1、NASA Contractor Report 3 704 DC- 10 Winglet Flight Evaluation Staff of Douglas Aircraft Company CONTRACT NAS I-1 5 3 2 7 JUNE 1983 25th Anniversary 1958-1983 NASA CR 3704 C.1 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-TECH LIERARY KAFB, NM Ilnll
2、IlllInlIIlllIIlIlllllll OOb233i NASA Contractor Report 3 704 DC- 10 Winglet Flight Evaluation Staff of Douglas Aircraft Company McDonnell Douglas Corporation Long Beach, California Prepared for Langley Research Center under Contract NAS 1 - 15 3 2 7 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scie
3、ntific and Technical Information Branch 1983 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-FilREWORD This document is the final report of the DC-10 Wi
4、nglet Flight Evaluation, which was con- ducted as one task of Contract NASl-15327 under the NASA Energy Efficient Transport (EET) project. The evaluation program also contained Douglas-sponsored work. The NASA Technical Monitor for this contract was Mr. T. G. Gainer of Langley Research Center. The o
5、n-site NASA representative was Mr. J. R. Tulinius. Acknowledgment is also given to the Director and staff of the Dryden Flight Test Center for their assistance during the program. The work was conducted by Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, at its facilities at Long Beach and Yuma, and at Edwards
6、 Air Force Base. The key personnel were: M. Klotzsche A. B. Taylor P. T. Sumida W. H. Perks W. B. Jones C. H. Fritz V. A. Clare D. J. Thomas J. T. Callaghan J. E. Donelson Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) Program Manager EET Project Manager Task Manager (also Detail Design subtask) Manufacturing su
7、btask Aircraft Preparation subtask Laboratory Test subtask Flight Test subtask Loads Measurement Program Aerodynamics Aerodynamics The principal authors of this report were: J. R. Agar J. T. Callaghan J. E. Donelson C. A. Felton F. S. Heiberger J. W. Humphreys E. G. Salamacha C. A. Shollenberger P.
8、T. Sumida A. B. Taylor D. J. Thomas . . . III Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-SUMMARY This report presents the results of a flight evalu
9、ation of winglets on a DC-10 Series 10 transport aircraft. The objectives of the program were to determine the effects of winglets on aerodynamic performance and flying qualities by back-to-back tests with and without winglets, to determine flutter-related data, and to determine the effect of wingle
10、ts on flight loads. The program consisted of detail design, winglet manufacture, aircraft preparation (includ- ing modification of the wing structure and installation of the winglets), and ground and flight testing. The basic winglet configuration used initially in the tests was directly related to
11、the designs developed by Dr. R. T. Whitcomb of NASA Langley. These had a large upper winglet with a small lower winglet. A truncated version of the upper winglet was also tested to evaluate the effect of reducing the span. During the initial flight tests of the basic winglet, low-speed buffet was en
12、countered. To resolve this problem, a number of configurations were developed and tested, several of which achieved acceptable low-speed buffet characteristics. The greatest low-speed-drag reduction was achieved using leading edge devices on the upper and lower winglets. Lower winglets were required
13、 for maximum drag reduction in both cruise and low-speed flight regimes. The addition of outboard aileron droop to the reduced-span winglet configuration enhanced the cruise benefit of winglets. It was found during the flight tests that winglets had no significant impact on stall speeds, high-speed
14、buffet boundaries, or stability and control characteristics. The flutter tests did not reveal any unforeseen behavior, as the test results agreed with the analytical predictions and ground vibration data. Data from the loads measurement program, which were provided for a concurrent Douglas task, wer
15、e also in agreement with predictions. It was estimated from the test results that the application of the reduced-span winglet and aileron droop to a production version of the current DC-10 Series 10 aircraft would yield a 3-percent reduction in fuel burned at the range for capacity loads of passenge
16、rs and baggage, a 2-percent greater range at this payload, and a 5-percent reduction in takeoff distance at maxi- mum takeoff weight. V Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitt
17、ed without license from IHS-,-,-CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 PROGRAMSUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 WINGLET INSTALLATION DESIGN AND ANALYSIS . 17 Winglet Configuration . 17 Structural Design Criteria 21 PredictionofFlightLoads 23 Str
19、uctural Description . 24 StressAnalysis . 27 FlutterAnalysis 27 WINGLETMANUFACTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 AIRCRAFT PREPARATION AND WINGLET INSTALLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FLIGHTPROGRAM . 39 TestAp
20、proach 39 TestConditions . 39 Aerodynamics 39 Structural and Aerodynamic Damping (Flutter1 . 43 LoadsMeasurement . 44 Flight Instrumentation . 46 Aerodynamics Data . 46 Flutter 47 Loads . 47 FlightDataSystem 48 Preflight Ground Testing . 48 Ground Vibration Test (GVT) . 48 Strain Gauge Calibration T
21、ests . 49 FlightTestProgram . 49 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION 53 BaselinePhase 53 FlightTestProgram 53 Aerodynamics 53 LoadsMeasurement . 53 BasicWingletPhase . 53 GroundVibrationTest . 53 FlightTestProgram 54 Flutter 64 Low-SpeedBuffet . 65 Low-Speed Drag 75 Stall Speeds and Characteristics 76 CruisePerfor
22、mance . 77 vii Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-CONTENTS (Continued) Section Cruise Buffet . Longitudinal Static Stability Longitudina! Maneuvering Stability . Longitudinal Trim Characteristics . Static Directional Stability . Dynamic
23、Lateral Stability (Dutch Roll) LoadsMeasurement . Reduced-Span Winglet Phase . FlightTestProgram Low-SpeedBuffet . Low-SpeedDrag CruisePerformance . IMPACT OF FLIGHT EVALUATION RESULTS ON OPERATIONALPERFORMANCE CONCLUSIONS . REFERENCES . APPENDIX A, FLIGHT TEST MEASUREMENT INDEX . APPENDIX B, PRESSU
24、RE ORIFICE LOCATIONS . Page 89 90 92 92 92 94 94 95 95 99 102 103 109 115 117 119 141 . . . VIII Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-I ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page ;a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3
25、1 32 33 34 Winglet Model Under Development in NASA Langley 8-Foot Wind Tunnel . 2 Key Events in the DC-10 Winglet Development Program . 3 Task Relationships in the DC-10 Winglet Development Program 3 Test Aircraft with Basic Winglet 4 Test Aircraft with Reduced-Span Winglet 5 Flow of Tasks 15 Flight
26、 Evaluation Program Schedule 16 Winglet Geometry Variations from Wind Tunnel Model 17 Winglet Rigging to Account for Elastic Deflections 18 Principal Winglet Configurations from Application Studies . 19 Planned Winglet Geometry . 20 ContingencyConfigurations 20 EnvelopeLimitations 22 ManeuveringEnve
27、lope 22 Alternatives for Selection of Winglet Design Loads 23 Typical Estimated Spanwise Wing Lift Distribution . 24 Winglet Installation Components 25 Basic Winglet Structural Configuration . 25 Wing Reinforcement - Upper Surface . 26 Predicted Flutter Speed Versus Wing Fuel - Basic Winglet 29 Wing
28、let Spar Machining . 31 Trailing Edge Assemblies . 32 Winglet - Start of Assembly . 32 Upper Winglet Substructure . 33 Upper Winglet Assembly 33 Winglet and Wing Box Extension Juncture . 34 Lower W inglets 34 Winglet and Wing Box Extension Assembly 35 Winglet Installation in Progress 37 Winglet Inst
29、allation Complete 38 Flight Test Program 39 High Speed Performance Test Conditions 41 Low Speed Performance Test Conditions . 42 Stability and Control Test Conditions 43 ix Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Fig
30、ure Page 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 Flutter Test Conditions 44 Flutter Test Speeds and Altitudes . 45 LoadsTestParameters 45 Wing and Winglet Pressure and Deflection Instrumentation 47 Accelerometer Locations . 48 Flight Tests Performed dur
31、ing Evaluation of Basic Winglet . 50 Flight Tests Performed during Evaluation of Reduced Span Winglet . 52 Ground Vibration Test Results 53 GVT First Wing Bending Modes 55 GVT Wing Engine Pitch Mode with Winglet in Phase 56 GVT Wing Engine Pitch Mode with Winglet Out of Phase 57 Configuration Identi
32、fication for Basic Winglet Flight Program 59 Basic Winglet Configuration Features . 61 Basic Winglet Configurations with Vortilets 62 Leading Edge Krueger Flap Geometry for Basic Upper Winglet . 63 Frequency and Damping Characteristics - -HZ Mode (Determined from Wing Tip Normal Acceleration) . 64 F
33、requency and Damping Characteristics - 4.5-Hz Mode (Determined from Winglet Longitudinal Acceleration) . 65 Winglet Flow at Low Speed in the Ames 12-Foot Wind Tunnel 66 Winglet Flow in Low-Speed Flight - Inboard (Suction1 Side, C,=0.96,V/VSMIN=1.5 . 67 Winglet Flow in Low-Speed Flight - Inboard (Suc
34、tion) Side, C,=1.5,V/VSIIIN=1.2 68 Winglet Flow in Low-Speed Flight - Outboard (PressurelSide, C, = 1.5, V/VsMIIN = 1.2 69 Summary of Low-Speed Buffet Characteristics - Basic Winglet 71 Winglet Low-Speed Buffet - Acceptability Criteria . 73 Effect of Winglet Krueger Flap on Winglet Section Loading (
35、n = 57%) . 74 Low-Speed Drag Improvement - Basic Winglet 75 Effect of Winglet on Minimum Stall Speed 76 Correlation of Measured Range Factor and Drag Improvements fortheBWLandRSWL (0.804 M 0.851 78 Cruise Drag Improvement - Basic Winglet 79 Upper Winglet Flow in Cruise Flight - Inboard (Suction) Sid
36、e 80 X Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure Page 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Upper Winglet Flow in Cruise Flight - Outboard (Pressure) Side, M = 0.82 . 81 L
37、ower Winglet Flow in Cruise Flight - Outboard (Suction) Side 82 Basic Winglet Pressure Distribution at Cruise 83 Effect of Lift Coefficient on Basic Winglet Pressure Distribution at Cruise - 12.5-Percent Span 84 Effect of Lift Coefficient on Basic Winglet Pressure Distribution at Cruise - 80-Percent
38、 Span . 85 Effect of Lift Coefficient on Basic Winglet Pressure Distribution atcruise - 95-PercentSpan . 86 Effect of Lower Winglet on Basic Upper Winglet/Wing Tip Pressure Distribution at Cruise . 87 Basic Winglet Span Load at Cruise 88 Basic Winglet and Wing Tip Loading at Cruise 88 Effect of Basi
39、c Winglet on Wing Span Load - Flight and Wind Tunnel . 89 Effect of Basic Winglet on High-Speed Buffet Boundary 90 Effect of Basic Winglet on Longitudinal Static Stability 91 Effect of Basic Winglet on Longitudinal Maneuvering Stability 91 Effect of Basic Winglet on Cruise Longitudinal Trim Characte
40、ristics . 93 Effect of Basic and Reduced-Span Winglets on Takeoff Static Directional Stability 93 Effect of Basic and Reduced-Span Winglets on Landing Static Directional Stability . 94 Configuration Identification for Reduced-Span Winglet Flight Program 97 Reduced-Span Winglet Configurations . 98 Le
41、ading-Edge Krueger Flap Geometry for Reduced-Span Upper Winglet and Extended-Chord Lower Winglet . 99 Summary of Low-Speed Buffet Characteristics - Reduced-Span Winglet 100 Buffet Response Acceleration Power Spectra . 101 Low-Speed Drag Improvement - Reduced-Span Winglet 103 Cruise Drag Improvement
42、- Reduced-Span Winglet 104 Reduced-Span Winglet Pressure Distribution at Cruise 105 Effect of Configuration Variables on Cruise Drag Improvement - Reduced-Span Winglet . 106 Effect of Outboard Aileron Droop on Reduced-Span Winglet/Wing Tip Pressure Distribution at Cruise 107 xi Provided by IHSNot fo
43、r ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure Page 90 Increases in Operators Empty Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 91 Effect of Winglets on DC-10 Series 10 Performance Characteristics 110
44、 92 Effect of Winglet Configurations on Payload Range 111 93 Effect of Winglet Configurations on Takeoff Field Length 112 94 Effect of Winglet Configuration on Fuel Burned . 113 xii Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-INTRODUCTION One of
45、the technological advances to be considered for energy savings for transport applica- tion is the winglet concept developed by Dr. R. T. Whitcomb of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Reference 1. The winglet is an airfoil surface mounted almost vertically at the wingtip. It i
46、s intended to reduce lift-induced drag which accounts for as much as 40 percent of the total drag at cruise speed. Historically, one of the primary ways of reducing this drag has been to increase the wing span, but this results in a heavier wing structure and so dilutes the performance gain. The con
47、cept of the winglet is to achieve the same drag reduction as the wing tip extension but with less wing bending moment penalty. A substantial amount of wind tunnel and flight development has been conducted on winglets since the original NASA experiments. Significant performance gains have been demons
48、trated in the NASA/USAF flight program using the KC-135, which is representative of a large first- generation jet transport aircraft, and other, smaller aircraft. However, the need for additional investigation of winglet application to a representative second-generation jet transport, such as the DC-lo, was recognized, primarily due to the differences in wing designs. Second-generation jet transport wings tend to be less tip-loaded (more twisted1 than a wing with a more elliptical loading, such as the typical f
