Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-7lfxl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-18T13:33:14.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A career in vortices and edge forces

Part of: RAeS Lanchester Lecture Papers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

J. Lamar
J. Lamar*
Affiliation:
Lamar Engineering Consultantship, Newport News, Virginia, USA
*
johnelamar@verizon.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This lecture recognises the background and distinguished work of Frederick William Lanchester, and notes that my background has a few similarities with his. These include a shared interest in wings, lift and vortices. My career at the NASA Langley Research Center spans the time-frame from America’s Super Sonic Transport through 2009. An early emphasis involved wind-tunnel testing of research aircraft models and the development of computer codes for subsonic aerodynamics of wing planforms. These attached-flow codes were applied to various configurations, including those with variable-sweep, dihedral, and more than one planform in both the analysis- and design-modes. These codes were used to provide a connection between leading-edge-forces and the associated additional lift on delta-wings with shed-vortex systems through the leading-edge suction analogy of Edward C. Polhamus. Subsequently, I extended the suction analogy to configurations with side-edges to predict the vortical-flow aerodynamics on complex configurations, including wing-strake combinations. These analysis codes could also be used in a design-by-analysis mode for configurations with leading-edge shed vortices. Later, I was involved in vortical-flow flight research with the F-106B and the F-16XL aircraft at cruise and maneuver conditions. Associated CFD predictions, generated by me and other members of the RTO/AVT-113 task group, have increased our understanding of the flight flow-physics measured on the F-16XL aircraft.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1176 , February 2012 , pp. 101 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Lanchester, F.W. Aerodynamics: Constituting the First Volume of a Complete Work on Aerial Flight, New York, USA, D. Van Nostrand Company, 1908.Google Scholar
2. von Karman, T. Lanchester’s contributions to the theory of flight and operational research, Aeronaut J, February 1958, 62, pp 80–93.Google Scholar
3. Lamar, J.E. Some vortical-flow flight experiments on slender aircraft that impacted the advancement of aeronautics, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, August-November 2009, 45, (6-8), pp 147–168.Google Scholar
4. Ray, E.J. NASA Supersonic Commercial Air Transport (SCAT) Configurations: A Summary and Index of Experimental Characteristics. NASA TM X-1329, 1967.Google Scholar
5. Lockwood, V.E., McKinney, L.W. and Lamar, J.E. Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Supersonic Transport Model with a High-Aspect-Ratio Variable-Sweep Warped Wing. NASA TM X-979, July 1964.Google Scholar
6. Carlson, H.W. and Middleton, W.D. A Numerical Method for the Design of Camber Surfaces of Supersonic Wings With Arbitrary Planforms. NASA TN D-2341, 1964.Google Scholar
7. Middleton, W.D. and Carlson, H.W. A Numerical Method for Calculating the Flat-Plate Pressure Distributions on Supersonic Wings of Arbitrary Planform. NASA TN D-2570, 1965.Google Scholar
8. Van Spiegel, E. and Wouters, J.G. Modification of Multhopp’s Lifting Surface Theory with a View to Automatic Computation. NLR-TN W.2, Nat. Lucht- Ruimtevaartlab (Amsterdam), June 1962.Google Scholar
9. Lamar, J.E. A Modified Multhopp Approach for Predicting Lifting Pressures and Camber Shape for Composite Planforms in Subsonic Flow. NASA TN D-4427, July 1968.Google Scholar
10. Polhamus, E.C. A Concept of the Vortex Lift of Sharp-Edge Delta Wings Based on a Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy. NASA TN D-3767, 1966.Google Scholar
11. Lamar, J.E. and Campbell, J.F. Recent Studies at NASA-Langley of Vortical Flows Interacting with Neighboring Surfaces. AGARD CP-342, (10), July 1983.Google Scholar
12. Lamar, J.E. A Theoretical Study of the Effect of Pivot Location on the Aerodynamic Center Movement of Variable-Sweep Wings in Incompressible Flow. NASA TN D-4635, July 1968.Google Scholar
13. Etkin, B. Dynamics of Flight — Stability and Control, John Wiley & Sons, c. 1959.Google Scholar
14. Lamar, J.E. Design Charts of Static and Rotary Stability Derivatives for Cropped Double-Delta Wings in Subsonic Compressible Flow. NASA TN D-5661, February 1970.Google Scholar
15. http://www.area51specialprojects.com/xb-70_crash_sequence.html. Accessed last on 15 February, 2011.Google Scholar
16. Margason, R.J. and Lamar, J.E. Vortex Lattice FORTRAN Program for Computing Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Complex Planforms. NASA TN D-6142, February 1971.Google Scholar
17. Lamar, J.E. and Herbert, H.E. Production Version of the Extended NASA- Langley Vortex Lattice FORTRAN Computer Program – Volume I – User’s Guide. NASA TM 83303, April 1982.Google Scholar
18. Lamar, J.E. Effects of Aeroelasticity on Static Aerodynamic Derivatives. NASA SP-258, 1971, pp 375–438.Google Scholar
19. Lamar, J.E. and McKinney, L.W. Low-Speed Static Wind-Tunnel Investigation of a Half-Span Variable-Sweep Pressure Model. NASA TN D-6215, August 1971.Google Scholar
20. Abbott, I.H., Von Doenhoff, A.E. and Stivers, L.S. Jr Summary of Airfoil Data. NACA Report 824, 1945. (Supersedes NACA WR L-560)Google Scholar
21. Lamar, J.E. Application of Vortex Lattice Methodology for Predicting Mean Camber Shapes of Two-Trimmed-Noncoplanar-Complex Planforms with Minimum Induced Drag at Design Lift. NASA TN D-8090, June 1976.Google Scholar
22. Munk, M.M. The Minimum Induced Drag of Aerofoils. NACA Rep. 121, 1921.Google Scholar
23. Snyder, M.H. Jr and Lamar, J.E. Application of the Leading-Edge Suction Analogy to Prediction of Longitudinal Load Distribution and Pitching Moments for Sharp-Edge Delta Wings. NASA TN D-6994, October 1972.Google Scholar
24. Fox, C.H. Jr and Lamar, J.E. Theoretical and Experimental Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Aspect Ratio 0·25 Sharp-Edge Delta Wing at Subsonic, Supersonic and Hypersonic Speeds. NASA TN D-7651, August 1974.Google Scholar
25. Lamar, J.E. Extension of Leading-Edge-Suction Analogy to Wings with Separated Flow Around the Side Edges at Subsonic Speeds. NASA TR R-428, October 1974.Google Scholar
26. Bisplinghoff, R.L., Ashley, H. and Halfman, R.L. AEROELASTICITY, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, USA, 1955, p 223.Google Scholar
27. Milne-Thomson, L.M. Theoretical Aerodynamics, 2nd ed, MacMillian and Co, Limited, St Martin’s Street, London, UK, 1952, pp 122–124.Google Scholar
28. Lamar, J.E. and Gloss, B.B. Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Interacting Lifting Surfaces with Separated Flow around Sharp Edges Predicted by a Vortex- Lattice Method. NASA TN D-7921, September 1975.Google Scholar
29. Lamar, J.E. Some Recent Applications of the Suction Analogy to Vortex-Lift Estimates. Presented at the NASA Conference on Aerodynamic Analyses Requiring Advanced Computers, NASA SP-347, Part II, pp 985–1011, 4-5 March 1975.Google Scholar
30. Lamar, J.E. Subsonic vortex-flow design study for slender wings, AIAA J Aircr, September 1978, 15, (9).Google Scholar
31. Lamar, J.E., Schemensky, R.T. and Reddy, C.S. Development of a Vortex-Lift Design Procedure and Application to a Slender Maneuver-Wing Configuration. AIAA J Aircr, April 1981, 18, (4), pp 259–266.Google Scholar
32. Lamar, J.E. and Campbell, J.F. Vortex flaps – Advanced control devices for supercruise fighters, Aerospace America, January 1984, pp 95–99.Google Scholar
33. Lamar, J.E. Nonlinear Lift Control at High Speed and High Angle of Attack Using Vortex Flow Technology. AGARD/FDP/VKI Special Course on ‘Fundamentals of Fighter Aircraft Design’, Presented at the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics Belgium, 17-21 February 1986. FDP/VKI/CPP R740.Google Scholar
34. Frink, N.T. Concept for Designing Vortex Flap Geometries. NASA TP 2233, December 1983.Google Scholar
35. Huebner, L.D. and Lamar, J.E. Performance Analysis and Supersonic Design of Wing Leading-Edge Vortex Flaps for the Convair F-106B. Presented in Vortex Flow Aerodynamics Conference; Jointly Sponsored by NASA Langley and USAF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, at Hampton, VA, USA, October 1985.Google Scholar
36. Brandon, J.M., Hallissy, J.B., Brown, P.W. and Lamar, J.E. In-Flight Flow Visualization Results of the F-106B with a Vortex Flap. Presented at the Symposium on Advanced Flow Management, MP-69-P-43, Loen, Norway, 7-11 May 2001.Google Scholar
37. Hemsch, M.J. and Luckring, J.M. Connection between leading-edge sweep, vortex lift, and vortex strength for delta wings, AIAA J Aircr, May 1990, 27, (5), pp 473–475.Google Scholar
38. Lamar, J.E. High Angle of Attack Aerodynamics in AGARD/FDP/VKI Special Course on Engineering Methods in Aerodynamic Analysis and Design of Aircraft. AGARD Report-R-783, January 1992.Google Scholar
39. Frink, N.T. and Lamar, J.E. Water-Tunnel and Analytical Investigation of the Effect of Strake design Variables on Strake Vortex Breakdown Characteristics. NASA TP 1676, August 1980.Google Scholar
40. Lamar, J.E. Analysis and design of Strake-wing configurations. AIAA J Aircr, January 1980, 17, (1), pp 20–27.Google Scholar
41. Lamar, J.E. and Frink, N.T. Experimental and Analytical Study of the Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of Analytically and Empirically Designed Strake-Wing Configurations at Subcritical Speeds. NASA TP 1803, June 1981.Google Scholar
42. Lugt, H.J. Vortex Flow in Nature and Technology, John Wiley & Sons, February 1983, p 143.Google Scholar
43. Task Group RTO-AVT-102: Investigation of Airwake Control for Safer Shipboard Aircraft Operations. RTO-TR-AVT-102, Appendix XX, June 2007.Google Scholar
44. Lamar, J.E., Bruce, R.A., Pride, J.D. Jr., Smith, R.H., Brown, P.W. and Johnson, T.D. Jr. In-flight flow visualization of F-l06B Leading-edge vortex using the vapour-screen technique, AIAA J Aircraft, February 1988, 25, (2), pp 113–120.Google Scholar
45. Lamar, J.E. and Johnson, T.D. Jr Sensitivity of F-106B Leading-Edge Vortex Images to Flight and Vapour-Screen Parameters. NASA TP-2818, June 1988.Google Scholar
46. Burdin, I.Y., Zhirnov, A.V., Kulesh, V.P., Orlov, A.A., Pesetskiy, V.A. and Fonov, S.D. Use of Laser Methods for the Study of Detached Flows in a Wind Tunnel and in Flight. Translated from Scientific Notes of TsAGI-Central Institute of Aerohydrodynamics, 1981, pp 1–19.Google Scholar
47. Lamar, J.E., Brandon, J., Stacy, K., Johnson, T.D. Jr., Severance, K. and Childers, B.A. Leading-Edge Vortex-System Details Obtained on F-106B Aircraft Using a Rotating Vapour Screen and Surface Techniques. NASA TP 3374, November 1993.Google Scholar
48. Hillaker, H.J. F-16XL Flight Test Program Overview. AIAA-83-2730, November 1983.Google Scholar
49. Talty, P.K. and Caughlin, D.J. F-16XL Demonstrates new capabilities in flight test at Edwards Air Force Base, AIAA J Aircr, March 1988, 25, (3), pp 206–215.Google Scholar
50. Lamar, J.E., Obara, C.J., Fisher, B.D. and Fisher, D.F. Flight, Wind-Tunnel, and Computational Fluid Dynamics Comparison for Cranked Arrow Wing (F-16XL- 1) at Subsonic and Transonic Speeds. NASA/TP-2001-210629, February 2001.Google Scholar
51. Thomas, J.L., Krist, S.T. and Anderson, K.W. Navier-Stokes computations of vortical flows over low-aspect-ratio wings. AIAA J Aircr, February 1990, 28, 2, pp 205–212.Google Scholar
52. RTO TECHNICAL REPORT TR-AVT-113 Entitled Understanding and Modelling Vortical Flows to Improve the Technology Readiness Level for Military Aircraft: Summary Report of Task Group AVT-113, October 2009.Google Scholar
53. AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 354–441.Google Scholar
54. Obara, C.J. and Lamar, J.E. Overview of the cranked-arrow wing aerodynamics project international, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 47, (2), pp 355–368.Google Scholar
55. Boelens, O.J., Badcock, K.J., GÖrtz, S., Morton, S., Fritz, W., Karman, S.L. Jr, Michal, T. and Lamar, J.E. Description of the F-16XL geometry and computational grids used in CAWAPI, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 369–376.Google Scholar
56. Boelens, O.J., Badcock, K.J., Elmilgui, A., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Massey, S.J. Comparison of Measured and Block Structured Simulations for the F-16XLAircraft, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 377–384.Google Scholar
57. GÖrtz, S., Jirásek, A., Morton, S.A., McDaniel, D.R., Cummings, R.M., Lamar, J.E. and Abdol-Hamid, K.S. Standard Unstructured Grid Solutions for CAWAPI F-16XL, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 385–408.Google Scholar
58. Fritz, W., Davis, M.B., Karman, S.L. Jr and Michal, T. RANS Solutions for the CAWAPI F-16XL Using Different Hybrid Grids. AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 409–422.Google Scholar
59. Rizzi, A., Jirásek, A., Lamar, J.E., Crippa, S., Badcock, K.J. and Boelens, O.J. Lessons Learned from Numerical Simulations of the F-16XL Aircraft at Flight Conditions, AIAA J Aircr, March-April 2009, 46, (2), pp 423–441.Google Scholar
A1. Corlett, W.A. and Foster, G.V. Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Tailless Fixed- Wing Supersonic Transport Model at Mach Numbers from 1·80 to 2·86. NASA TM-X-992, 1964.Google Scholar
A2. Ray, E.J. and Taylor, R.T. Transonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Tailless Fixed-Wing Supersonic Transport Model. NASA TM X-1214, March 1966.Google Scholar