The Flight Template

A tool for
Optimization of sailplane aerodynamics
at preliminary design stage
for cross country flight

Prepared and presented by
Matthieu Scherrer
Contents
Introduction
Aerodynamic in sailplane optimization

Flight template Theory
Flight template concept & determination

Using Flight Templates
For airfoil selection
For AR selection
For airfoil optimization

Conclusion
Introduction
Optimizing according flight history
We should optimize the sailplane according to
its use during a cross country flight :
h(t) V(t)
Climbing
straight flight
Sailplane optimization
Sailplane performance is not only aerodynamics :
This is a mixing between mass (ballast capability) and
aerodynamics aspects.
A method is proposed, that put aerodynamics aspect
of performance in a nutshell .
-5
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
50 100 150 200 250
V (km/h)
V
z

(
m
/
s
)
50kg/m
30kg/m
40kg/m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.025 0.05 0.075
CD
C
L
Speed polars for different
wing loading
correspond to one single
equivalent aerodynamic
polar
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1/sqrt(CL)
C
D
/
C
L
^
1
.
5
and one drag polar.
Performance for the pilot...
...performance for the designer.
The aerodynamic designer
dilemna 1/3
What would be great to do

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
CD
C
L
Decrease drag
-> straight flight
Increase maximum lift
-> climbing
The aerodynamic designer
dilemna 2/3
and what is possible to do
You cannot win on all the aerodynamic topics
There is always an exchange rate
-> what is best at the end ?
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
CD
C
L
Given what is possible to do, what is the best between :

An aerodynamic behavior that favors climbing ?

An aerodynamic behavior that favors straight flight ?

This is a compromise : we have to quantify how many
of each aerodynamic component we should have
(like a recipe)

There is a need for a cost function, that gives a figure
representative for the global performance.
The aerodynamic designer
dilemna 3/3
Flight Template theory
Flight template theory
Drag is the force that flies the sailplane down :
-> we should try to minimize power absorbed by drag
Airspeed
Lift
Drag
Weight
No more explicit time dependency
Time depandancy embodied by the Flight template

L L t L L D
dC C f C V C C
S
P
}
=
range C
3
L
) ( ) ( ) (
2

) (
~
1
) (
L
L
L t
C
dC
t d
T
C f =
dt t V t C
T
S
T
dE
P
D
}
}
= =
Flight
3
) ( ) (
2

dt C SV Vdt D dE
D
3
2 / 1 = =
Time dependant
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l


t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n


Flight template interpretation
Building & interpreting flight template
Speed history
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100
t (s)
V
a

(
k
m
/
h
)
CL history
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
t (s)
C
L
CL history
Re-ordered CL history
dCL
dt
Flight template
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
CL
f
t
(
C
L
)
ft(CL=1)= 1/T*dt/dCL(CL=1)
= 1/100*9/.1
= 0.9
Speed history
C
L
history
ft(C
L
)
= density of each CL
during the flight
) (
1
) (
L
L
L t
C
dC
dt
T
C f =
Performance cost function

For a reasonnably calm flight :

With a function of wing loading

At the end, power dissipated by drag is expressed as :
L
C
V
V
1
=
S
m
h
g
h
S
m
V
) (
2
,
1

=
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2 / 3
3
1
2
L
D
C
C SV
P

L L t
L
L D
L
D
dC C f
C
C C
C
C
}
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
range C
2 / 3 2 / 3
L
) (
) (
Aerodynamically relevant cost function =
Weighted C
D
/C
L
3/2
Aerodynamics aspects
Wing loading aspects
How to get a Flight Template ?
GPS recording is widely used : we can easily get the history of
a flight.
C
L
is extracted from :
( )
2
2
1
) (
,
) ( ) (
W t V
h
S
m
V
t Nz t C
L

|
.
|

\
|
=
S
m
h
g
h
S
m
V
) (
2
,
1

= |
.
|

\
|
2
1
cos
1

|
|
.
|

\
| +
= =
g
V
Nz

|
Speed history
Sailplane mass
(from path)
Wind estimation
) (
1
) (
L
L
L t
C
dC
dt
T
C f =
Selected flight template examples
Path color Wing loading Scoring Starting airfield
Pink 41kg/m 464km Nogaro LFCN
Blue 33kg/m 227km Moissac LFCX
Brown 31kg/m 167km Bourg Saint Bernard LFIT
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
V
F
T
(
V
)
Denis (454km) Matthieu (227km) Adrien (167km)
3 Pegasus glider
Selected flight template examples
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
V
F
T
(
V
)
Denis (454km) Matthieu (227km) Adrien (167km)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
CL
F
T
(
C
L
)
Denis (454km) Matthieu (227km) Adrien (167km)
Transcription
from speed to C
L
reduces dispersion between
flights, pilots, flying days,
sailplanes, etc
Envelope Flight template strategy
0 0.5 1 1.5
CL
F
T
(
C
L
)
Enveloppe Flight Template
Using Flight Templates
For airfoil selection
For AR selection
For airfoil optimization
Xfoil calculations (GNU licence)
2D calculation, from airfoil geometry
Boundary layer & transition modeling
Direct & indirect design capabilities
Airfoil computation
Calculated airfoils
Airfoil Sailplane
E603 (public)
Astir, Twin Astir
FX S 02-196 (public)
LS1c/d,
standard cirrus
HQ300 (public)
(DG --- ?)
OAP-1 (from photo)
Pegase
HX83N80 (from photo)
Discus B
Duo Discus
Calculated drag polars
Computed drag polar for various airfoils
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
CD
C
L
Eppler E603 (public)
FX S 02-196 (public)
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Discus (from photo)
Xfoil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Sorting airfoils
with Flight template
Computed CD/CL^1.5 polar for various airfoils
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
CD/CL^1.5
C
L
Eppler E603 (public)
FXS 02-196 (public)
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Discus (from photo)
Xfoil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Weighted CD/CL^1.5 polar for various airfoils
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
CD
C
L
Eppler E603 (public)
FX S 02-196 (public)
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Discus (from photo)
Xfoil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Envelope Flying
Template
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.5 1
FT
C
L
X
=
Sorting airfoils
with Flight template
Weighted CD/CL^1.5 polar for various airfoils
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
CD
C
L
Eppler E603 (public)
FX S 02-196 (public)
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Discus (from photo)
Xfoil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Detail of weighted
polar
as function of C
L
Final cost function value

-> Discus airfoil is the best
airfoil according to this criteria

L L t
L
L D
L
D
dC C f
C
C C
C
C
}
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
range C
2 / 3 2 / 3
L
) (
) (

0.0100 0.0110 0.0120 0.0130 0.0140 0.0150 0.0160 0.0170 0.0180
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
FX S 02-196 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Eppler E603 (public)
Discus (from photo)
Using Flight Templates
For airfoil selection
For AR selection
For airfoil optimization
MIAReX
Non linear extended lifting line
Coupled with Xfoil
Quick and accurate computation
Wing computation
Local 2,5D characteristics
Alpha polars
If AR is augmented with fixed span :
Induced drag is reduced
Airfoil drag is increased






Global result as integrated over
polar needed.
AR effect 1/2
CDi(CL) & CDairfoil(CL)
Discus case
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
CD
C
L
CDi for Discus AR=28.5
CDi for Discus AR=21.6 (Baseline)
CDi for Discus AR=17.3
CDairfoil for Discus AR=28.5
CDairfoil for Discus AR=21.6 (Baseline)
CDairfoil for Discus AR=17.3
Cost function values as function of AR
AR effect 2/2
From Thomas F,
Fundamental of Sailplane Design
Cost function as function of AR
(modified Discus wing)
0.95
0.975
1
1.025
1.05
1.075
15 20 25 30 35
AR
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

c
o
s
t

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n

v
a
l
u
e

Baseline (Discus)
Quasi optimum geometry
0,5%
Aerodynamic only optimum
Using Flight Templates
For airfoil selection
For AR selection
For airfoil optimization
Numerical optimisation
Drag Polar
Aerodyn. Calc.
- Xfoil (2D)
- MIAReX
(2.5D)
Geometry
parametrization
Weighting
by
flight
template
0.0145
Optimized
Geometry
Optimizer
Optimization
criteria
Cost function
value
Airfoil geometry
Relative thickness fixed
Relative camber, position of thickness
& position of camber to be optimized together (warping)
Max thickness
shifted backward
Max thickness
shifted forward
Camber
increased
Max camber
shifted backward
Max camber
shifted forward
Original airfoil
A new geometry was found by the optimizer
Result of the optimization 1/2
Original
Airfoil
Modified
Airfoil
Relative
thickness
15.80% 15.80%
Position of
maximum
thickness
41.00% 33.60%
Relative
camber
3.71% 3.29%
Position of
maximum
camber
45.30% 43.80%
Cost function
value
0.01467457 0.01452589 - Decambered
- Camber moved forward
- Thickness moved forward
Result of the optimization 2/2
Computed drag polar
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
CD
C
L
Discus Airf oil
Modif ied Discus airf oil
Xf oil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Weighted CD/CL^1.5 polar
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
CD/CL^1.5
C
L
Discus Airf oil
Modif ied Discus airf oil
Xf oil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Aerodynamic characteristics
of the optimized airfoil
0.01467457
0.01452589
- Narrower laminar range
- Higher C
Lmax
-

Lower Cm
0
Conclusion

Sailplane Optimization
Using science

to make pilots happy

Conclusion 1/3
A new tool is proposed : the Flight template
0 0.5 1 1.5
CL
F
T
(
C
L
)
Enveloppe Flight Template
Treatment of many flight recording
had led to the definition of an
Envelope Flight template.

This represents a statistically relevant
program of a typical cross country flight
Aerodynamic optimization can be easily performed
with this new tools

Airfoil selection and sorting




Multipoint wing optimization




Airfoil numerical optimization

Aerodynamic only optimization
Conclusion 2/3
Computed drag polar for various airfoils
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
CD
C
L
Eppler E603 (public)
FXS 02-196 (public)
HQ-300GD-mod2 (public)
OAP1 (from photo)
Discus (from photo)
Xfoil Re*CL^(1/2)=1 250 000
Cost function as function of AR
(modified Discus wing)
0.95
0.975
1
1.025
1.05
1.075
15 20 25 30 35
AR
R
e
l a
t i v
e
c
o
s
t f u
n
c
t i o
n
v
a
l u
e

Baseline (Discus)
Conclusion 3/3
Way forward :

Using the Flight template for computing
aerodynamic performance, coupled with other
disciplines for a multidisciplinary optimization
process.

Objective : optimizing the sailplane as a whole
thing, and not only its aerodynamic.
Questions ?
Have nice flights !

Matthieu.scherrer@free.fr