Fuselage

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Effect of fuselage diameter on aerodynamic characteristics for straight


wing at low and high aspect ratio
To cite this article: H C Lai and N M Kamaruddin 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 370 012055

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 178.171.67.190 on 01/06/2018 at 13:49


International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

Effect of fuselage diameter on aerodynamic characteristics for


straight wing at low and high aspect ratio

H C Laia) and N M Kamaruddinb)


School of Aerospace Engineering, Engineering Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
14300 Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia

b)
Corresponding author: fazreena@usm.my

Abstract. A computational code has been developed to investigate the effect of fuselage
diameter with a combination of a straight wing on the aerodynamic characteristics. The case
studies were performed on both wing-body combination at high wing aspect ratio (AR>4) and
low wing aspect ratio (AR<4). The Prandtl’s Lifting Line Theory (LLT) and Helmbold’s Panel
Method (HPM) were used to determine the wing lift and drag characteristics while Roskam’s
Drag Prediction Method (RDPM) was used to compute the fuselage drag. The computed lift
and drag coefficients obtained were then compared to verify the reliability of the computational
results. It is found that a larger fuselage diameter contributes to the increment of the total drag
of the wing-body combination without significant effect on the lift. The lift is mainly
contributed by the wing for both low and high aspect ratio straight wing for low subsonic case.

1. Introduction
In an aircraft design process, each component of the aircraft must be optimized to achieve maximum
performance. The most ideal condition in the design process in terms of aerodynamic is the aircraft
should have a maximum production of lift and minimum production of drag to improve the efficiency.
Hence, it is important to take into account of every surfaces, parts or components of the aircraft that
contributes to the aerodynamic performance. The importance of lift and drag for an aircraft are
significant to the overall flight performance. The wing generally contributes the most in terms of lift of
the aircraft. However, every single part of the aircraft such as fuselage also contributes to the overall
lift, albeit small. Fuselage is the main body structure of an aircraft which holds all the smaller parts
such as wings, canards, empennage and landing gears together. It also consists of the cockpit,
passenger compartment (cabin) and cargo compartment. Thus, designing a fuselage is neither easy nor
simple task, especially for a civil aircraft as the passengers comfort must also be taken into account
while sizing it and the fuselage covers a large area of an aircraft which most likely contributes to most
of the drag. To minimize the effect of this problem, fuselage is usually designed to be streamlined
shape to minimize the pressure drag.
In this article, the effect of wing-body combination on aerodynamic characteristics is studied and
discussed, where the wing-body combination is the combination of fuselage and wing. The lift of the
wing-body combination is not simply the addition of the lift of wing and lift of body alone, but the
flow field across the whole wing-body has to be taken into consideration. The main objective of this
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

project is to investigate the effect of fuselage diameter for both straight wing for high AR and low AR
on the aerodynamic characteristics. A MATLAB program is constructed to aid the study performed.
The program is capable to compute the lift and drag for the wing-body combination and provides the
comparison for different fuselage diameter. The program is also capable to assist an aircraft designer
to perform the sensitivity analysis on aerodynamics characteristics for a wing-body combination when
sizing a fuselage.

2. Literature Review
As the fuselage is a very important component in an aircraft and it poses a huge effect on the overall
aircraft aerodynamic characteristics, many studies and researches are performed to study the fuselage
design and also the wing-body combination of the aircraft on its aerodynamics characteristics. Some
of the studies are carried out on the in-service aircraft in order to predict and improve its aerodynamic
performance. These researches are essential as any findings will help in the overall aircraft
aerodynamics characteristics and its performance.
The Commercial Aeronautics Sector is well aware that there is a need in fulfilling the society’s
needs meanwhile reducing the environmental impact and global warming. A balancing between the
public’s requirement of cheaper fares and the competition of economic infrastructure is hard to
achieve without any significant improvements. Abbas and colleagues [1] had developed new aircraft
combinations with laminar and turbulent drag reduction technologies and flow control devices to
improve the aircraft performance under separated flow conditions of unsteady nature, also to reduce
the complexity of the high-lift devices. The main objective of his research is to reduce the induced
drag and noise.
The two basic parameters, namely lift and drag are crucial for the structural design of an aircraft.
Before building a real aircraft, it is desirable to know the approximation of the aircraft’s aerodynamics
properties. There are many software that are available in the market to perform simulation on the
designed aircraft. However, to achieve a more reliable results, wind tunnel test is usually
recommended. Ramon Lopez Pereira [2] from Linköpings University, Sweden had conducted the
validation of four different aerodynamic modelling software (Tornado, AVL, PANAIR and a
handbook-type preliminary method) by comparing the results obtained with experimental results using
wind tunnel. He found that the shape of the wing will caused some of the methods to have difficulties
in converging to valid results.
F. Nicolosi et.al. [3] had also performed a study on fuselage aerodynamics prediction methods. The
study is performed to develop a CFD-based method to predict longitudinal and lateral-directional
aerodynamic coefficients (drag, pitch and yaw) of and aircraft. This study carried out shows that about
30% of and aircraft zero lift drag source is attained to the fuselage. As aerodynamics characteristics
are strictly related and will affect the stability of the aircraft, it is vital to obtain a reliable aerodynamic
characteristic estimation to carry out a well-designed aircraft. The other group of researchers led by
Welstead [4] suggest that using vortex lattice method in aerodynamic characteristics prediction as it
produce a reasonably accurate estimation for the lift distribution, induced drag, and the moments for a
given planform.
As mentioned above, aerodynamics characteristics will have a direct impact on the aircraft
stability, thus, there are researches that are conducted in order to understand the effect of the
aerodynamics characteristics on the aircraft’s stability behavior. Walter and David [5] had performed
the study on the static longitudinal and lateral stability characteristics at low speed of unsweep mid-
wing with models of different AR. The research is done by conducting experiments in the Langley
stability wind tunnel where both aerodynamics and stability characteristics can be studied on the same
time.
In addition to that, Charles F. Hall [6] has also presented the results obtained from a wind tunnel
test experimenting on the thin, low aspect ratio wings in combination with a body at subsonic and
supersonic speed. The data obtained are lift, drag and pitching moment coefficients for varies Mach
number range from 0.25 to 1.9. Furthermore, a series of wing with different planform, aspect ratio,

2
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

thickness, thickness distribution, wing camber and twist in combination with the fuselage to perform
study on the wing-body combination. His research shows that wings with a sharp leading edge had a
lower value of minimum drag at supersonic speed.

3. Theory
To determine the lift curve slope for a straight finite wing, lifting line theory (LLT) is the most
common method, where lift curve slope of the finite wing, 𝑎 is given as:
𝑎 ( )
(1)

Where 𝑎 is the lift curve slope of the airfoil used for the finite wing while 𝑒 refers to the Oswald
efficiency factor which is a correction factor that is proportional to the square of wing lift, 𝐶L2, taking
into account the non-elliptical lift distribution on wings general shape [7, 8].
According to McCormick [9],
𝑒 (2)
The induced drag factor, 𝛿 is a function of aspect ratio (AR) and taper ratio (TR) which can be
obtained graphically. However, the value of 𝛿 available is limited up to AR of 10 only. TR is the ratio
of the tip chord to the root chord. It will affect the lift distribution and structural weight of the wing
[10]. A tapered wing helps to create lift distribution that is more similar to an elliptical lift distribution.
However, LLT is not capable to determine the lift curve slope for the wing in some cases where
AR < 4. Hence, modification is done on equation (1), making it into the Helmbold equation which is
applicable to low AR straight wing as shown below: [11]
𝑎 ⁄
(3)
( )

Induced drag coefficient, 𝐶𝐷0 for the wing can be determined directly using lift curve slope
because 𝐶𝐷0is directly proportional to the 𝐶𝐿2.
When the wing is attached to the fuselage, the fuselage contributes a large amount of drag to the
entire wing-body combination. Flow separation due the geometry of the fuselage is one of the source
of drag. Fuselage will contribute few types of drag which includes friction drag, interference drag,
form drag, base drag and induced drag [12].
There are several methods that are capable to compute the drag of the fuselage. The most common
method used is the Roskam’s Drag Prediction method where it suggest that the fuselage drag
coefficient is the summation of the fuselage zero-lift drag and drag due to lift. It can be represented
using the following equation [13]:
𝐶 𝐶 𝐶 (4)

where:
𝐶 = zero-lift drag coefficient of the fuselage
𝐶 = fuselage drag coefficient due to lift
As the fuselage drag is highly dependent on the fuselage geometry, its diameter and length will be
the main parameters that influence the fuselage drag. Hence, the equation below shows the equation
that used to model the zero-lift drag which is also the function of the fuselage geometry.

𝐶 𝐶 [ ( )] 𝐶 (5)
( )

where:
: Wing-fuselage interference factor

3
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

𝐶 : Turbulent flat plate skin-friction factor as a function of Mach number and the Re.
: Fuselage length
: Maximum fuselage diameter
: Wetted area of the fuselage
𝐶 : Fuselage base drag coefficient
Based on equation (5), in order to obtain a minimal fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient, its wetted
area should be minimized and fuselage fineness ratio should be maximized. Another term that will
affects the fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient is the base drag which is produce due to the presence of
base area of the fuselage. Figure 1 show the fuselage without base area and with base area. The
presence of base will leads to flow separation, where the larger the base area, the greater the base drag.

Figure 1. Example of fuselage without and with base area.

The base drag coefficient of the fuselage can be determined by using the equation below [13]:

( )
𝐶 { ⁄
} (6)
( )

where,
: Fuselage-base diameter
𝐶 : Zero-lift drag coefficient of fuselage exclusive of the base from equation (5)
: Fuselage maximum frontal area
From equation (6), the higher base diameter will leads to a greater base drag coefficient as it yields
a higher base area.
Similar to the wing, a fuselage will also experience drag that are due to lift. The drag due to lift
can be computed using the following equation:

( ) ( )
𝐶 (7)

where,
α: Fuselage angle of attack in radian
: Fuselage planform area
𝐶 : Experimental steady state cross-flow drag coefficient of a circular cylinder
η: Ratio of the drag of a finite cylinder to the drag of an infinite cylinder
Fuselage drag due to lift coefficient is relatively very small compare to the fuselage zero-lift drag.
Thus, in some cases, it is neglected as its value is not significant to the total drag of the fuselage.
However, it is taken into account for this project to achieve a more accurate computational result.
Although the individual lift of the fuselage is not calculated as its value is very small, the lift
generated by the entire wing-body is still been calculated. The lift curve slope of the wing-body
combination can be obtained by the equation below:

4
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

𝐶 𝐶 (8)

where,
𝐶 : Wing-fuselage (wing-body) lift curve
𝐶 : Wing lift curve slope
: Wing-fuselage interference factor
Lift curve slope of the wing-fuselage is the function of the lift curve slope of wing with the wing-
fuselage interference factor. This is because the flow across the wing and fuselage will interfere at the
position where wing is attached to the fuselage. The wing-fuselage interference factor can be obtained
by the equation:

( ) ( )

From equation 9, it can be agreed that diameter of fuselage and wingspan are the parameters that
will directly affects the lift-curve slope of wing-body.

4. Methodology
This article focuses on the effect of fuselage diameter on aerodynamic characteristics for straight wing
at both low and high AR. The chosen airfoil, NACA 65209 is analyzed for both low and high AR in
order to establish a consistent comparison. The AR that is used to perform the computation is 2 for
low AR case and 6 for high AR case while the Reynolds number (Re) are 100000 and 590000
respectively. Vary in Re is due to different chord length of the model for both cases. Other parameters
such as TR, wing span, Mach number, fuselage diameter, fuselage base diameter and fuselage length
are consistent for both cases, which are 0.6, 1.1025m, 0.13, 0.15m, 0.075m and 1.125m respectively.
The computation of wing-body combination’s aerodynamics characteristics are performed using
MATLAB, by constructing relevant coding to perform the simulation. LLT is applied to determine
the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing. Meanwhile, fuselage drag is computed by using
Roskam’s Drag Polar Prediction Method. The general idea of this method is basically summing up the
aircraft components that contributes to the drag. Wing-body lift is also calculated by using Roskam’s
Lift Prediction Method and is compare with lift produced by wing alone.
After obtaining all the results, it is compared with established journal results to verify the accuracy
of computed result. Similar to all the values of coefficients that are graphically presented, the
established journal result data was extracted by using WebPlotDigitizer and plotted in the same graph
with analytical result to the ease of comparison.

5. Results
In this article, two case study are performed. The first case study is performed on low AR NACA
65209 wing (AR=2) and wing-body combination at Re=106. The outcome of the program is as shown
as below.
Referring to figure 2, it shows that lift coefficient for wing and wing-body combination have
almost the same lift slope. However, zooming into the graph, it can be seen that the wing body lift
curve slope is slightly lower than the wing. This is because the lift of the wing is calculated separately
using LLT which considering only the wing itself. Thus, in the wing-body combination where part of
the wing is embedded in the fuselage as attachment, the area of the lifting surfaces decrease leading to
the decrease in lift produced by the wing, and the fuselage does not produced any lift in this case,
causing the lift generated by the wing-body combination is less than the wing. It can be agreed that
the lift of wing-body combination is simply from the wing.
Fuselage contributes significant amount of zero-lift drag as it consists of skin friction drag and
pressure drag which due to flow separation. Hence, it can be clearly seen in figure 3 that wing body

5
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

combination has a higher drag coefficient compare to wing alone. The difference of drag coefficient of
the wing-body combination and the wing indicates the amount of drag produced by the fuselage.

Figure 2. Breakdown of lift coefficient of wing Figure 3. Breakdown of drag coefficient of wing
body combination for low AR. body combination for low AR.

Since the effect of fuselage diameter on lift and drag coefficients is the main objective, the results
are clearly presented in figure 4 and figure 5. Figure 4 shows that the lift produced by wing-body
combination with different fuselage diameter is essentially constant. This is because the fuselage does
not produce any lift in this case, thus changing the fuselage diameter does not affect amount of lift
generated. Besides, the varying value is only the fuselage diameter while the wing parameter are kept
constant, thus the amount of lift generated by the wing at each wing-body combination is the same,
yielding the same results.

Figure 4. Lift coefficient of wing body Figure 5. Drag coefficient of wing body
combination with different fuselage diameter at combination with different fuselage diameter at
low AR. low AR.

The effect of fuselage diameter toward the drag coefficient can be seen in figure 5, where it shows
that the larger fuselage diameter experience higher drag coefficient. This is due to larger fuselage
diameter will has a greater surface and cross-sectional area, resulting in greater skin friction and
pressure drag. According to equation (5) and (6), fuselage drag coefficient is the function of fineness
ratio which is inversely proportional to the fuselage diameter. Fuselage drag coefficient will increases
as fineness ratio decreases. This indicates that the fuselage drag coefficient increases with fuselage
diameter.
In order to verify the results obtained from the program, comparison between the computational
results and published technical journal are done. The published journal results were experimental data
obtained by Walter D. W and David F. T., Jr. [5] are plotted together with the theoretical data and
presented in figure 6 and 7 for low AR case. However, the available data obtained from the journal is
only started from angle of attack at -4°.

6
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 6. Comparison of theoretical results with Figure 7. Comparison of theoretical results with
journal for lift coefficient against angle of attack journal for drag coefficient against angle of
with low aspect ratio. attack with low aspect ratio.

Referring to figure 6, the percentage difference of the experimental data with the computational
result is approximately 38.75%. The experimental data has a higher lift curve slope. One of the
reasons might be due to the airfoil data used in this study is NACA 65209 while the airfoil used in the
experiment is NACA 65A008 as there is no available data for the latter in the airfoil database. The
difference in thickness might influence the flow across the airfoil might delay the flow separation.
The other reason might due to the difference in Re. The Re used in the experiment is
while due the limitations of available airfoil data, the Re used to perform the computation is
. This might cause the computational results to lose some accuracy.
From figure 7, experimental result for wing-body drag coefficient is almost the same with the
computational result when the angle of attack is greater than 4°. It both results has a mean percentage
difference of 29.4%. This indicates the program is capable to compute drag for the wing-body
combination for low AR case. The difference of both results might due to the experiment is carried
out in the wind tunnel to simulate the real case of the flow. However, a lot of undesired disturbance
that is unpredictable might occur which has the tendency to affect the accuracy of the result. Besides,
the surface roughness of the prototype might contribute more skin friction drag as estimated.
The second case study is performed on high AR (AR = 6) of NACA 65209 wing and wing body
combination at Re=5.9 x 105. Similarly, the lift slope for wing-body combination is almost the same
lift slope for wing as shown in figure 8. The zoom in view of the graphs shows that the wing-body lift
curve slope is lower than the wing lift. The reason of this phenomenon is discussed had been
discussed in previous case.
Comparing figure 8 to figure 2 which is the low AR case, the lift curve slope for the high AR case
is higher. Based on LLT, high AR wing contributes to a higher finite wing lift slope. The physics
behind this phenomena is a longer wing span (higher AR) will generate more lift with larger span-wise
lifting surface. Although the wing lift slope varies with AR, angle of attack at zero lift will remains,
which is equal to the airfoil zero lift angle of attack. This can be observed from figure 2, 4, 6 and 8.
As the same theory applies for both case, the drag coefficient of wing-body combination in figure 9
is higher than the wing alone. However, comparing figure 3 and figure 9, it is shown that the fuselage
drag in high AR is more significant. The fuselage contribute an average of 31% and 12.5% of drag to
the wing-body combination for high AR and low AR respectively. This is due to the reference area, S
for high AR is smaller, which contributes to higher fuselage base drag coefficient, fuselage zero lift
drag coefficient and fuselage drag due to lift coefficient. Thus, it results in higher total drag
coefficient.

7
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 8. Breakdown of lift coefficient of wing Figure 9. Breakdown of drag coefficient of


body combination for high AR. wing body combination for high AR.

Likewise, the graphs in figure 10 has the same pattern with the low AR case. The difference in
fuselage diameter for high AR wing does not affect the lift curve slope, i.e. the three fuselage with
different diameter share the same lift curve slope. The only difference between both high AR and low
AR case is the lift curve slope which depends on the AR.
Observing figure 5 and 11, drag coefficient increases with fuselage diameter. The increment of
drag coefficient with increment of 15% fuselage diameter is compared and the increment are 8% and
14% for low AR and high AR respectively. The reason of more increment in high AR case is basically
the same concept as discussed while comparing figure 3 and 9. Ratio of fuselage wetted area to
reference area is the main reason on contributing different increment in drag coefficient between
different AR.

Figure 10. Lift coefficient of wing body Figure 11. Drag coefficient of wing body
combination with different fuselage diameter at combination with different fuselage diameter at
high AR. high AR.

In order to verify the computational results obtained for high AR wing case, comparison with
published journal results is crucial. Figure 12 shows the comparison of result from both computational
and journal by by Walter D. W and David F. T., Jr. [5]. Both results shows a percentage difference of
approximately 13.85%. This difference might due to theoretical results are always obtained base on
the ideal case such as the surrounding temperature and pressure are set to remain constant for the
entire simulation performed. However, in reality, temperature and pressure might fluctuates during
the experiment. At the same time, some assumptions are also made to simplify the mathematic
equation and also to apply some principle or theory in some cases.
Figure 13 shows the comparison of journal results with the computational results of the drag
coefficient for wing-body combination. Both results are about the same visually, but it has a
difference of approximately 12%. This indicates that the program is capable and reliable to compute
drag of the wing-body combination for high AR.

8
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 12. Comparison of theoretical results Figure 13. Comparison of theoretical results
with journal for lift coefficient against angle of with journal for drag coefficient against angle of
attack with high aspect ratio. attack with high aspect ratio.

6. Conclusion
The fuselage diameter does not contribute to the increment of the lift coefficient of the wing-body
combination. The main contribution of the lift in a wing-body combination is mainly from the wing.
Fuselage drag is found to be significant in the combination and highly affected by the diameter with
larger drag produced by a larger fuselage diameter. The Prandtl’s Lifting Line Theory and Helmbold’s
Panel Method have managed to successfully compute the lift and drag for the wing while Roskam’s
Drag Prediction Method only capable to compute the drag of the fuselage the wing-body combination.
The computational results agree well with the experimental results based on the trend and this suggests
that the program is reliable in computing the lift and drag for a wing-body combination for low and
high aspect ratio case.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Chew Tian Feng, Foo Kar Yen and Khong Jun Yong from School of
Aerospace Engineering for their assistance and support during the development of the computational
code and analysis of this work.

References
[1] Abbas A, Vicente J and Valero E 2013 Aerodynamic technologies to improve aircraft
performance Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 100-132.
[2] López P R 2010 Validation of software for the calculation of aerodynamic coefficients with a
focus on the software package Tornado. Linköpings Universitet.
[3] Nicolosi F, Vecchia P, Ciliberti D, Cusati V and Attanasio L 2015 Fuselage aerodynamic
prediction methods 33rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference.
[4] Welstead J, Reitz B, and Crouse G 2012 Modeling fuselage aerodynamic effects in aircraft
design optimization 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition
[5] Walter D W and David F T 1956 Static longitudinal and lateral stability characteristics at low
speed of unswept-midwing models having wings with an aspect ratio of 2, 4, or 6
Washington: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Technical Note 3649.
[6] F Hall C 1953 Lift, drag and pitching moment of low-aspect-ratio wings at subsonic and
supersonic speed NACA Research Memorandum
[7] Anderson J 2012 Introduction to flight (7th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill
[8] Oswald W 1932 Report No. 408. General formulas and charts for the Ccalculation of airplane
performance Journal of the Franklin Institute 693-693
[9] McCormick B 1995 Aerodynamics, aeronautics and flight mechanics New York: John Wiley
and Sons

9
International Conference on Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AeroMech17) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 370 (2018) 012055 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/370/1/012055
1234567890‘’“”

[10] Bertin J, and Smith M 1979 Aerodynamics for engineers (5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall
[11] Anderson J 2001 Fundamentals of aerodynamics (5th ed.) Boston: McGraw-Hill
[12] Lan C, and Roskam J 1997 Airplane aerodynamics and performance (pp. 157-161). Ottawa,
Kan.: Roskam Aviation and Engineering
[13] Roskam J 2004 Airplane design Lawrence (Kansas): DARcorporation

10

You might also like