Advertisement

CEAS Aeronautical Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 307–317 | Cite as

Comparison of the NASA Common Research Model European Transonic Wind Tunnel test data to NASA National Transonic Facility test data

  • Melissa RiversEmail author
  • Jürgen Quest
  • Ralf Rudnik
Original Paper

Abstract

Experimental aerodynamic investigations of the NASA Common Research Model have been conducted in the NASA Langley National Transonic Facility and the European Transonic Wind Tunnel. Data have been obtained at chord Reynolds numbers of 5, 19.8 and 30 million for the wing/body/tail = 0° incidence configuration in the National Transonic Facility and in the European Transonic Wind Tunnel. Force and moment, surface pressure, wing bending and twist, and surface flow visualization data were obtained in both facilities but only the force and moment, and surface pressure data are presented herein.

Keywords

Transonic Reynolds number Wind tunnel Comparison 

List of symbols

b

Wing span

c

Wing mean aerodynamic chord

CD

Drag coefficient

CL

Lift coefficient

Cm

Pitching moment coefficient referenced to 0.25 of the wing mean aerodynamic chord

Cp

Pressure coefficient

CRM

Common Research Model

DPW

Drag prediction workshop

E

Modulus of elasticity

ESWIRP

European Strategic Wind Tunnels Improved Research Potential

M

Freestream Mach number

NTF

National Transonic Facility

pt

Total pressure

q

Dynamic pressure

Rec

Reynolds number based on mean aerodynamic chord

S

Model reference area

Tt

Total temperature

WBT0

Wing/body/tail = 0°

x/c

Longitudinal distance from wing leading edge nondimensionalized by local wing chord

α

Angle of attack, degree

η

Fraction of wing semi-span

References

  1. 1.
    Lutz, T., Gansel, P., Godard, J.-L., Gorbushin, A., Konrath, R., Quest, J., Rivers, S.: Going for Experimental and Numerical Unsteady Wake Analyses Combined with Wall Interference Assessment Using the NASA CRM Model in ETW. AIAA Paper 2013-0871, 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Grapevine, TX, January 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konrath, R.: High-Speed PIV Applied to Wake of NASA CRM Model in ETW Under High Re-Number Stall Conditions for Sub- and Transonic Speeds. AIAA Paper 2015-1095, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, January 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gloss, B.B.: Current Status and Some Future Test Directions for the US National Transonic Facility. Wind Tunnels and Wind Tunnel Test Techniques, pp. 3.1–3.7. Royal Aeronautical Society, London, United Kingdom (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuller, D.E. (1981) Guide for Users of the National Transonic Facility. NASA TM-83124Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vassberg, J.C., DeHaan, M.A., Rivers, S.M., Wahls, R.A.: Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD validation studies. AIAA Paper 2008-6919, 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu, HI, August 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iyer, V.: A Wall Correction Program Based on Classical Methods for the National Transonic Facility (Solid Wall or Slotted Wall) and the 14 × 22-Ft Subsonic Tunnel at NASA LaRC. NASA/CR 2004-213261, October 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gross, N., Quest, J.: The ETW Wall Interference Assessment for Full and Half Models. AIAA Paper 2004-0769, 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government (outside the USA)  2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA Langley Research CenterHamptonUSA
  2. 2.ETW, European Transonic Wind TunnelKölnGermany
  3. 3.DLR, German Aerospace CenterKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations