We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2020
Two aerodynamic concepts theorized in the early twentieth century – laminar-flow control and flying wings – offer the potential for more efficient aircraft. However, despite compelling advantages on paper and optimistic predictions, the fuel-saving benefits of these technologies have not yet been fully realized. This paper documents British work on these concepts, with a particular focus on laminar-flow control. Faced with an increasingly difficult funding context and a lack of a clear military rationale, these potentially significant advances in aircraft efficiency were stymied by a catch-22: the government was only prepared to provide financial support for the development of an operational prototype if operational performance had already been demonstrated. This case also highlights the challenges faced in the commercial uptake of radical aviation technologies, even when they appear to offer greater efficiency and environmental benefits.
This research was supported by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. I am grateful for the helpful comments of the journal editor and two anonymous referees, and for the efficient administration of the process by Trish Hatton.
1 Greener by Design, Air Travel – Greener by Design: The Technology Challenge, London: Royal Aeronautical Society, 2003Google Scholar.
2 Greener by Design, op. cit. (1), p. 9.
3 ‘Handley Page 117 Laminar Flow All-Wing Transport for Lowest Cost – Longest Range’, Handley Page Ltd, June 1960, DSIR 23/28151. All files referenced as DSIR, AIR and AVIA were viewed in the UK National Archives at Kew.
4 The theory behind both flying wings and LFC is set out in John E. Green, ‘Laminar flow control: back to the future?’, 38th Fluid Dynamics Conference, June 2008, pp. 23–26.
5 Braslow, Albert L., A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1999, p. 1Google Scholar.
6 Greener by Design, Air Travel – Greener by Design: Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Aviation: Opportunities and Priorities, London: Royal Aeronautical Society, 2005, p. 4Google Scholar.
7 See, for example, Bud, R. and Gummett, P. (eds.), Cold War, Hot Science: Applied Science in the UK's Defence Research Laboratories, 1945–90, London: Routledge, 1999Google Scholar; Coopey, R., Uttley, M. and Spinardi, G. (eds.), Defence Science and Technology: Adjusting to Change, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1993Google Scholar; Edgerton, D., Science, Technology and the British Industrial ‘Decline’ 1870–1970, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996Google Scholar.
8 Hayward, K., Government and British Civil Aerospace: A Case Study in Post-war Technology Policy, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1983Google Scholar; Edgerton, D., England and the Aeroplane: An Essay on a Militant and Technological Nation, London: Macmillan, 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fearon, P., ‘The growth of aviation in Britain’, Journal of Contemporary History (January 1985) 20, pp. 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 On LFC see Braslow, op. cit. (5). On flying-wing developments see Wooldridge, E.T., Winged Wonders: The Story of the Flying Wings, Washington, DC: National Air and Space Museum, 1983Google Scholar.
10 Anderson, John D., A History of Aerodynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Millar, Ronald and Sawers, David, The Technical Development of Modern Aviation, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968Google Scholar; Vincenti, W.G., What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990Google Scholar; Bloor, David, The Enigma of the Aerofoil: Rival Theories in Aerodynamics, 1909–1930, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 On the shift from wood to metal aircraft see Schatzberg, E., Wings of Wood, Wings of Metal: Culture and Technical Choice in American Airplane Materials, 1914–1945, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999Google Scholar; also Jakab, Peter L., ‘Wood to metal: the structural origins of the modern airplane’, Journal of Aircraft (November–December 1999) 36, pp. 916–918Google Scholar. For the UK history see Paul Kelly, ‘Biplane to monoplane: twenty years of technological development in British fighter aircraft, 1919–1939’, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2013.
12 Pletschacher, Peter and Junkers, Bernd, ‘Junkers aircraft as a result of applied research’, in Hirschel, E.H., Prem, H. and Madelung, G. (eds.), Aeronautical Research in Germany: From Lilienthal until Today, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 141–156, 144Google Scholar.
13 ‘A new Junkers commercial monoplane’, Flight, 7 February 1929, p. 100.
14 British Air Commission report via diplomatic bag, 17 July 1942, AVIA 10/363.
15 Official Northrop press release, enclosed with letter from British Air Commission, 31 October 1941, AVIA 10/363.
16 Bud Baker, ‘Clipped wings: the death of Jack Northrop's flying wing bombers’, Acquisition Review Quarterly, Fall 2001, pp. 197–219, 202.
17 Baker, op. cit. (16), p. 205.
18 Baker, op. cit. (16), p. 210.
19 On the early history of flying wings see G. Geoffrey Smith, ‘Turbines and flying wings’, Flight, 13 May 1943, pp. 496–498.
20 ‘The tailless aeroplane’, Flight, 29 April 1926, pp. 261–263. See also Kelly, op. cit. (11).
21 C.M. Poulsen, ‘The fighting “Pterodactyl”’, Flight, 6 September 1934, p. 914.
22 CRD to DSR and DTD, 6/7/42, AVIA 10/363.
23 John D. Anderson, ‘Ludwig Prandtl's boundary layer’, Physics Today, December 2005, pp. 42–48; Bloor, op. cit. (10); Green, op. cit. (4).
24 Jones, Melvill B., ‘The streamline aeroplane: a discussion of the power economics to be expected from perfect streamlining of aircraft’, Aircraft Engineering (April 1929) 1, pp. 68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Green, op. cit. (4), p. 2.
26 Royal Aircraft Establishment, ‘The possible improvement in aircraft performance due to the use of boundary layer suction’, by A.A. Griffith and F.W. Meredith, March 1936, AVIA 6/8595.
27 Royal Aircraft Establishment, op. cit. (26).
28 See, for example, the 1928 report, E.G. Reid and M.J. Bamber, ‘Preliminary investigation on boundary layer control by means of suction and pressure with the USA 27 aerofoil’, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Technical Note 286, May 1928.
29 Memo from H.L. Stevens, superintendent RAE, to the secretary, Air Ministry, for the attention of DSR, 19 May 1937, AVIA 13/554.
30 Stevens, op. cit. (29).
31 ‘Twin jet A.W. 52 tailless experimental mailplane with two Rolls-Royce Nenes: many advanced features’, Flight, 19 December 1946, pp. 672–679, 672.
32 Sir Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Limited, Technical Department, Report No. R161, 2 June 1949, by H.J. Staite, ‘The oscillations of the AW 52 (E.9/44)’, DSIR 23/18275.
33 ‘Wind tunnel note no. 357, boundary layer control. A review of the present position’, by H.M. Lyon, July 1938, AVIA 6/9435.
34 Aerodynamics Sub-committee, Aeronautical Research Committee, ‘An aerofoil designed to give laminar flow over the whole surface with boundary layer suction’, by E.J. Richards and C.H. Burge, Aeronautics Department, NPL, 7 June 1943, DSIR 23/12621.
35 Phipp, Mike, The Brabazon Committee and British Airliners 1945–1960, Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd, 2007Google Scholar.
36 D/DGSR to SR1, 13.12.45, AVIA 15/2262. Minutes of the BLCC meetings are in AVIA 15/2262 and AVIA 15/2263.
37 ‘DSR Committee on Wing Suction’, draft, 22/10/45, AVIA 15/2262.
38 ‘Note on the practical application of thick suction wings’, by J.H. Preston, Aerodynamics Division, NPL, Performance Sub-committee, Aeronautical Research Council, 20 November 1945, DSIR 23/15007. See also ‘Wind tunnel tests on a 30% suction wing’, by E.J. Richards, W.S. Walker and C.R. Taylor of the Aerodynamics Division, NPL, 27 July 1945, Performance Sub-committee, Aeronautical Research Council, DSIR 23/14701.
39 E.F. Relf, ‘Recent aerodynamic developments’, Flight and Aircraft Engineer, 6 June 1946, pp. 570–579, 578. This is a reprint of the 1946 Wilbur Wright lecture given at the Royal Aeronautical Society on 30 May 1946.
40 Relf, op. cit. (39), p. 578, italics in the original.
41 Relf, op. cit. (39), p. 579.
42 Relf, op. cit. (39), p. 579.
43 ‘Boundary layer control’, Flight and Aircraft Engineer, 6 June 1946, p. 559.
44 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the second meeting of the committee, 16 May 1946, AVIA 15/2262.
45 Letter from H.M. Garner to L.P. Coombes, CSIR Division of Aeronautics, Melbourne, Australia, 13 November 1947, AVIA 15/2263. See also ‘The Australian suction wing project: notes on the present position and a proposed programme for the future’, October 1949, ASRLO Report No. 799, DSIR 23/18564.
46 Garner letter, op. cit. (45).
47 Goldstein, S., ‘Low-drag and suction aerofoils’, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology (1948) 20, pp. 128–133Google Scholar.
48 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the 12th Meeting, 14 January 1948, AVIA 15/2263.
49 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the 11th Meeting of the committee, 5 November 1947, AVIA 15/2263.
50 H.M. Garner to chief scientist, CS(A), ‘Boundary layer control for thick-winged aircraft’, 29 January 1948, AVIA 15/2263.
51 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the 13th meeting, 10 March 1948, AVIA 15/2263.
52 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the 17th meeting, 8 December 1948, AVIA 15/2263.
53 Boundary Layer Control Committee, minutes of the 18th meeting, 9 February 1949, AVIA 15/2263.
54 W.E. Gray, ‘Visual transition tests in flight on a Griffith suction wing, 16% thick’, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Technical Note Aero 2076, October 1950, AVIA 6/15795, ‘Flight Research’, 214.
55 H.F. Vessey, ‘Boundary layer control – thick wing suction’, AD/ARD (research), undated but position in file suggests mid-December 1949, AVIA 54/455.
56 Vessey, op. cit. (55).
57 Copy of letter from the chairman of the Performance Sub-committee to the chairman of the Fluid Motion Sub-committee, 9 February 1950, Aeronautical Research Council, DSIR 23/18781.
58 D.J. Raney, J. Williams and T.V. Somerville, ‘A brief review of the developments and potentialities of high subsonic speed laminar flow aircraft’, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Technical Note Aero 2613, April 1959, DSIR 23/ 26803.
59 ‘Laminarised all-wing aircraft, part I. Fundamental aspects of laminarisation and its application to the all-wing aeroplane’, by G.V. Lachmann, handwritten date 18/7/61, DSIR 23/28838.
60 Fluid Motion Sub-committee, Aeronautical Research Council, summary of recent discussions by the Performance Sub-committee on subjects connected with boundary-layer suction, 16 February 1950, DSIR 23/18786.
61 Fluid Motion Sub-committee, op. cit. (60).
62 Fluid Motion Sub-committee, op. cit. (60).
63 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
64 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58). On the US F-94 tests see also ‘Recent developments in the field of low drag boundary layer suction’, by W. Pfenninger, in Aeronautical Research Council, laminar-flow control presentation for the Aeronautical Systems Division, 3–4 May 1962, Northrop Corporation, Norair Division (NB 62–105 revised), 27 August 1963, DSIR 23/30854.
65 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
66 Aeronautical Research Council, Aerodynamics Committee, 95th report of the Performance Sub-committee, ‘The use of suction to maintain laminar flow’, 2 March 1965, DSIR 23/32319.
67 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
68 Royal Aircraft Establishment, Technical Note AERO 2240, ‘A laminar flow experiment in flight on a swept wing (A.W.52)’, by W.E. Gray, March 1953, DSIR 23/21869.
69 ‘The effect of wing sweep on laminar flow’, by W.E. Gray, Royal Aircraft Establishment, February 1952, technical memorandum Aero 255, DSIR 23/20766.
70 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
71 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
72 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
73 ‘A carefully considered assessment of the reduction of direct operating cost made possible by laminar flow’, by J.B. Edwards, Handley Page Ltd, April 1959, DSIR 23/26804.
74 Lachmann, G.V. (ed.), Boundary Layer and Flow Control: Its Principles and Application, vol. 2, Oxford: Pergamon, p. 1123Google Scholar.
75 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
76 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
77 Aeronautical Research Council, Aerodynamics Committee, 103rd report of the Performance Sub-committee, 7 May 1968, DSIR 23/35788.
78 Letter to Ministry of Supply, for the attention of Dr W. Cawood from F. Handley Page, chairman and managing director, 7 May 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
79 Handley Page letter to Ministry of Supply, op. cit. (78).
80 Aeronautical Research Council, HP 113 Small High-Speed Research Jetliner with 6,000-mile range, from Page, HandleyBulletin (Autumn 1958) 24(230), 21–22Google Scholar, 21 October 1958, ARC 20, 473, DSIR 23/26310.
81 Letter from W. Cawood, deputy controller of aircraft, research and development to Sir Frederick Handley Page, 16 May 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
82 Memo to M.B. Morgan, deputy director Royal Aircraft Establishment, from AD/ADR, Ministry of Supply, 28 May 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
83 Notes on meeting to discuss the Handley Page proposal for a low drag research aircraft, the HP 113, held in St Giles Court on Tuesday, 24 June 1958, 27 June 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
84 Notes on meeting, op. cit. (83).
85 Notes on meeting, op. cit. (83).
86 Brief notes of a meeting held in DDGSR(A)'s office on Tuesday 8th July 1958 to discuss the HP. 113 proposal, 10 July 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
87 Brief notes of a meeting, op. cit. (86).
88 Brief notes of a meeting, op. cit. (86).
89 Brief notes of a meeting, op. cit. (86).
90 ‘The Handley Page 113 research aircraft and executive transport’, TATC/P80, attached to note from Ministry of Supply, Transport Aircraft Technical Committee, 19 September 1958, AVIA 65/1330.
91 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
92 ‘Handley Page 117 laminar flow all-wing transport for lowest cost – longest range’, Handley Page Ltd, June 1960, DSIR 23/28151.
93 Handley Page 117, op. cit. (92).
94 Handley Page 117, op. cit. (92).
95 ‘All wing laminar aircraft. Part 2, the HP.117, proposal by G.H. Lee’, A.1 report received 24/7/61 stamped by Aeronautical Research Council, DSIR 23/28839.
96 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
97 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
98 ‘Boundary-layer suction to maintain laminar flow on supersonic transport aircraft’, copy of letter from secretary, Performance Sub-committee, to secretary, Aerodynamics Committee, 31 December 1969, Aeronautical Council, Aerodynamics Committee, DSIR 23/37743.
99 ‘Cutting wing drag on rear-engine aircraft’, New Scientist (22 October 1964) 414, pp. 212–213Google Scholar.
100 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
101 Lachmann, G.V., ‘Boundary layer control for low drag: a review of the present situation and an assessment of the potentialities of laminarization techniques’, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology (1962) 34, pp. 66–76, 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
102 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
103 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
104 Raney, Williams and Somerville, op. cit. (58).
105 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
106 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
107 ‘The use of suction to maintain laminar flow’, copy of letter from secretary, Aerodynamics Committee, to secretary, ARC, Aerodynamics Research Council, 23 June 1965, signed by P.B. Earnshaw, DSIR 23/32901.
108 M.H.L. Waters, ‘A brief comparative study of the effect of advances in technology on the performance of laminar-flow and conventional subsonic transport aircraft’, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Technical Report 67094, April 1967, AVIA 6/23027.
109 Waters, op. cit. (108).
110 Waters, op. cit. (108).
111 Waters, op. cit. (108).
112 Waters, op. cit. (108).
113 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
114 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
115 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
116 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
117 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77), original emphasis.
118 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
119 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77).
120 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (77), original emphasis.
121 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
122 Aeronautical Research Council, op. cit. (66).
123 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 11.
124 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 12
125 Joslin, Ronald D., Overview of Laminar Flow Control, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 1998, p. 1Google Scholar.
126 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 13, original emphasis.
127 Bowles, Mark D., The ‘Apollo’ of Aerodynamics: NASA's Aircraft Energy Efficiency Program 1973–1987, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010Google Scholar.
128 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 15
129 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 25
130 Braslow, op. cit. (5), p. 1.
131 Max Kingsley-Jones, ‘Farnborough: aero secrets of Boeing's new Dreamliner’, Flight Global, 18 July 2014, at www.flightglobal.com/farnborough-aero-secrets-of-boeings-new-dreamliner/113955.article.
132 IATA, ‘Airline maintenance cost executive summary’, November 2013, p. 9, at www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/Documents/AMC-ExecComment-FY12.pdf. Data from 2012 show average yearly cycles for narrowbody aircraft of 1,571 and of widebody aircraft of 830, giving an overall daily average of cycles of 4.53.
133 ‘Jet propelled flying wings’, Flight, 9 January 1947.
134 Greener by Design, op. cit. (1).
135 Amongst many examples, two perhaps best represent the distinct contributions of the different traditions: Hughes, T.P., Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983Google Scholar; and Mackenzie, D.M., Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990Google Scholar.
136 G. Owen, ‘National environment and international competitiveness: a comparison of the British pharmaceutical & electronics industries’, Centre for Economic Performance, Working Paper 561, March 1994.
137 Spinardi, G., ‘Industrial exploitation of carbon fibre in the UK, USA, and Japan’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management (2002) 14(4), pp. 381–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
138 M.H. Brodsky, ‘Progress in gallium arsenide semiconductors’, Scientific American, February 1990, pp. 56–63, 56.
139 Spinardi, G., ‘The limits to “spin-off”: UK defence R & D and the development of gallium arsenide technology’, BJHS (March 2012) 45, pp. 97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
140 Edgerton, op. cit. (8), p. 91.
141 Hartley, K., ‘The learning curve and its application to the aircraft industry’, Journal of Industrial Economics (March 1965) 13(2), pp. 122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
142 Gardner, N.K., ‘The economics of launching aid’, in Whiting, A. (ed.), The Economics of Industrial Subsidies, London: HMSO, 1976Google Scholar.
143 Hayward, op. cit. (8).
144 Goldenberg, Jacob, Libai, Barak, Louzoun, Loram, Mazursky, David and Solomon, Sorin, ‘Inevitably reborn: the reawakening of extinct innovations’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2004) 71, pp. 881–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
145 Arthur, W. Brian, ‘Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events’, Economic Journal (March 1989) 99, pp. 116–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arthur, , Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
146 David, P.A., ‘Clio and the economics of QWERTY’, American Economic Review (1985) 75, pp. 332–337Google Scholar.
147 Boeing 737 Max flight control system, joint authorities technical review, 11 October 2019, at www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/Final_JATR_Submittal_to_FAA_Oct_2019.pdf.
148 Downer, J., ‘On audits and airplanes: redundancy and reliability-assessment in high technologies’, Accounting, Organizations and Society (2011) 36, pp. 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
149 Spinardi, G. and Slayton, R., ‘Greener aviation take-off (delayed): analysing environmental transitions with the multi-level perspective’, Science & Technology Studies (2015) 28, pp. 1–25Google Scholar.
150 R. Self, ‘Competing priorities: technology's influence on the levels of environmental emissions from aircraft and the trade-offs involved – review and future prospects’, draft submission to DfT, September 2018, at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/763263/competing-priorities-noise-report.pdf.
151 NASA, fiscal year 2011 budget estimates, at www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf, downloaded 14 August 2012.
152 Green, op. cit. (4), p. 2.
153 ‘Laminarised all-wing aircraft’, op. cit. (59).
