Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.

Lift and drag for 3D unswept and swept wings

1. Lift of unswept wings

Given an unswept, planar wing of finite span, b, semi-span s and area S, the overall lift can be
integrated from the variation of circulation across the span. This analysis is the classical one
presented by Glauerti:
s
L=∫ ρU ∞ Γ ( y) dy (1)
−s
substituting:
y=−s cos θ (2)
and assuming the circulation can be modelled as a Fourier sine series:
∞
Γ(θ)=4s U ∞ ∑ An sin n θ (3)
n =1
then:
π
L=∫ 4s 2 ρU 2∞ (∑ An sin n θ) sin θ d θ (4)
0
thus:
L=2 π s 2 ρU 2∞ A1 (5)
and:
C L= A1 π AR (6)
or
CL
A 1= (7)
π AR
where:
4s2 b 2
AR= = (8)
S S
When applied to an unswept wing of high aspect ratio, the lift curve slope for a wing in 3D can be
given as:
∂C L a0
=
∂α a (9)
1+ 0
π AR
Where a0 is the lift curve slope for a 2D aerofoil, given for a thin section in inviscid, incompressible
flow by:
a 0=2 π (10)
while for subsonic, compressible flows the Prandtl-Glauert or Göthert compressibility
transformations can be used, giving, for free-stream Mach number, M∞:
2π
a 0= (11)
√ 1−M 2∞
14 Sep 2021 Page 1 of 10
Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

Note that, in real flows, the value of a0 will be reduced slightly by viscous effects, typically by
approximately 2-5%, depending on Reynolds number.
2. Lift-dependent drag of unswept wings

The induced drag of the wing can be calculated, again following Glauert's analysis:
s
Di =∫ ρ w Γ( y)dy (12)
−s
π
Di =∫ 4s 2 ρU 2∞ ( ∑ nAn sin n θ)(∑ An sin n θ)d θ (13)
0
and then:
D i =2 π s 2 ρU 2∞ ∑ n A2n (14)
if we then write:
∑ nA2n
1+δ= 2 (15)
A1
then
(1+δ) L 2
Di = (16)
2 π s 2 ρ U 2∞
and
(1+δ) 2
C Di= C (17)
π AR L
so that
(1+δ) 2
C D=C D0+ C (18)
π AR L
For minimum lift-dependent drag, the terms An in the Fourier series for n > 2 should go to zero.
Hence for minimum lift-dependent drag, δ = 0, which corresponds to an elliptic spanwise loading.
The values of the coefficients in the Fourier series are determined by summing the induced
circulation across the span, based on the vorticity distribution from the wing quarter chord, then
enforcing zero normal downwash at the three-quarter chord location for n collocation points across
the span. This is then solved as an n × n matrix, yielding both overall lift coefficient and induced
drag. The process for solving the lifting-line equations is both simple and robust, and can be
implemented readily at spreadsheet macro level. The simple lifting-line approach, as described by
Glauert, would typically be solved using approximately 21 terms in the Fourier series. Subsequent
developments of this approach, involving multiple rows of vortices in the chordwise sense, are
known as a vortex-lattice method, an early example of which is described by Falknerii, which would
typically require the inversion of a matrix with an order of magnitude more unknowns.
3. Lift of swept wings

For swept wings, the unswept lifting line approach cannot be used, as there will be a kink in the
'bound' vortex at the plane of symmetry, resulting in a locally infinite induced velocity. In effect, the
local aerodynamic centre moves aft at the root of a swept wing, while, conversely, the local
aerodynamic centre moves forward at the wing tip. Variants of the approach described by Falkner

14 Sep 2021 Page 2 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

for unswept wings were developed and applied by numerous authors, including Küchemanniii,
Weissingeriv and Diederichv, but among these related methods, the most computationally efficient
and longest-surviving is that of Multhoppvi, which in the Multhopp-Garner form was the basis of
current simple data-sheet methods, including the ESDU liftvii and dragviii methods for planar wings,
and in Multhopp-Richardson form the basis of the ESDU methodsix,x for predicting the
characteristics of non-planar wings. The Multhopp approach uses a series of predefined loading
functions, involving some approximations, notably at the plane of symmetry, as well as some
assumptions about singular integrals. However, the results of a series of parametric calculations
using a developed version of the Multhopp method are given in ARC CP 1137xi, and are tabulated in
a form suitable for interpolation.
In addition to the multiple lifting-surface and vortex-lattice methods introduced for simple swept
wings in the 1940s, a very simple algebraic expression for the lift curve slope of an elliptically-
loaded swept wing of moderate-high aspect ratio was devised, which is equivalent to eqn. (9) for
unswept wings:
∂C L a 0 cos Λ
=

√
∂α a 0 cos Λ 2 a 0 cos Λ (19)
1+( )+
π AR π AR
where a0 is the 2D lift-curve slope, as given in eqn. 11, and Λ the angle of sweep.
4. Lift-dependent drag of swept wings

As we have seen in section 2. The lift-dependent drag of wings is intrinsically related to the work
done in generating a downwash field, and hence the spanwise loading distribution, with eqn. 15
implying a significant impact of the additional terms in the spanwise Fourier series of loading on
the overall drag. Garnerxii performed an equivalent approximate analysis for lift-dependent drag,
based on Multhopp's lifting surface approach:
s s
AR
C Di= ∫ ∫ Γ( y ) ddyΓ' dy
2 π −s −s
dy '
y− y '
(20)

and taking only the first two symmetric terms in the Fourier series expansion given above:
Γ=A1 sinθ+ A3 sin 3 θ (21)
then
A3 2
1+δ=1+3( ) (22)
A1
While the spanwise centroid of loading is given by:
4 4 A3
η= + (23)
3 π 5 π A1
A relationship can then be defined between the lift-dependent drag and the spanwise centre of
loading:
5π 2 4π 2
1+δ=1+3( ) (η− ) (24)
4 3

14 Sep 2021 Page 3 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

Although limiting the relationship to two terms in the Fourier series is a source of inaccuracy, the
resulting expression matches well with results obtained using more accurate representations and a
modern vortex-lattice methodxiii. The primary source of inaccuracy in any methodology based on
Multhopp, or indeed, other inviscid calculation, is the inability to give accurate predictions of the
level of leading edge suction, and hence the overall axial force experienced by a wing. This is a
limiting factor for which modern vortex-lattice treatments make use of empirically-derived limits on
leading edge suction and hence thrust. The latter are not entirely reliable, and the underlying
assumptions in inviscid analysis methods break down at the onset of flow separation.
5. Profile drag estimation

Revisiting Eqn. (18), we encounter the term CD0, usually taken to mean the zero lift drag, or drag at
zero lift coefficient, although this in itself implies a number of assumptions, particularly that the
configuration as a whole is symmetrical about the plane of the wing, with no twist or camber on the
latter, and that any fuselage or additional components are also symmetrical about this plane. In
reality, CD0 is a semi-empirical construct about a datum condition at zero lift, which contains a
number of subsidiary elements. Chief among these is profile drag, for all airframe components. In
general, drag estimation methods used at the conceptual design stage will make use of flat plate skin
friction methods, multiplied by empirically-derived form factors appropriate to a particular class of
shape. Form factors are numerous, and occasionally contradictory, depending on their source and
data. The most comprehensive set of these is a compendium collated and then published by
Hoernerxiv, although many of these have been superseded by more modern equivalents. The actual
relationship:
C Dprofile =C Dfriction +C Dform (25)
is approximated by:
F f ×C F ×S wetted
C Dprofile = (26)
S ref
Where Ff is a component form factor, CF is the mean skin friction coefficient for a flat plate and
Swetted is the total exposed surface area of the component. The mean flat plate skin friction in zero
pressure gradient is determined empirically, by measurements taken in facilities of appropriate
characteristics. For a laminar boundary layer in zero pressure gradient, the exact Blasius solution
can be used:
1.328
C Fi = (27)
√ Rx
Where i denotes incompressible conditions and Rx is the Reynolds number based on length. For
turbulent boundary layers in incompressible flow, there are multiple alternatives, with the Karman-
Schoenherr relationship being broadly popular in the US:
0.242= √C Fi log 10(C Fi R x ) (28)
While the Prandtl-Schlichting formula is more widely used in Europe:
0.455
C Fi = (29)
log 10( R x )2.58

14 Sep 2021 Page 4 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

Note that these relationships apply to incompressible flows over flat plates only. More recent and
detailed empirical methods incorporate corrections for surface roughness, heat transfer and
compressibility. To apply compressibility effects to the above relationships, an approach based on
considering the impact of compressibility on local temperature in the boundary layer is used. This
analysis is from Youngxv.
CF T 0.685
=( e ) (30)
C Fi T m
where Te is the temperature at the edge of the boundary layer and Tm is an 'intermediate' temperature
within it. For the adiabatic case (i.e. with no heat transfer at the wall):
Tm
=1+0.1165M 2∞ (31)
Te
The form factors applied to aerofoils and wings can vary significantly, depending on the level of
accuracy in measurements and calculations of drag, and in the level of technology involved in the
aerofoil designs themselves. For aerofoils in 2D, the form factors used traditionally are polynomials
in thickness/chord ratio (t/c), although most manufacturers will have more complex and accurate
methods with additional factors based on proprietary data. The example here is given by W. H.
Mason, based on NACA 4-digit aerofoils:
t t 4
F f =1+2.7( )+100( ) (32)
c c
which is similar to relationships found in Hoerner for the same level of technology, in having linear
and quartic terms in (t/c). Note that NACA 4-digit aerofoils represent a very low level of aerofoil
technology, having relatively high drag by modern standards, but the benefit of being algebraically
defined. For the RAE 100-104 series of aerofoils of slightly later technology, Cookexvi gives an
alternative form factor for thickness:
t t 2
F f =1+2.25( )+5( ) (33)
c c
which he then combines with a form factor for sweep, Λ, to give:
t t 2
( ) ( )
c c
1+2.25( )+5( )
t sin 2 Λ cos Λ cos Λ (34)
F f =[1−2.85( ) ][ ]
c cos Λ t t 2
1+2.25( )+5( )
c c
It should be noted that it is perfectly feasible to replace the form factor for thickness given in eqn.
33 with an equivalent for later technology aerofoils.
For wings, the form factors themselves are based on a thin-wing approximation, using twice the
projected net wing area as the nominal wetted area. This approximation is also suitable for wing-
like surfaces, including fins, tailplanes, pylons and other quasi-planar surfaces. For other
components, however, particularly of cylindrical or more complex shapes, the actual wetted area
should be used and the associated form factors determined based on the nearest available shape for

14 Sep 2021 Page 5 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

which these exist. For slender, axisymmetric, bodies, Mason gives an equivalent form factor to that
in eqn. 32.
d 1.5 d 3
F f =1.0+1.5( ) +50( ) (35)
l l
where l is overall length and d is diameter. As noted above, form factors are only as accurate or
representative as the data used to generate them, an alternative method with a slightly different
formulation can be found in ESDU 78019xvii.
For nacelles, a form factor can be found in the work of Schemenskyxviii, which also forms the basis
of much of the USAF Stability and Control DATCOM.
0.35
F f =1.0+
l (36)
( )
(width×height)0 /5

6. Transonic drag rise effects due to thickness, lift coefficient and sweep.

For a given aerofoil thickness and lift coefficient, there is a limiting Mach number above which the
onset of shock wave formation leads to excessive drag and buffet. For transport aircraft, this must
be avoided, as it creates unsteady loads, as well as increased fuel burn. A very simple relationship
for the drag rise Mach number, MDD of a 2D aerofoil is the so-called Korn equation:
C t
M DD + L + =κ (37)
10 c
Where κ is a constant, dependent on the level of technology of the aerofoil involved. For NACA
low-drag aerofoils of the 1940s, κ ≈ 0.87, while for 1970s technology supercritical aerofoils, the
value of κ is somewhat higher, with κ ≈ 0.95 being typical. However, for most aircraft designed for
transonic operation, some degree of sweep will be necessary. It is also important to differentiate
between 2D and 3D lift coefficients. The drag rise characteristics of a wing will depend on the local
lift coefficient, and this can be estimated by assuming an elliptically-loaded span.

Sweep has effects on effective Mach number, local lift coefficient and apparent thickness/chord
ratio. Simple sweep theory gives the following relationships:

M 2D=M 3D cos Λ eff (38)

C L (3D )
C L (2D)= (39)
cos 2 Λeff
t
( )
t c 3D (40)
( ) =
c 2D cos Λ eff
The effective sweep is important, as wing taper will change this, depending on the local value of
x/c. For transonic applications, the effective sweep can usually be assumed to be the shock sweep,
and this will normally occur at a value of x/c corresponding to the rear of the design rooftop of the
wing pressure distribution. For modern aerofoils, the rear of the rooftop will normally be aft of 60%

14 Sep 2021 Page 6 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

of wing chord.

7. Application to cambered and twisted wings

For a non-planar (i.e. cambered and/or twisted) wing, the spanwise loading distribution will in itself
be a function of lift coefficient, and hence δ will vary with angle of incidence. In UK usage it is
then conventional in performance methods to use a slightly modified representation for attached
flows:
k
C D=C Dmin + 1 ( C L −C Lmin) 2 (41)
π AR
Note that, in this case, CDmin is usually at a non-zero value of CL. At the design lift coefficient, the
spanwise loading will approach elliptic. At zero overall lift coefficient, it will be the case that the
local loading across the span will actually be finite, and when assessed using the lifting-line
approach or it's derivatives, the higher order terms in the Fourier series for spanwise loading will be
more significant than the first, giving a relatively high value of δ1, and, somewhat paradoxically,
based on the analyses of planar wings shown above, finite lift-dependent drag at zero lift.
In US usage, rather than use a lift-dependent drag factor, k1, it is conventional to use a parameter
described as the Oswald efficiency factorxix, denoted as 'e'. Where:
1
e= (42)
k1
However, the Oswald efficiency factor is, historically, empirically derived from experimental
measurements. This misses much of the elegance of Glauert's analysis, and the particular
conclusions relating drag to spanwise loading distribution. Note also that k1 > 1.0 while e < 1.0.
When estimating aircraft performance, as a sanity check, it is always worth investigating whether
the value of these parameters is consistent with a 'good' level of flight performance. Some specific
examples are given in an excellent lecture by Boppexx, among a lecture series orientated at aircraft
conceptual and preliminary design, which is well worth reading.
For flight conditions with flow separation, the semi-empirical approach to modelling performance is
to consider an additional set of terms, corresponding to the lift coefficient at flow separation onset,
CLcrit, and the subsequent development of additional drag:
k1 k
C D=C Dmin + (C L −C Lmin) 2+ 2 (C L −C Lcrit )2 (43)
π AR π AR
For civil transport and light aircraft it is undesirable to operate with any flow separation, hence this
practice is usually limited to military aircraft, with a few specific exceptions. Note that a major
deficiency in eqn. 43 is that there will be a flow separation onset at some value of CL less than CLmin,
corresponding to a flow separation on the wing lower surface. In extreme cases, this may even be at
a positive value of overall lift coefficient, for example, if there is very large twist towards the wing
tip.
8. Overall aircraft lift and drag

The following analysis is based on that given by Küchemannxxi. If we revert to the simplified drag
polar of eqn. 18, and make the assumption that:

1 In the limiting case of exactly zero lift, A1 becomes zero and δ is indeterminate.

14 Sep 2021 Page 7 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

k 1=1+δ (44)
then (18) becomes:
k
C D=C D0+ 1 C 2L (45)
π AR
and we can consider how the lift/drag ratio, L/D varies with lift coefficient. Remember that, for the
objective of maximising both range and endurance, L/D is the primary figure of merit, and in the
Bréguét range equation, maximising ML/D is a design objective. By differentiation with respect to
CL we find:
L
( ) =
√
1 π AR
D max 2 k 1 C D0
at a value of CL given by:
(46)

C L=
√ π AR
k1
C D0 (47)
Thus for any given value of k1 and CD0, it is then apparent that maximum L/D varies as the square
root of aspect ratio. Given a target maximum L/D, the minimum value of aspect ratio required to
achieve this is given by:
4 L 2
AR= π ( ) k 1 C D0 (48)
D max

14 Sep 2021 Page 8 of 10

Lift and drag estimation for aircraft conceptual design. v.5.0

Total (external) drag

Lift-dependent drag Datum drag Spillage drag

Drag due to incidence, camber &

twist at datum lift coefficient

Profile drag

Pre-entry drag at datum

Wave drag due flow (side intakes only)
to thickness
Skin friction
drag Form drag
Drag due to incidence,
camber & twist

Total (external) drag

Figure 1: Breakdown of total aircraft drag from ARC CP 369.

14 Sep 2021 Page 9 of 10

i Glauert H., “The elements of aerofoil and airscrew theory”, Cambridge Science Classics, Second Edition,
1947.
ii Falkner V. M., “The Solution of Lifting-Plane Problems by Vortex-Lattice Theory”, ARC R&M 2591,
September 1947.
iii Küchemann D., “A simple method for calculating the span and chordwise loading on straight and swept wings
of any given aspect ratio at subsonic speeds”, ARC R&M 2935, August 1952.
iv Weissinger J., “The lift distribution of swept-back wings”, NACA TM 1120, March 1947.
v Diederich F. W., “A simple approximate method for calculating spanwise lift distributions and aerodynamic
influence coefficients at subsonic speeds”, NACA TN 2751, August 1952.
vi Multhopp H., “Methods for calculating the lift distribution of wings (subsonic lifting-surface theory)”, ARC
R&M 2884, January 1950.
vii “Lift curve slope and aerodynamic centre position of wings in inviscid subsonic flow”, ESDU 70011.
viii “Subsonic lift-dependent drag due to the trailing vortex wake for wings without camber or twist “, ESDU
74035.
ix “Drag due to lift for plane swept wings, alone or in combination with a body, up to high angles of attack at
subsonic speeds”, ESDU 95025.
x “Drag due to lift for non-planar swept wings up to high angles of attack at subsonic speeds”, ESDU 96025.
xi Garner H. C. and Inch S. M., “Subsonic Theoretical Lift-Curve Slope, Aerodynamic Centre and Spanwise
Loading for Arbitrary Aspect Ratio, Taper Ratio and Sweepback”, ARC CP 1137, May 1970.
xii Garner H. C., “Some remarks on vortex drag and it's spanwise distribution in incompressible flow”,
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 72, No. 691, pp. 623-625, July 1968.
xiiiWilliams R. J., Evans T. P. and McParlin S. C., “Estimation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Cranked
Wings through Response Surface Modelling”, AIAA 2009-1095, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Orlando, Florida, 5-8 January 2009.
xiv Hoerner S. F., “Fluid Dynamic Drag”, Published by the Author, 1965.
xv Young A. D., “Boundary Layers”, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1989.
xvi Cooke J. C., “The drag of infinite swept wings with an Addendum”, ARC CP 1040, June 1964.
xvii“Profile drag of axisymmetric bodies at zero incidence for subcritical Mach numbers”, ESDU 78019,
xviii Schemensky R. T., “Development of an emprically based computer program to predict the aerodynamic
characteristics of aircraft. Volume I. Empirical Methods”, AFFDL-TR-73-144, November 1973.
xix Oswald W. B., “General formulas and charts for the calculation of airplane performance”, NACA Report
408, April 1931.
xx Boppe C. W., “Aircraft drag analysis methods”, Lecture 7 in: “Engineering methods in aerodynamic analysis
and design of aircraft” AGARD-R-783, January 1992.
xxi Küchemann D., “The aerodynamic design of aircraft”, Pergamon Press, 1978.