Drag Reduction for Transonic Wings Combining Reduced Wing Sweep with Shock Control

  • Ning Qin


In this paper, the potential of unlocking wing sweep on aircraft drag reduction is explored in the context of recent development in shock control by three dimensional bumps on natural laminar flow(NLF) wings. Reduction of the wing sweep currently employed for large transport transonic aircraft is advocated for significant drag reduction, enabling natural laminar flow wing development with shock control. The aim is to unlock a normally fixed design variable (for large transonic aircraft), i.e. wing sweep, in order to achieve substantial drag reduction through extended natural laminar flow area while keeping the shock strength and its impact on wave drag under control. A decrease of the current transonic wing sweep angle is anticipated to accommodate the natural laminar flow target, because of the potential alleviation of attachment line transition and crossflow boundary layer instability. The paper demonstrates the effects of 3D shock control bumps from zero to 20sweep and from 2D sectional to 3D NLF wings for cruise Mach number from 0.68 to 0.85.


Drag Reduction Shock Strength Wave Drag Shock Control Natural Laminar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Green, J.E.: Greener by design-the technology challenge. Aeronautical J. 106(1056), 57–113 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearcey, H.H.: The aerodynamic design of section shapes for swept wings. Adv. Aeronautical Sci. 3, 277–322 (1962)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitcomb, R.T., Clark, L.: An airfoil shape for efficient flight at supercritical Mach number, NASA TM X-1109 (1965)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sobieczky, H., Seebass, A.R.: Supercritical airfoil and wing design. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 16, 337–363 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torenbeek, E.: Synthesis of subsonic airplane design. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joslin, R.D.: Aircraft laminar flow control. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 301–329 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poll, D.I.A.: The development of intermittent turbulence on a swept attachment line including the effects of compressibility. Aeronautical Quarterly 34, 1–23 (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bieler, H., Swan, P., Humphreys, B.: The HYLTEC Project - A Hybrid Laminar Flow Technology Investigation. In: CEAS Aerospace Aerodynamics Research Conference (June 2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atkin, C.J., Courtenay, W.J.A.: Predicting the cruise performance of a retrofit hybrid laminar flow control system. In: CEAS Aerospace Aerodynamics Research Conference (June 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashill, P.R., Fulker, J.L., Shires, A.: A novel technique for controlling shock strength of laminar flow aerofoil sections. In: First European Symposium on Laminar Flow, Hamburg (March 1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fulker, J.L., Ashill, P.R., Simmons, M.J.: Study of simulated active control of shock waves on an aerofoil. Defence Research Agency Technical Report TR93025 (May 1993)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fulker, J.L., Simmons, M.J.: An Experimental Study of Shock Control Methods, DRA/AS/HWA/TR94007/1 (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qin, N., Zhu, Y., Ashill, P.R.: Active Control of Transonic Aerodynamics Using Suction, Blowing, Bumps and Synthetic Jets. AIAA-2000-4329 Paper, Reno, NV (January 2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dima, C., de Matteis, P.: Effects of Shock And Boundary-Layer Control Techniques on Transonic Flows About Aerofoils. In: 38th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA-2000-0517 Paper, Paper, Reno, NV, January 10-13 (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birkemeyer, J., Rosemann, H., Stanewsky, E.: Shock control on a swept wing. Journal of Aerospace Science and Technology, 147–156 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sommerer, A., Lutz, T., Wagner, S.: Numerical optimization of adaptive transonic aerofoils with variable camber. In: ICAS 2000 Congress (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qin, N., Monet, D., Shaw, S.T.: 3D Bumps For Transonic Wing Shock Control And Drag Reduction. In: CEAS Aerospace Aerodynamics Research Conference (June 2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holden, H.A.,Babinsky, H.: Shock/Boundary Layer Interaction Control Using 3D Devices. In: 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA-2003-447 Paper, Reno, NV, January 6-9 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wong, W.S., Qin, N., Sellars, N., Holden, H., Babinsky, H.: A combined experimental and numerical study of flow structures over three-dimensional shock control bumps. Aerospace Science and Technology 12, 436–447 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Le Moigne, A., Qin, N.: Variable-Fidelity Aerodynamic Optimization For Turbulent Flows Using A Discrete Adjoint Formulation. AIAA Journal 42(7), 1281–1292 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qin, N., Wong, W.S., LeMoigne, A., Sellars, N.: Validation and optimisation of 3D bumps for transonic wing drag reduction. CEAS/Ketnet Conference on Key Aerodynamic Technologies (June 2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qin, N., Wong, W.S., LeMoigne, A.: Three-dimensional contour bumps for transonic wing drag reduction. Proc. IMechE, Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering 222(G5), 605–617 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ning Qin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations