was only slightly impaired, resulting in
a CLmax decrement of 0.05, corresponding to about a 1.3-kn increase in stall speed. The Krueger
end-seal at the end of the Krueger made the stall less abrupt, but did not increase CLmax. Figure 6.4-6
shows the lift curves with the Krueger flaps installed, with and without the Krueger end-seal, in
comparison to the baseline configuration with the slats in both the takeoff and the landing positions.
The drag of the modified configuration did not change much relative to the baseline when the slats
were in the landing position. In the takeoff position, the slats showed somewhat lower drag. Thus,
the Krueger, in landing configuration required to prevent insect accretion, would have a drag penalty
during initial climb. The measured drag characteristics are shown in figure 6.4-7 for the case of
20 deg trailing edge flap deflection.
The pitching moment data did not indicate changes in the longitudinal characteristics great enough
to require different handling or trimming of the airplane. Furthermore, the notches in the Krueger
leading edge had no significant effects on airplane performance and stability characteristics.
However, the rolling moment due to unsymmetrical stall was still a matter of great concern. While
the problem could have been significantly alleviated by the Krueger end-seal, it was decided not to
use it because of the complexity and cost. Instead, safety was ensured by prohibiting intentional stalls
and by adjusting the stall warning stick shaker.
66
Figure 6.4-1. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Model of the Boeing 757 With HLFC Modifications
Installed in the UWAL Wind Tunnel
67
/
l_ed slat
Figure 6.4-2. Notches in the Krueger Leading Edge
68
Leading Edge Configuration Detail
HLFC Krueger
Standard slat (No. 2)
Figure 6.4-3. Mismatch of Krueger and Slat Contours at the Outboard Edge of the HLFC Test Area
69
Legend: Conditions:
Run LE
o 80 18.5/20---takeoff position 1. Flaps 20
O 102 30/32--HLFC (end unsealed) 2. 13,- 0 deg
o 120 30/32---HLFC (end sealed) 3. Free air
4. Ref. at 25% MAC
-.04
-.03
.,FCLEI°nd
un.aledl
__
-.02
..01
CRM
.01 -
Production--takeoff position
.02 I I I I ! I I I
-8 -4 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Angle of attack, deg
Figure 6.4-4. Low-Speed Test Results--Rolling Moment
7O
Baseline
Production
Gapped
_= 18 deg
Kmeger Without End Seal
Krueger With End Seal
Figure 6.4-5. Effect of Krueger End Seal on Wing Flow Pattern---China Clay Flow Visualization
71
Flaps 20 deg
UWAL 1421 Final Data,
Tall Off, Untrimmed;
No Adjustment to Flight RN
CL 1.6
LE takeoff pos_don
LE landing pos_on
LE landing position + HLFC
LE landing position + HLFC + end seal
LE landing position + HLFC + end seal + notches
8 12 16 20 24 28
Angle of attack, deg
Figure 6.4-6. Low-Speed Test Results_Lift Curves
72
Flaps 20 deg
UWAL1421 Final Data,
Tall Off, Untrimmed;
No Adlustmem to Flight RN
LE takeoff position
LE landing position
LE landing position + HLFC
LE landing position + HLFC + end seal
LE landing position + HLFC + end seal + notches
0.8
I I I
0.08 0.32 0.36
0.12 0.16 0.20 CD 0.24 0.28
F_ure 6.4-7. Low-Speed Test Results--Drag Polars
73
This page intentionally left blank
74
7.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
7.1 LESSONS LEARNED
The rem arks below summarize salient points and lessons learned from the de sign study reported here,
which provided the geometry and suction requirements for a 20-ft long hybrid laminar flow control
test panel for a Boeing 757 wing.
ao The design was based entirely on analysis, except for a wind tunnel test to validate the flaps-
down characteristics of the modified airplane. Design of the HLFC leading edge contours was
accomplished using a three-dimensional, transonic viscous-flow computer code system. The
estimates of suction requirements and achievable extent of laminar flow were made on the basis
of boundary layer stability analysis using the USS computer code and an empirically
determined transition criterion.
b.
The requirements of HLFC added a dimension to the wing aerodynamic design problem,
because restricting suction to the area forward of the front spar puts new constraints on tailoring
the profile for compressibility drag and lift coefficient.
c° The original contours of the outboard wing provided pressure distributions that would be
acceptable for HLFC. However, a slight modification of the leading edge geometry ahead of
the front spar further enhanced the flow characteristics, resulting in reduced crossflow
instability and therefore a reduced suction requirement. Repeated smoothing of the computer-
generated contours was necessary in both chordwise and spanwise directions to arrive at a
surface definition that met the stringent waviness criteria for laminar flow.
d.
Desirable pressure distributions for/-tLFC in the vicinity of the engine nacelle could not be
provided within the design constraints. Nacelle interference effects caused an extended
pressure gradient there, which increased crossflow instability.
e° Investigation of off-design flight conditions showed the most favorable pressure distributions
for extensive laminar flow in cruise occur at somewhat higher values of both Mach number and
lift coefficient than the design point (Mach 0.80 at CL = 0.50). In both climb and descent a
pronounced pressure peak near the leading edge would likely preclude achievement of
extensive laminar flow.
f. Accurate pressure predictions are very important to the design of a laminar-flow wing because
boundary layer stability, and hence suction requirements, critically depend on them. Flight test
results obtained later in the program (to be reported in volume I) revealed certain characteristic
differences from the CFD predictions, such as shock locations farther aft and more pronounced
pressure peaks.
g. The transition prediction method used in this study was based on an empirical criterion derived
from data showing significant scatter. Computed transition locations and suction requirements
are therefore uncertain. After the analytical work described in this report had been completed,
a revised transition criterion was proposed with the inclusion of the latest data obtained with
the F-14 VSTFE airplane. The revised criterion indicated less sensitivity to crossflow
amplification than the one used in the present study, and it would have reduced the predicted
suction requirement.
75
h°
The best suction distributions obtained in the study had a high-suction region extending from
the leading cdge to the end of the steep initial pressure gradient, followed by a longer low-
suction zone. A gradual transition between the high- and low-suction regions was found to be
advantageous. The required suction flow coefficient (CQ) at the design condition is
4.72 xl0 -5, requiring a mass flow rate for the HLFC test panel of 8.2 lb/min.
The stability analyses indicated that laminar flow could be sustained at least back to the pressure
recovery line (or shock location), at about 45% chord over the outboard half of the HLFC test
panel. Inboard, because of nacelle interference effects, the pressure recovery and transition
front would be farther forward, at about 35% chord.
jo The HLFC test panel leading edge was calculated to be marginal with respect to attachment-
line turbulence contamination. A leading edge suction patch was therefore provided just
inboard of the panel, vented to a low-pressure point on the lower surface to provide suction
independently of the main suction system.
k°
A low-speed wind runneltestof a 757 model with themodified leadingedge devices showed
thatthemaximum lift capabilitywould be slightlycompromised by replacingtwo slatsby the
dual-purpose Krueger flap,but thatthemodification would not significantly
alterthc low-
speed performance of the testairplane.
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Furtherstudiesare recommended in the followingareas:
a. Pressure Prediction Methods. CFD codes should be correlated with flight test pressure
survey results,as well as with wind tunneldata,and means should be sought to improve the
accuracy of shock location and pressure peak prediction.
b°
Wing/Nacelle Integration. Nacelle, strut, and wing contours that minimize spanwise pressure
gradients and provide straight isobars are needed in order to maximize the extent of laminar
flow and simplify HLFC suction system design.
C*
Transition Prediction Methods. Further analysis and correlation efforts are needed to reduce
the uncertainty of the predicted transition point.
d. Leading Edge High-LiflJInsect Protection Devices. The drag penalty resulting from the gap
between the Krueger flap and the fixed leading edge at the takeoff flap setting should be reduced
or eliminated.
76
8.0 REFERENCES
. Jameson, A., and Caughey, D. A., "Recent Progress in Finite Volume Calculations for Wing-
Fuselage Combinations," AIAA Paper No. 79-1513, July 1979.
* McLean, J. D., and Randall, J. L., "Computer Program To Calculate Three-Dimensional

Boundary Layer Flows Over Wings With Mass Transfer," Program User's Document, NASA
CR-158967, December 1978.
o Rozendaal, R. A., and Behbehani, R., "Variable Sweep Transition Flight Experiment (VSTFE)
- Unified Stability System (USS), Description and User's Manual," NASA CR-181918, July
1989.
. Mack, L. M., "Boundary Layer Stability Theory," AGARD Report No. 709, 1984.
5. Runyan, L. J., Navran, B. H., and Rozendaal, R. H., "F- 111 Natural Laminar Flow Glove Flight
Test Data Analysis and Boundary Layer Stability Analysis," NASA CR-166051, January
1984.
o Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, "Flight Survey of the 757 Wing Noise Field and Its
Effects on Laminar Boundary Layer Transition," NASA CR-178216, March 1987.
o Northrop Corporation, "Final Report on LFC Aircraft Design Data, Laminar Flow Control
Demonstration Program," Northrop Report NOR 67-136, June 1967.
° Fisher, D. F., and Fischer, M. C., "The Development Flight Tests of the JetStar LFC Leading
Edge Flight Test Experiment," NASA CP 2487, 1987.
, Wagner, R. D., Maddalon, D. V., Bartlett, D. W., Collier, F. S., and Braslow, A. L., "Laminar
Flow Flight Experiments," NASA CP 3020, Transonic Aerodynamics Symposium, NASA
Langley Research Center, 1988.
10. Maddalon, D. V., and Braslow, A. L., "Simulated-Airline-Service Flight Tests of Laminar
Flow Control With a Perforated Surface Suction System," NASA TP 2966, March 1990.
11. Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, "Hybrid Laminar Flow Control Study--Final Tech-
nical Report," NASA CR-165930, October 1982.
12. Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, "Evaluation of Laminar Flow Control System
Concepts for Subsonic Commercial Transport Aircraft--Final Technical Report," NASA
CR-158976, December 1978.
13. Carmichael, B. H., "Summary of Past Experience in Natural Laminar Flow," NASA CR- 152276,
May 1979.
14. Holmes, B. J., et al., "Manufacturing Tolerances for Natural Laminar Flow Airframe Sur-
faces," SAE Paper No. 85-0863, April 1985.
15. George-Falvy, D., "In Quest of the Laminar Flow Airliner: Flight Experiments on a T-33 Jet
Trainer," paper presented at the IXth Hungarian Aeronautical Sciences Conference, Budapest,
Hungary, November 1988.
77
16. Fifenninger, W., and Vemuru, C. S., "High Subsonic LFC Transport Airplanes: Boundary
Layer Crossflow Stabilization, Wing Analysis and Design," AIAA Paper No. 88-0275, AIAA
26th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, January 1988.
17. Gray, W. E., "The Effect of Wing Sweep on Laminar Flow," RAE TM Aero 255, 1952.
18.
Landeryou, R. R., and TrayforcL R. S., "Flight Tests of a Laminar Flow Swept Wing With
Boundary Layer Control by Suction," Report Aero No. 174, The College of Aeronautics,
Cranfield, June 1964.
19. Pfenninger, W., "Flow Problems of Swept Low-Drag Suction Wings of Practical Construction
at High Reynolds Numbers," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 154, Art. 2,
November 1968.
20.
Maddalon, D. V., Collier Jr., F. S. Montoya, L. L., and Land, C. K., "Transition Flight
Experiments on a Swept Wing With Suction," AIAA Paper No. 89-1893, June 1989.
Gaster, M., "On the Flow Along Swept Leading Edges," Aeronautical Quarterly, May 1967.
Gaster, NL, "A Simple Device for Preventing Turbulent Contamination on Swept Leading
Edges," Journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society, November 1965.
23.
Landeryou, R. R., and Porter, P. G., "Further Tests of a Laminar Flow Swept Wing with
Boundary Layer Control by Suction," Report Aero No. 192, The College of Aeronautics,
Cranfield, May 1966.
24. Brune, G. W., Tamigniaux, T. L. B., and Stark, S. E., "An Experimental Investigation of the
Insect Shielding Effectiveness of a Krueger Flap/Wing Airfoil Configuration," AIAA Paper
No. 87-2615, August 1987.
25.
Tamigniaux, T. L. B., Stark, S. E., and Brune, G. W., "An Experimental Investigation of the
Insect Shielding Effectiveness of a Krueger Flap/Wing Airfoil Configuration," AIAA Paper
No. 87-2615-CP, August 1987.
26. Bragg, M. B., and Maresh, J. L., "A Numerical Method to Predict the Effect of Insect
Contamination on Airfoil Drag," Ohio State University A&A Engineering Report, AARL
86-01, March 1986.
78
Appendix A
Geometry Comparisons Between the HLFC and the 757 Wings
This appendix presents comparisons of airfoil contours between the basic Boeing 757 wing and the
modified HLFC test section at 10 spanwise stations from WBL 270 to WBL 513.
The x coordinates are body station values, and the z coordinates are measured vertically from the wing
definition plane. The units are inches for both.
The dashed lines are the original 757 prof'rles, while the solid lines show the HLFC contours.
79
I
,q.
m
o
O
O
o
O
.o
b
¢D O
O
O
O_
ii °_
x P,.
I
|
I
I
I
I
I
O
I I I I O
r_
O_
O O O
O CO _D
N
N N
80
Z
f
8 _
x
o× _
/ 0
0 0 0 _
0
81
o
o
o
X
i°
c_
0 0 0
o ¢0 _1_
82
z
O
O
04
I
|
i
I
i
I m
I
I
I
I
I
m
O _
_O
N
N
83
m
°_
o
m
•- "_3
I
I
I
0
I
|
|
I
|
I
I n
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
0
0
0 0
0 CO
84
!
o_
C_
...I
C_
C_
0
_r
C_ 0
.r-
C_d
C_
v- o
f _
_) (0 GO r-.. i,,. C_
v-. (_
r_
85
3E
Z
0
03
O
0 0
O
/ 0
O_
_0
X
X
0
CO
C_
|
| 0
I
| 0
|
0
I
| m 0
$ 0
u')
m 0
1,-
___ i ] i 0
co
0
0 0
0 ¢0 _D
86
o
c_
$
O
$
o O
o
l l 1 o
o
I O
04 _,- o O
o
c_
N N
87
0
b.
x
X
.==j _,,
-t.= ._/
0
0
88
Z
O
/
O
o
CO
,_
x
x
O
(D
c_
CP
O
p
O
,e-
C3
l Q
O O
O
O cO r.D
N
f_l
89
9O
Appendix B
Normal Cuts of HLFC Airfoil Sections
The nose radius of a profile taken in a plane normal to the wing leading edge is the dominant parameter
determining the velocity gradient normal to the attachment line, which is required for evaluation of the
attachment line boundary layer momentum thickness.
This appendix shows normal cuts of the HLFC leading edge at three locations on the HLFC test panel.
They are at outboard slat stations (OSS) 322, 441, and 562, as indicated in figure B-1.
91
OSS. in
c= 236 in
c = 173in
c = 144 in
Figure B- 1. Locations of Normal Cuts
92
0 CO r_D c_ 0 _r
N
93
m _
_O
c_
O
94
0
-- 0
I I I I I I I
0
° 9 T
N
g5
96
Appendix C
Leading Edge Radius
This appendix presents a comparison between the leading edge radii of the basic 757 wing and the
modified HLFC wing over the span of the test panel.
97
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
HLFC LE
._¢
.=_.
1.6
ELI
.,J
J
8
J
1.2
J
% S
_ 757-200
0.8
ee
0.4
0
I l I I I
260 300 340 38O 420 460 5O0 54O
WBL, in
fC30668-O15M
Figure C-1. Leading Edge Radius Comparison
98
Appendix D
Pressure Distributions at the Design Condition
This appendix shows calculated pressure coefficient distributions at the design condition (Mach 0.80 at CL
= 0.50) at 10 spanwise stations on the HLFC test panel, from WBL 270 to WBL 513. Each figure shows
CPs for the entire section plus an expanded-scale plot covering the forward 28% of the chord.
99
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 27O
--0.8
-0.4
Cp
0
0.08 O.12 0.20 0.24 0.28
XOC
0.4
0.8
N30668.016M
Figure D-1. Calculated Cp Distribution at CL = 0.50, Mach = 0.80, WBL 270
100
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
0,4 B
0.8
-1.2
WBL 290
--0.8
-0.4
Cp
XOC
0.4
0.8
Figure D-2. Calculated Cp Distribution at C L = 0.50, Mach -- 0.80, I/VBL 290
101
-1.2
-0.8
--'0.4
Cp
0.4
0.8
-1,.2
WBL 311
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
0 I___ I L
0.08 0.12 0.24 0.28
0.4
0.8
_18M
Figure O-3. Calculated Cp Distribution at CL = 0.50, Mach = 0.80, WBL 311
102
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
I
0 .2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 334
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
I I I I
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.24 0.28
XOC
0.4
0.8
103
-1.2
Cp
XOC
.2 0.4 0.6_.0
0.4
0.8
WBL 360
Cp
1 l I 1
0.04 0.08 O.12 0.20 0.24 0.28
XOC
N30868-O20M
104
-1.2
--0,8
-0.4
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 387
.,-0.8
-0.4
Cp
1 1 i J.
0.04 0.08 O.112 O.1 0.24 0.28
XOC
0.4
0.8
Figure D-6. Calcu/ated Cp Distribution at CL = 0.50, Mach = 0.80, WBL 387
105
-1.2
Cp
-1.2
WBL 416
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
0
• ° ° ° . °
0.4
0.8
N30668-O22M
Figure D-7. Calculated Cp Distribution at C L = 0.50, Mach = 0.80, WBL 416
106
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 447
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
_.t
0.12 0.16 0.24 0.28
XOC
0.4
0.8
N3C_oSC_3M
107
-1.2
--0.8
-0.4
Cp
0.4 XOC 0.6 _ _.0
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 479
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
I I I I I
0.24 0.28
C
0.4
0.8
N30668-O2
4M
108
-1.2
-0.8
-.0.4
Cp
I
0.4 0.8 1.0
XOC
0.4
0.8
-1.2
WBL 513
-0.8
-0.4
Cp
I I I I
0.12 0.16 0.24 0.28
XOC
0.4
0.8
N30688-O25M
Figure D-I O. Calculated Cp Distribution at C L = 0.50, Mach = 0.80, WBL 513
109
110
Appendix E
Isobar Plots for the HLFC Test Panel
This appendix presents computer-generated isobar plots for the HLFC test panel at the design condition,
Mach 0.80 at C L = 0.50.
Figures E-1 and E-2 show upper and lower surface isobars on the fight wing planform on the airplane,
although the left wing was actually modified. Figure E-3 shows isobars projected on the developed wing
upper surface near the leading edge. Figure E-4 shows the same data in enlarged format, this time plotted
for the left wing, over a narrow portion near the attachment line.
111
/
o
_D
"O
o g
co
w m
0
Lo
u') II
w'_ m
j= II
m u k. cO
m s,.
__o- i c_
II
o
Q.
0
q)
q)
_J
o
co
o
oJ
0
o
0 0
o)
8 o 0 0 °J
u!'V.LS8
112
0
t4_
0
O,,,f
II
I!
C,
_r
'_r
m-
.,,J ¢_
¢3
to
C,
/
/
I o
0
0
0 0 0 0 8 0 C_
O) o_
u_'V.LSB
113
0
i
Z
ICl
°
IIi
i_(I)
m 0
q)
,.._-_'_<_/ " d li)
00
0. d
0
9
I,il
I ft
0 _0
0 L'3 0
u! ,(o$) e6pe 6u!pltel ol leUilOU eoelins 5uote eoutls._ 0
114
:E
G)
!
z
C)
q)
/
u)
(b
Q)
03
C_
LU
_. _ /
o
o
u! '(°s) eSpe Bu!pee I o_ leUUOU eoejJns 5UOle eouels!(3
115
116
Appendix F
Boundary Layer Growth on the HLFC Test Surface
This appendix presents the calculated growth of the laminar boundary layer at three sections within the
HLFC test panel: WBL 290, WBL 387, and WBL 479. These data pertain to the nominal design
condition, M = 0.80, CL = 0.50 at 39,000-ft altitude. Figure F-1 shows the boundary layer velocity
thickness, 8, that is, the distance from the surface to the point where the velocity is 99% of the potential-
flow value. Figure F-2 shows the displacement thickness, 8*. Both are plotted against arc length on the
airfoil surface divided by local wing chord.
117
0.012 I
WBL 387
WBL 479
0.008
,,I¢ 0.006
0.004 i
0.002
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
S/C
Boundary Layer Velocity Thickness
N30668-O30M
118
0.005
WBL 387
WBL 290 t"
I
0.004
• WBL479
::::S:::
0.003
to
0.002
0.001
I I I I I
0.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
#c
N30668-031M
Figure F-2. Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness
119
120
Appendix G
Detailed Results of Boundary Layer Stability Calculations
This appendix contains computer-generated plots summarizing the stability calculations at six spanwise
stations, WBL 270, 311,360, 416, 447, and 513, at the nominal design condition of Mach 0.80, at CL =
0.50 and 39000-ft altitude.
For each station, the following are plotted against s/c:
a. Static pressure over the first 20% of the wing upper surface arc length, s/c, and the suction
distribution applied.
b. Crossflow disturbance amplification factors, NCF, for a range of wave numbers, _F, at zero
frequency.
c. ToUmien-Schlichting disturbance amplification factors, NTS, for a range of frequencies, (O,'TS), at

50-deg wave angle.
In addition, there are--
d. Contour plots of CF amplification factors, NCF = f(_F, s/c).
e. Contour plots of TS amplification factors, NTS = f(t-oTS, s/c).
f. Comparison of CF and TS amplification factors with the transition criterion.
121
200
3OO
50O
6OO
I I I I
7000 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
SOC
16
12
,i-.
x
e-
tO
E 8
¢t
0
tO
C
0
tO
t_
tO
0
,.J 4
o 1
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
SOC
Figure G-1. External Pressure and Suction Distn'butions, WBL 290
122
10
r A
N
/X
I
I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
XOC
Figure G-2. Crossflow Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290
123
z
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC
Figure G-3. Tollmien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290
_.O34M
124
1,400
D.5
1,200
1,000
800
6
Z
>-
z
6OO
4O0
2OO
0
I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC
Figure G-4. Contour Plot of CF Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290
125
6,000
0.5
4,000
(.1
¢,. 3.0
3.5
2,000
0 f I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
xoc
Figure G-5. Contour Plot of TS Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 290
126
O
OJ
¢0
¢JD
-¢
¢3
C_
¢0
CO
=o
¢O
q¢
O4
I I I
-¢ O
SJ-N
127
2OO
300
4OO
o
..J
o..
500
6O0
7oo I I I I
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 o.2
SOC
16
12
"6
_,o
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 o.2

SOC
Figure G-7. Extema/ Pressure and Suction Distn'bu_'ons, WBL 31 1

N30668-O38M
128
3
z
0 o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

XOC
N30668-O39M
129
z 2
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

xoc
130
1200
1200
1000
800
NCF
Wave No.
600
400
2O0
I I I I I
0.7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC
Figure G- I O. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 311 N30668-CK1M
131
6OOO
4000 --
NTS
Frequency
2000 --
0
I I I I I I
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7
XOC
Figure G- 11. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 311
N30_O42M
132
°
I 0
0
o_ d
l--
Z
133
200.
400.
PLOC0
Ib/ft 2
500.
600.
I I I I
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 2
SOC
12.
Local
Coefficient,
Cq I 8.
(x1;4)
4.
0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
soc
Figure G- 13. Externa/ Pressure And Suction Distributions
N3(_¢_-044
M
134
NFC
1.
I
o 0.5 0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
XOC
Figure G-14. Crossflow Disturbance Aplffication Factors, WBL 360

N30668-045M
135
10.
9. m
8, I
7. m
6. B
NTS
4°
O°
0 O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC N30G_O44_Vl
136
2OOO
1800 --
1600 --
1400 --
1200 --
NCF
Wave 1000
No.
8OO
60O
I I
0.5 0.6
Figure G-16. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 360
137
2OOO
1800
1600
1400
1200
IOO0
NTS
Frequency
Unit
800
60O
40O
2OO
o I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.5
XOC N30_=8,,O47M
Figure G-17. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amp#t'cation Factors, WBL 360
138
Z
¢O
(D
c-
.,,..1
¢-
k-
e- °_
o
-t-
o
°.,.
¢-
0 o
o
O I"
I O4
O O
o3 LO O
O-
" -o- -0- - -_- -
1 O
O4 O
¢¢) ,,_
O4 0
s±N
139
200.
300.
400,
PLOC
Ib/ftz
500.
600.
7o0 I I I I
0 004 oo8 0,2 016 0.2
SOC
16.
12.
Suction
8.
xlO 4
4.
i
I I I
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
SOC
N30_8-0$0M
Figure G-19. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 416
140
3.
2,
1.
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 O.b

XOC N3OSSS-OS_M
Figure G-20. Crossflow Disturbance Amplifi_:_tion Factors, WBL 416
141
6.0
5.0
4.0
NTS 3.0
2.0
1.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
XOC
N30668-052M
Figure G-21. Tollien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416
142
1600
0.5
1400
1200
1000
80O
d
Z
i
u.
r_
z
6O0
400
0
I I I I I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0
XOC
Figure G-22. Contour Plot of CF Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416

N,30668-0_
143
80OO
6OOO
i 40O0
¢o
}-
z
2OOO
I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
XOC
Figure G-23. Contour Plot of TS Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 416

N_O6SS.0S4M
144
0
==
¢,D
"0
r-
..Q
lb
"0
e-.
0
_z_
I---
t-
O
..-
m
-e-
e"
0
e-.
I--
o
o
,q-
S.L N
145
200.
300.
400.
PLOC,
Ib/ft 2
500.
600.
700.
I I I I
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
SOC
Local
suction
ooefficient, 8o
Cq1
(xl04)
4°
0
0 .o4 .08 .12 .16 .2
soc
Figure G-25. External Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 447
N30SSa-0SOM
146
3.
2.
NCF
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC

N30668-O56M
147
6.
5. m
4o
NTS
3.
0 ! I I
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC
Figure G-27. Tol/mein-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 447

N30668..O57M
148
1400
1200
1000
800
d
Z
6OO
4OO
20O
0
I I I I I I
0./
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0
XOC
Figure G-28. Control Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 447
N30668-0S_U
149
6000
4000 --
z O°
2000 -- '3.5
I I I I I I
0 o 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
XOC
Figure G-29. Contour Plotof T-S Disturbance AmplificationFactors WSL 447
N30_M
150
o
co
(D
v-.
h_
_=
"0
t-
o
G0
z'_
c-
o
-t--
t'-
I""
o '¢
o
o
"'T"
I
0_1
I m d _'
o o,i
ur)
o -..,0" "'
0 ? I
'_r
I
¢xl o
0
SIN
151
2OO
3OO
6OO
7OO I I I I
o 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
SOC
16
I I
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16
SOC
Figure G-31. Extema/ Pressure and Suction Distributions, WBL 513

N30668-O62M
152
1
0 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
XOC

N30668-0SaM
153
or)
p-
Z
I
0o 0.1
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
XOC
FTgure G-33. Tollmien-Schlichting Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513

N30668.-064M
154
16oo
3.0
I
1400
1200
lOO0
6
Z
LI.
o
z
.o
0.5
I I I
O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
XOC
Figure G-34. Contour Plot of C-F Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513
N3OSSS-OSSM
155
8OOO
6OOO
0.5
0.5
®
,ooo
I-- 3.0
z
200O
I I 1 I I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
xoc
Figure G-35. Contour Plot of T-S Disturbance Amplification Factors, WBL 513
N30668,,O66M
156
O
t_
Z
CD
tO
.q.
t_
t.I
C4
c-
O
e-
Z _
C
0
*e-
0
Z O
C4
d
0 0
m
0
J. J .L o
0
v-- o
157
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE _
OMR N_ lTI/34-Of,RR
Publicreportingburdenfor thiscollectionof informationis estimatedto average 1 hourpet _ Including the time Io reviewingin_ search_g e_dlalngdata
sources,_,.thed_.,and rna_tatnin_ IN) da.la.needed, and oonplet_, and r_ewin_ the _l_Ji0n of intormatton:S_d oommests mgafdmngIh_ burden _estmmeor _ other
aspectot thisoo,eaion ov_onnation, inmud_'_g suggeslionsvor reouoing this burden, towuhmgton I-_dquaners _ervices, _remonu TOrJraonnationOperationsarm
Reports. 1215 Jefferson DavisHighway, Suite 1204, Aatington,VA 22202-4302, andto _e Officeof Managementand Budget,PaperworkReductionProject (0704-01B8),
Washlr_ton, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave b/ank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
April 1999 Contractor Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS
High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC)

Flight Experiment C NAS1-18574
1I. Aerodynamic Design
6. AUTHOR(S) WU 522-32-31-01
Boeing Commerical Airplane Group
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

P. O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADORESS{ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASAJCR-1999-209324
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Langley Technical Monitor: Fayette S. Collier, Jr.
Point of Contact: Ronald D. Joslin
I_L DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY
STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category 02 Distribution: Nonstandard
Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 wopds)
This document describes the aerodynamic design of an experimental hydrid laminar flow control (HLFC) wing
panel intended for use on a Boeing 757 airplane to provide a facility for flight research on high Reynolds
number HLFC and to demonstrate practical HLFC operation on a full-scale commercial transport airplane. The
design consists of revised wing leading edge contour designed to produce a pressure distribution favorable to
laminar flow, definition of suction flow requirements to laminariz¢ the boundary layer, provisions at the inboard
end of the test panel to prevent attachment-line boundary layer transition, and a Krueger leading edge flap that
serves both as a high lift device and as a shield to prevent insect accretion on the leading edge when the airplane
is taking off or landing.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Laminar Flow Control, Boundary Layer Suction, LFC, Flight Experiment 1'72
16. PRICE CODE
A08
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. I_::_UIS I Y GL.A,,_ I_A I I1.1_1 lS. ,_J'GUHI I "itGLA,.H,sn-ICAIIUfl 20. UM ITAIK,]ItN
OF I:IEPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL
N,._N 7540"01-280"r'_SOU _ulnollro Porto 298 (Hey. 2,.89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z-39-18
298-102
158

NASA - CR-1999-209324 - B757 HLFC & Slat Design - Boeing

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NASA - CR-1999-209324 - B757 HLFC & Slat Design - Boeing

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington

National Aeronautics and

Langley Research Center Prepared for Langley Research Center

1.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 3

6.0 Leading Edge Device Aerodynamic Design ..................................................................... 61

8.0 References ......................................................................................................................... 77

G-18 Application of Transition Criterion, WBL 360 .......................................................... 135

The program was conducted by the Advanced Development Aerodynamics organization

Ao Disturbance amplitude at neutral stability point

c Wing chord (local),

CRM Airplaneroilingmoment coefficient

c1, Local pressure coefficient

cQ Total suction flow coefficient (referred to suction panel reference area)

h Altitude,ft,or surfacewave height,in

Reynolds number based on wing chord

R1 Unit Reynolds number, V/v, ft"I

R0al Attachment-lineReynolds number, W0al)/V

q Dynamic pressure,pV2/2, Ib/ft

Q Suction volume flow rate, ft3/s

S Srreamwise distance from attachment line along wing surface, ft

S Wing reference area, ft 2

Ssp Suction panel reference area, fi2

U Velocity component normal to the leading edge, ft/s

Vw Equivalent suction inflow velocity (uniformly distributed ), fffs

V Velocity component parallel to free stream, ft/s

¢¢ Suction weight flow, lb/s

Ysp Spanwise length of suction panel, fi

¢Z Disturbance wave number, ft "1

g Angle of side slip, deg

8 Boundary layer velocity thickness, ft, or Krueger flap deflection, deg

8* Boundary layer displacement thickness, ft

0 Boundary layer momentum thickness, fi

n Fractional semispan location

A Wing sweepback angle

V Kinematic viscosity (I_/P), fi-lb-s/slug

Time rate of change

e Edge of the boundary layer

w Condition at the wall

BSTA Body station

CFD Computational fluid dynamics

HLFC Hybrid laminar flow control

MAC Mean aerodynamic chord

NLF Natural laminar flow

OSS Outboard slat station

USS Unified Stability System

UWAL University of Washington Aeronautical Laboratory

WBL Wing buttock line

The aerodynamic design comprises---

a. A revised wing contour designed to produce a pressure distribution favorable to laminar

do Geometric design and experimental verification of the effectiveness of a Krueger

The predictedtotalsuctionflow coefficient (CQ) at thedesign condition(M = 0.80 and CL = 0.50

a. Perform high Reynolds number flight research on HLFC.

b. Obtain data on the effectiveness of HLFC on a large, high-subsonic-speed transport

c. Develop and demonstrate practical design concepts for HLFC systems.

2.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

The program effort consisted of---

2.4 BOEING 757 WING DESCRIPTION

i 155 ft, 2.9 it, ._J

l_ft, 2 in l_rft _'__ / _'_ft

124 ft, 6.3 i,,

CQ = total suction coefficient = (total suction mass fiow)/pVSsp,