5.

2 Drag Reduction Through Higher Wing Loading

David L. Kohlman
University of Kansas

|ntroduction

The wing typically accounts for almost half of the wetted area of today's
production light airplanes and approximately one-third of the total zero-lift or parasite

drag. Thus the wing should be a primary focal point of any attempts to reduce drag of

light aircraft with the most obvious configuration change being a reduction in wing

area. Other possibilities involve changes in thickness, planform, and airfoil section.
This paper will briefly discuss the effects of reducing wing area of typical light

airplanes, constraints involved, and related configuration changes which may be

necessary.

Constraints and Benefits

The wing area of current light airplanes is determined primarily by stall speed

and/or climb performance requirements. Table I summarizes the resulting wing loading

for a representative spectrum of single-engine airplanes. The maximum lift coefficient

with full flaps, a constraint on wing size, is also listed. Note that wing loading (at
maximum gross weight) ranges between about 10 and 20 psf, with most 4-place models

averaging between 13 and 17. Maximum lift coefficient with full flaps ranges from
1.49 to 2.15.

Clearly if CLmax can be increased, a corresponding decrease in wing area can

be permitted with no change in stall speed. If total drag is not increased at climb

speed, the change in wing area will not adversely affect climb performance either and

cruise drag will be reduced.

Though not related to drag, it is worthy of comment that the range of wing
loading in Table I tends to produce a rather uncomfortable ride in turbulent air, as

every light-plane pilot is well aware. The only way to reduce this gust sensitivity

is to increase wing loading. '

Typically, wing loading tends to increase as performance (cruise speed)

increases. This is particularly evident in Table I[ which presents data for twin-engine

aircraft. But gust response is proportional to the ratio of calibrated cruise speed to

wing loading (Vc/'(W/S))and thus improvements in ride due to higher wing loading are
partially, if not completely, offset by higher cruise speed.

157
 It is also evident in Table II that even though wing loading is higher than for

slngle-engine aircraft, it is translated directly into higher stall speeds. Twin-engine

high llft systems produce virtaally the same CLmax as shown in Table I for single-engine
airplanes. Thus there appears to be an equal potential for reduction in wing
area of single- and twin-engine aircraft by employing improved high llft systems. How

to achieve higher C L for light aircraft is discussed later.

But assuming _aXa moment that improvements in CLmax are available, making
higher wing loading possible for a given airplane or class of airplanes, it is

important to consider how the wing area _hould be reduced. The easiest and most

tempting way is by reducing span. Not only does this leave the inboard wing structure,

mechanisms, and wing-body ]unction unchanged, but it reduces wing bending moments

making possible a lighter wing. But reducing the span increases the span loading,

thus reductions in parasite drag through a decrease in wing area are countered by an
increase in induced drag.

On the other hand, reducing wing area by a decrease in wing chord decreases
parasite drag almost in direct proportion to chord decrease, and if span remains constant

there is virtually no change in induced drag. From an aerodynamic point of view thls

is most desirable, but it introduces possible structural and weight problems because
aspect ratio increases while spar thickness and internal volume decrease if the same
airfoil section is used.

To understand the potential and the constraints of drag reduction through wing
area reduction, consider the following simplified analysis.

Assuming that the parasite drag coefficient and span efficiency factor remain

unchanged, the parasite drag is directly proportional to wing area and induced drag

is inversely proportional to the square of the span. Then the wing drag at any given

Flight condition may be written as

2
bR
bc
DW= Dp R _'RCR + (DWR DPR ) _ (1)

where DPR is the reference wing profile drag; DWR is the total drag of the reference
wing. The span and chord are denoted as b and c with a subscript R indicating

reference values. For simplicity an untapered wing is assumed.

Normalizing equation (|) with respect to the original reference wing drag, DWR ,
gives
2
DW bR
(2)
D= uW"R - P bc +(1 - P)

158
where P : DPR , the ratio of parasite drag to total drag.

If only the wing chord is reduced, then the change in total normalized wing
drag is
dD : P d..__c (3)
cR

Thus the percent reduction in total wing drag is equal to the percent reduction
in chord length times the original ratio of parasite to total wing drag. Clearly, the
benefits of wing area reduction increase wil_ air speed.

Consider a typical light airplane with the following characteristics:

Gross weight = 2800 pounds

Aspect ratio : 7.4

Wing area = 174 ft 2

Drag coefficient of body and empennage, CD : 0.017

°BVH

Wing parasite drag coefficient, CD : 0.009

oW

Airplane efficiency factor, e : 0.75

Cruise altitude = 8,000 ft

If only the chord is reduced, then, as shown in Reference 1, the resulting

normalized total airplane drag, DT, is shown in Figure 1. Although substantial drag
reductions are possible, constraints are imposed by the requirement to cruise at a

reasonably low llft coefficient and stall margin, and to keep stall speeds low enough
for good takeoff and landing performance. Even with these constraints, however,

significant reductions in wlng area, cruise ckag, and gust response are poss|ble for

todayts general aviation fleet.

To analyze the effect of reducing span while holding chord constant, differentiate
equation (2) with respect to span b. Then

3
1 bR
(4)

For a decrease in span to result in a net decrease in drag the condition

for b : b R must be satisfied.

This is true only if
p>2__ (5)
3

159
 In other words, a reduction in drag by reducing span can be achieved only if

parasite drag is more than double the induced drag at the flight condition in question.

While this may be satisfied during high speed cruise, it is rarely true during a climb.
And when P <_2/3 a reduction in span increases induced drag more than it decreases

parasite drag. For a tapered wlngt P must be even larger than the value given in

(5) to achieve drag reduction.

b
The limit to favorable span reduction is found by solving for the value of

which yields = 0, assuming P_ 2/3. Again from equation (4)it is easily

shown that

dD
- 0

when ( = 2 (1 - P) (6)
P

Equation (6), plotted in Figure 2, establishes the boundary of favorable span

reduction of a constant chord wing as a function of the reference wing parasite drag ratio, P.

Technical Developments

[t is clear that wing area reduction can be achieved only if corresponding

increases in Ckmax can be designed into light airplanes in a practical manner.

Several recent developments indicate that this is a very real possibility.

One promising development is a new family of general aviation airfoil

sections. Two members of the family, the GA(W)-I and GA(W)-2, have been defined

at this time. As shown in Reference 2, the characteristics of these airfoils are:

high CLmax compared to conventional airfoils (see Figure 3)

gentle stall characteristics

fairly thick section. The GA(W)-I is 17% thick. This helps to

maintain spar depth with reduced chord lengths.

very little increase in C D at climb lift coefficients (see Figure 4).

This combined with o decreased wing area offers the potential
of significant increase in single-engine climb performance of twins.

Another interesting development is the recognition of the efficiency of spoilers

for roll control on light airplanes. Among other features, spoilers permit the use of

full-span, or at least increased span, flaps. This will increase CLrna x with no change
in airfoil or flap geometry. Several light airplanes are now using this concept: the

advanced technology light twin (ATLIT), a modified Seneca; the Redhawk, a modified

160
 Cessna Cardinal; the RSTOL Seneca, a modification kit developed by Robertson Aircraft
Corporation; and the Mitsublshl MU-2 .

Another method of increasing CLmax is to increase the Fowler action of

conventional single-slotted flaps. This can be done with very little increase in

complexity or weight. Figure 5 shows the very large values of C L (2-D)which

max
can be obtained with a GA(W)-I airfoil using a 30% chord single-slotted Fowler flap.

Flight Test Results

Additional confirmation of the ability to increase CLmax through both airfoil

design and flap design has been demonstrated in the Redhawk and ATLZT programs•
Table [[[, from Reference 3, shows maximum lift coefficients obtained on the

Redhawk by using a 30% chord single-slotted Fowler flap. Note that the flap covers
only 47% of the wing span.

The ATLZT, using full-span, 30% chord slngle-slotted flaps, and a GA(W)-I

basic airfoil, generated the high lift data shown in Table IV. Clearly, significant

increases in CLmax are possible for this class of airplane•

F| nally, Table V shows drag data generated during flight test of the Redhawk.

The most significant result is that parasite drag was reduced 10.5% by reducing wing

area, thickness, and span. This is a significant reduction, and it illustrates in flight
that a reduction in wing area can be an effective and practical means of reducing
drag.

References

• R
,sEam, Jan, Opportunlt0es for Progress nn General Av0at0on Technology,
II • • • • • II

A[AA Paper No. 75-292, presented at A[AA. 1 lth Annual Meeting and
Technical Display, Washington, D. C., February 24-26, 1975.
•
McGhee, R. J., and Beasley, W. D., "Low Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics
of a 17-Percent-Thick Airfoil Section Designed for General Aviation Appli-
cations," NASA TN D-7428, December 1973•
.
Kohlman, David L., "Flight Test Results for an Advanced Technology Light
Airplane Wing," SAE Paper No. 740368, presented at Business Aircraft
Meeting, Wichita, Kansas, April 2-5, 1974.

161
Table I.
Wing Loading and CLmax for Typical Single-Engine Aircraft

CL
Aircraft W/S - PSF max

Cessna 150 I 0.2 1.73

Cessna 172 13.2 2.15

Cessna 182 16.9 2.03

Cessna 210 21.7 2.01

Beech C23 16.8 1.89

Beech V35B 18.8 I. 85

Grumman Tiger 17.1 ]. 92

Bellanca 300A 20.6 1.64

Mooney M20E 15.4 1.85

Piper PA-28-140 13.4 1.73

Piper PA-28-180 14.4 1.51

Piper PA-28-200R 15.6 1.49
Piper PA-32 19.5 1.92

Table II. Wing Loading and CLmax for Typical Twin-Engine Aircraft

C
Aircraft W/S- PSF Lmax

Beech Baron 25.6 1.42

Beech Duke 31.8 1.64

Beech Queen Air 29.9 1.78

Cessna 310 30.7 2.02

Cessna 402 32.2 2.02

Cessna 421 35.2 1.86

Piper Seneca 11 21.9 1.80

Piper Navaho PA-31-350 30.6 1.66

Piper Navaho PA-31 P-425 34.1 1.93

162
 Table Ill. Comparison of Stall Speeds and
Maximum Lift Coefficients

Configuration Redhawk Cardinal

Vs,mph CL Vs, mph CL

max max

Cruise 79.6 1.40 64.7 1.35

Kruger flaps only 69.8 1.82

Fowler flaps 10 ° 71.2 1.75

Fowler flaps 10 °
and Kruger flaps 62.8 2.25

Fowler flaps 40 ° 64.4 2.14 55.0 1.84

(30 ° for Cardinal)

Fowler flaps 40 °
and Kruger flaps 56.0 2.83

Notes: 1. Gross weight = 2500 Ib

2. Redhawk c.g. location 7.2% m.a.c. (109 in.)

3. Cardinal c.g. location 19%m.a.c. (109.3 in.)

163
 TableIV. ATL|T PreliminaryStall Data

VSo_ MPH CLmax

0 76 1.81

10° 66 2.40

20 ° 61.5 2.77

30 ° 59.3 2.98

40 ° 59.4 2.97

Gross weight = 4200 Ib

Aft e.g. location

Table V. Comparison of Drag Characteristics

Determined from Flight Test

S
CD W
CDp P

Cardinal Cruise 0.0267 4.67

Full Flaps 0.0462 8.08

Redhawk Cruise 0.0380 4.18

Full Fowler and

Kruger Flaps 0.0788 8.67

164
 _ 0
.m,.

[3)
0
k.

-o_
- _) mq..

2_
o u
4-. L_

t-- o
O.0_
r. t-
O._ _

u _
"O_i

i.. e"

U
0 n
.,-._
U

m_

0
k

O)
u,.

I !
0

165
LO

.8

.2. /

0 i I I
.0
.E, .7 .B .9

F'

Figure 2. Limit of span reduction to decrease

drag as a function of parasite drag ratio.

166
 NASA GA(W)-I airfoil

o Roughness off

E] Roughness on

NACA airfoil ,roughness off (ref. 5 )

652-415 4418
2.2
65 3 -418 23018
Illllll]

;;::::11
::::::lJ
iiiii_lL.
]l|ll

_ilii
_ iii!
:::_:11 I[Illill
I]lilill iiiiiiii
2.0 : I J.,,_F] I I II1_1[[I
!!!!!!!!
"5*d"l]llll tl|li[]l

! [I _LL_i_l
II,_-L:,
Ill!I[

!!iiiiii iiiiiiii i!!!!!!!

r_!! .. ;;;;;;;;
il:!!ii!i ::_lll: |

1.8 iiiiiiii iii;iiii

iiiiiiii
iii!!!!£ !l,lr!;i iiiiiiii
ill, I ,

;:;:;::; !! ili_i. .

_iiii!!! Tiii Fi
(Cl)rnax 1.6 _ii]L._'-tL _iiiiii

iiiiiiii !iiiiii iiiiiii

!i!!!!! iiiiii!
!!!!!!! I :;Iill_
....... |

:llIllll !iiiiii ii!!!!!

1.4 iii]II]I !!!!!!!
}iiiiiii
!!!!!!!!
Jiii]ii iiiiiii
iiiiiii
iiiiiiii
I_IIIIII iiiiiii
]I:IIII iiiiiii
1.2 [llltll
!!!!!!!! !!l[]ll
:::::::
:::::::

iiiiiiii iilllll !!!!!!!

I|111111 IIIIIII

!!!!!!!!
I Illl
iiiiiii
:::::;::
:::::::: IIII1[I ii!!!!!
iiiiiii! IIl]lll
;::::::

1.0 !!!!!!] :::::::

0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 4 x 106
R

Figure 3. Variation of maximum section llft coefficeint with Reynolds

number for various airfoils without flaps. M = O. 15.

167
 NASA GA(W)-I airfoil

0 NASA standard roughness

[] NA CA standard rou(jhness

NACA airfoii,NACA standard roughness (ref.5)

, •........... 652-415 .. :! ........

.o4].____ ._3-ff8 I1!_ : ::
o liii liti]ilhi ,iliCiill _
_ _ii; ]_ L ;:.

"__ ' '. "

,o_ ...... tttl/_tiiiii!:

.... II:!T:U:_:i:: :
_-1.2 -.8 -.4 0 .4 .8 1.2 1.6 2.0
01

Figure 4. Comparison of section drag characteristics of NASA GA(W)-I

airfoil an_ NACA 652-415 and 653-418 airfoils. M = 0.20;
R=6x 10 _.

168
Figure 5.
Llft perr'ormonce
Fowrer flap on a _:_i_(V3/l_°_/_
- chord
oirroi t:ngle-slotfed

169