AE 301 – Aerodynamics I – Spring 2015

Answers for Problem Set 1

1. (5 pts) For a given point on the wing of a large commercial airplane during flight the pressure
and temperature of the air are measured to be 1.8 × 104 N m−2 and −70.15◦ C, respectively.
Calculate the density of the air at this point.

Answer: Assume a perfect gas (a good assumption for air), i.e., p = ρRT where p is pressure,
ρ is density, R is the gas constant, and T is absolute temperature, all in the appropriate system
of engineering units. In the SI system then R = 287 J kg−1 K−1 . Remember that a Joule is
equivalent to units of kg m2 s−2 . A temperature of −70.15◦ C is equal to 203◦ K. In this case
we have
p 1.8 × 104
ρ= = = 0.309 kg m−3
RT (287)(203)

2. (5 pts) An ERAU airplane is in flight at a true airspeed of 140 mph at an altitude of 2,000 ft
where the atmospheric properties conform to standard conditions. The wing span is 30 ft and
the mean (average) chord of the wing of the airplane is 5.2 ft. Calculate the effective free-
stream Mach number and chord Reynolds number for the wing at these flight conditions.
If the airplane now climbs to reach 12,000 ft while maintaining the same true airspeed,
calculate the Mach number and chord Reynolds number at these new conditions.

Answer: A true airspeed of 140 mph is equivalent to 205.34 ft s−1 , i.e., 140 × 1.4667 =
205.34 where the factor 1.4667 is the conversion from units of mph to ft s−1 .
The mean chord of the wing, c̄, is 5.2 ft.
We are given two operating altitudes of 2,000 ft and 12,000 ft, for which the atmospheric
properties will be different. These properties can be calculated using the standard atmo-
spheric model (or International Standard Atmosphere or ISA) found in the textbook or from
various online resources.
At 2,000 ft, the ISA model gives: ρ∞ = 0.0022409 slugs ft−3 , T∞ = 511.56◦ R and µ∞ = 3.697
× 10−7 slugs ft−1 s−1 . We are also asked to calculate the Mach number so we
√ need the speed
of sound, a∞ , at each altitude, which can be calculated using using a∞ = γRT∞ where γ =
1.4 for air and R in English/American units is 1716 ft lb slugs−1 ◦ R−1 . So, at 2,000 ft by
calculation then a∞ = 1108.59 ft s−1 .
At 12,000 ft, the same ISA model gives: ρ∞ = 0.0016482 slugs ft −3 , µ∞ = 3.697 × 10−7 slugs
ft−1 s−1 and a∞ = 1069.43 ft s−1 .
At 2,000 ft then the free-stream Mach number is
V∞ 205.34
M∞ = = = 0.185
a∞ 1108.59

1
 and the Reynolds number based on mean chord is

ρ∞V∞ c̄ (0.0022409)(205.34)5.2
Rec = = −7
= 6.473 × 106
µ∞ 3.697 × 10
i.e., the Reynolds number in this first case is 6.47 million.
At 12,000 ft then the free-stream Mach number is
V∞ 205.34
M∞ = = = 0.192
a∞ 1069.43
which is only a slight increase compared to flight at the lower altitude because of the lower
temperature and correspondingly lower speed of sound, and so in this case the Reynolds
number based on mean chord is
ρ∞V∞ c̄ (0.0016482)(205.34)5.2
Rec = = −7
= 5.038 × 106
µ∞ 3.493 × 10
i.e., the Reynolds number in this second case has been reduced a little to 5.04 million by the
changes in the atmospheric properties at the higher altitude.

3. (5 pts) The proposed ERAU-7X7 aircraft has a wing span of 120 ft and a mean chord of
10 ft. The typical approach to landing speed of the aircraft is 140 mph. Tests on a true to
scale model of this aircraft are to be performed the in a wind tunnel that has a working section
that is 20 ft high and 20 ft wide, and has a maximum wind speed capability of 275 ft s−1 .
Establish: (a) the maximum scale of the model if the tips of the model must be no less than
2 ft from any tunnel wall, and (b) whether or not dynamic flow similarity can be obtained
on the model in the wind tunnel. If not, what might be done to estimate the aerodynamic
characteristics of the full-scale aircraft in the landing configuration?

Answer: If we are to test a scale model of ERAU-7X7 aircraft in the specified wind tunnel,
then the maximum wing span can only be 16 ft based on the specified constraints. This
means that the model scale must be 16/120 = 0.1333, i.e., 1:7.5 scale model.
This immediately raises concerns about attaining the needed values of Mach number and
Reynolds number in the wind tunnel, i.e., to ensure dynamic flow similarity. Remember that
for dynamic flow similarity a prerequisite is geometric similarity of the model to the full-
scale aircraft, i.e., the model scale and full scale aircraft can differ only in terms of a single
geometric scaling factor.
The mean chord, c̄ of the ERAU-7X7 aircraft is 10 ft so for the scale model c̄ =10/7.5 =
1.333 ft.
The true airspeed of the actual aircraft is 140 mph, which is equivalent to 205.34 ft s−1 . We
note that the maximum attainable wind speed in the wind tunnel is higher than this value.
We are not told any particular atmospheric conditions, but for a landing aircraft it would be
reasonable to assume ISA standard sea level conditions (i.e., MSL ISA) in the absence of

2
any specified conditions. In this case for MSL ISA we use ρ∞ = 0.002378 slugs ft −3 , µ∞ =
3.7372 × 10−7 slugs ft−1 s−1 , and a∞ = 1116.45 ft s−1 .
For the full-scale aircraft at the landing speed of 140 mph (205.34 ft s−1 ) then
V∞ 205.34
M∞ ≡ Mfull = = = 0.192
a∞ 1069.43
ρ∞V∞ c̄ (0.002378)(205.34)10
Rec ≡ Refull = = −7
= 13.066 × 106
µ∞ 3.7372 × 10
For the model-scale aircraft at the same airspeed (140 mph or 205.34 ft s−1 ) then
V∞ 205.34
M∞ ≡ Mmodel = = = 0.192
a∞ 1116.45
so obviously we can match the Mach numbers in the wind tunnel but for the Reynolds num-
ber
ρ∞V∞ c̄ (0.002378)(205.34)1.333
Rec ≡ Remodel = = −7
= 1.74 × 106
µ∞ 3.7372 × 10
which is an order of magnitude smaller than the full-scale flight Reynolds number.
We can try to increase the Reynolds number by increasing the wind speed in the wind tunnel
to the maximum value of 275 mph (or 403.34 ft s−1 ). In this case for the model-scale aircraft
V∞ 403.34
M∞ ≡ Mmodel = = = 0.361
a∞ 1116.45
so now we have a higher Mach number in the wind tunnel, and for the corresponding
Reynolds number in this case

ρ∞V∞ c̄ (0.002378)(403.34)1.333
Rec ≡ Remodel = = = 3.42 × 106
µ∞ 3.7372 × 10−7
which is still much smaller than the full-scale flight Reynolds number. So, in an attempt to
match both of the similarity parameters, in this case by increasing the wind speed in the wind
tunnel, it has actually resulted in a mismatch of them both.
Such dilemmas in matching the values of the fluid dynamic similarity parameters with scaled
models is fairly common. There are several methods that can be used to help resolve this
dilemma including: 1. Using a bigger wind tunnel model, although to avoid flow interference
effects between the model and the wind tunnel walls then this would require a bigger wind
tunnel and may not be a practical option. 2. Changing the fluid properties, such as by
using a different gas or by pressuring the flow wind tunnel or even by significantly cooling it
(neither of which are easy options), 3. Establishing sensitivities to the airloads on the model
to variations in both Mach number and Reynolds number. The effects of Reynolds number
are usually more important at low subsonic free-stream Mach numbers less than 0.3, so a
Reynolds number sweep (i.e., varying the wind speed from very low to very high) would be
a way to proceed to find the sensitivity to Reynolds number and then extrapolate to full-scale
values (maybe with the aid of CFD modeling).

3
4. (5 pts) The weight of the ERAU airplane in Question 2 is 2,600 lb. Assume all the lift is
carried by the wing. If the relationship between the drag coefficient, CD , and CL is assumed
to be CD = 0.025 + 0.054CL2 , show (plot on a graph) how the values of CL , CD , and the
lift-to-drag ratio CL /CD of the wing will change with airspeed in the range from 60 mph to
180 mph. Comment on your results.

Answer: We are told that the lift on the wing, L, is equal to the weight of the aircraft, W , i.e.,
L = W = 2,600 lb. The wing area, S, is the wing span times the mean chord, i.e., 30 × 5.2 =
156 ft2 . We can easily find the lift coefficient, CL , because we know that
1
L = ρ∞V∞2 SCL = W
2
or
W
CL = 1 2
2 ρ∞V∞ S
Using the results from Q-1 at 2,000 ft we have that ρ∞ = 0.0022409 slugs ft−3 and at 12,000 ft
we have ρ∞ = 0.0016482 slugs ft−3 . Also the weight of the aircraft is W = 2,600 lb.
We are asked to plot the values of CL over a range of airspeeds (60 mph to 180 mph). Re-
member that we need to convert the units of mph to engineering units of ft s−1 before solving
for CL .
The graph for CL at the two altitudes is shown below.

We are also given that the corresponding drag coefficient of the aircraft is CD = 0.025 +
0.054CL2 , i.e., a profile drag part independent of lift and an induced drag part that varies with
CL2 . The graph for CD at the two altitudes is also shown.
Finally, the lift-to-drag ratio graph for the aircraft at the two altitudes is shown.
Notice that all of the results depend on altitude. We also notice that at lower airspeeds the
required values of CL increase rapidly. A wing will have a finite maximum lift coefficient,

4
which for the aspect ratio of the wing given in this case would be about 1.5 with the wing
in the clean configuration (i.e., with the flaps up or retracted) and about 2.0 with the flaps
down. Therefore, we see that at low airspeeds when the values of CL begin to exceed the
attainable values and the wing would stall. The onset of flow separation and stall on the
wing would dictate the lowest attainable flight speed of the aircraft. Notice that for a given
value of maximum lift coefficient then the stall speed would increase at higher altitudes. At
low airspeeds the drag coefficient of the aircraft is the highest, which is because of the high
lift coefficient – we call this induced drag or drag resulting from the creation of lift. Notice
also that the efficiency of the aircraft, i.e., the lift-to-drag ratio, has a maximum value at
intermediate airspeeds and this value, and the airspeed for that this value is attained, both
vary with altitude.