44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2006-253

9 - 12 January 2006, Reno, Nevada

AIAA 2006-0253

Aerodynamic study of reversed-delta wing surface craft in ground effect

S R Urquhart*
Thales Training and Simulation UK

S A Prince† & V. Khodagolian

City University, London

The wake pressure survey revealed that a

Abstract mounted horizontal tail surface is not influenced
by the ground as a Lippisch configuration craft
This paper describes the results of an approaches the surface, assuming no large
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

aerodynamic investigation aimed at studying the atmospheric boundary layer is present. In

forces and moments acting on, and the pressure addition it was found that at none of the flight
distribution in the wake created by, a Lippisch conditions investigated did the wing tip vortex
style reversed delta wing in ground (WIG) effect system approach the location of the high
craft at varying heights above ground1. mounted tail surface. The full effectiveness of
the tail surface to counteract the increase in
Results were obtained using a static ground nose-up pitching moment with reduced ground
plane, with short distance between its leading clearance, was therefore found to be maintained.
edge and the nose of the craft, a three
component strain gauge balance, and a pitot-
static wake rake mounted on a traverse system. Nomenclature
While no rolling ground plane was employed,
the undisturbed ground plane boundary layer - incidence (deg)
was measured to be ~15mm in the close vicinity CL - lift coefficient
under the WIG model. Results for ground CD - drag coefficient
clearances above 20mm should, therefore, be CM - pitching moment coefficient
reasonably realistic simulations of flight cases. (moment centre at z=150mm)
The low ground clearance cases, with h - ground clearance (mm)
interactions between the vehicle and the ground b - wing span (m)
plane boundary layer, will be akin to the case of x,y,z - Cartesian coordinates (mm)
flight into a strong head wind, where a ground
boundary layer, though relatively thicker, will
be formed. Introduction

The force and moment results clearly showed As a wing approaches a surface the normal
the wing in ground effect on both lift and drag circulation pattern around the wing is altered,
coefficients but showed that pitching moment trapping a cushion of air between the underside
coefficient begins to increase rapidly only for of the wing and the surface. As a result of this,
small ground clearances. The wake study lift is increased since the cushion provides the
revealed the vortex flow structure in the wake of craft with a ‘boost’ in lift meaning less energy is
the craft, illustrating the complex interaction of required to remain airborne. In addition the tip
these vortices with the ground, providing vortices, generated by the pressure differential
experimental validation of classical wing in between the upper and lower surfaces of the
ground effect theory. wing, are forced outboard increasing the
* effective span of the wing and leading once
Graduate Engineer
†
Lecturer, Member AIAA again to an increase in lift.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with the permission of City University, London.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 Ground effect is actually made up of two
independent phenomena – span dominated
ground effect and chord dominated ground
effect2,3,4,5,6. The former, arising from the
downwash behind the wing being obstructed by
the ground, results in a reduction of induced
drag2 while the latter, due to the air cushion
effect, results in an increase in lift3,6,8. The main
parameter in span dominated ground effect is
height/span, whereas in chord dominated ground
effect it is height/chord.
The wing in ground effect has been known and
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
investigated from the earliest years of
aeronautical science. Alexander Lippisch
undertook studies after the Second World War4,
to investigate the design issues involved with
exploiting chord dominated ground effect, and
developed several designs for water-skimming
craft. In particular, he investigated the
aerodynamics of reverse delta wing
configurations. Since then, there have been
many more design studies of Wing in Ground
Effect craft (or WIGs)7,8,9,10,11 , some of which
are actually “flying”.
WIG craft can be classified into three basic
types -the single Ram Wing, Tandem Wing (or
Jörg) and the Reversed Delta (or Lippisch)3,4.
The Lippisch configuration, however, is the
only type which is capable of flight out of
ground effect, albeit rather inefficiently. It is
also the most stable in ground effect, for reasons
which are seemingly not well documented at
this time. The aim of this project is to
investigate the aerodynamics of a typical
Lippisch WIG craft and, in particular,
investigate the complicated vortical wake and
the effect of ground clearance.
Experimental Arrangements
The model used during experimentation (Fig. 1)
was a highly simplified and generalised design
based on geometry of existing reverse delta
machines from Dr. Lippisch et al, aerodynamic
theory and advice from various sources
including Mr. Hanno Fischer12.
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The model was mounted on a three component
strain guage balance in the T3 wind tunnel in
the Aeronautical Engineering Laboratory at City
University, London.
The balance was connected via an electronic
controller to a micro-computer running a
balance program which was calibrated to
convert the raw voltage readings from the
balance’s strain gauges into Newtons for lift and
drag measurements and Newton-metres for
pitching moment measurements. The pitching
moments were taken about the mounting point
on the model, which was 150mm from the
model nose. All coefficients were calculated
based on a footprint area of 0.048m2, and a
reference length of 0.3m. A static ground plane
was employed, in the absence of a rolling
ground plane arrangement. The undisturbed
ground plane boundary layer in the close
vicinity under the model was measured, using a
fine 40 probe boundary layer pitot rake, to be
turbulent at ~15mm in thickness with little
streamwise growth evident. While ground plane
boundary layer will certainly affect the results at
low ground clearance (below 20mm) the results
are still expected to reveal the correct trends and
general flow patterns seen in full scale situation
for ground clearances above 20mm. For the low
ground clearances, at 20mm and below, the
simulation is more akin to the case of a full
scale vehicle flying into a head wind where a
surface boundary layer will indeed be formed,
but is likely to be relatively much thicker.
With wind tunnel speed being kept at a constant
30m/s, the Reynolds number based on root
chord is 0.6x106, which is approximately 1/10th
of that expected of full scale flight. The sharp
corners of the wing-fuselage and wing-float
junctions and also the sharp winglet tips, which
can be expected to fix boundary layer
separation, mean that the lift and pitching
moment characteristics, as well as the broad
flow structure in the wake of the model is still
expected to be representative of the full scale
flight case.
 In order to measure the pressure variation in the
wake behind the model, a pitot-static rake (Fig.
2) was mounted onto a specially designed
traverse which was capable of moving the rake
in the x (spanwise) and y (up-down) directions.
The z (streamwise) position of the rake was set
such that it was at a distance of approximately
one mean-chord distance (127.5 mm) from the
trailing edge of the model.
The pressure tubes from the rake were
connected to a scani-valve / pressure transducer
system which was controlled by a PC through
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
data acquisition software. The pressure
transducer used was quoted as being accurate to
1% of at the maximum end of its pressure range.
In order to get a full 2D representation of the
flow behind the model, it was necessary to make
two, overlapping sweeps of the pitot-static rake.
The starting position for the rake was with the
last tube located along the centre line of the
model and the rake at the minimum height
which was limited to 10mm above the static
ground plane. The rake was then incremented
through steps of 10mm up to a maximum height
of y = 180mm. At the maximum height, the rake
was then moved towards the tunnel wall in the
x-direction then lowered back down in steps of
10mm.
After zeroing the instruments and collecting
wind off data, the tunnel was started up and run
at approximately 50% speed. Forces and
moments readings were taken at three points
during each run and a sweep of pressure
readings was also obtained. In addition, the
digital manometer reading was recorded in mm
H2O.
Having collecting the data, the files generated
by the scani-valve system were collated and
imported into a specifically designed, multi-
sheet Excel spreadsheet. They were then
exported into postprocessing software allowing
a graphical representation of the wake pressure
distribution.
Smoke testing was also performed using, a
paraffin smoke generator with a wand
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
incorporating a heating element at the tip, in
order to provide data for comparison with the
wake pressure survey.
Results and discussion
Forces and Moments
The force and moment measurements are plotted
in figure 3 – 12. Plotted in figures 3, 4, 5 and 7
are error bars indicating the accuracy of the
measurements based on both the known
accuracy of the force and moment balance, and
the experimental scatter evident in the results. In
general the errors in force and moment
measurement are relatively small – of the order
of 2-3% in most cases.
Fig. 3 presents the variation of CL with ground
clearance for the case when the model set at 0o
incidence. As expected, the results clearly show
the wing in ground effect whereby the lift
coefficient increases with reducing ground
clearance. The corresponding plot showing the
variation of CD with ground clearance is
presented in figure 4. As the lift coefficient
increases the drag coefficient is bound to
increase, and this is indeed what is seen in the
experimental result presented in figure 4. The
most pronounced evidence of wing in ground
effect is seen when plotting the lift to drag ratio,
presented in figure 5. Here the lift to drag ratio
is shown to increase considerably as the ground
clearance is reduced. In fact the value of CL/CD
at 10mm ground clearance is almost double that
measured for free flight without the ground
plane, although the ground plane boundary layer
interaction effects are strong at this low ground
clearance. All of this experimental evidence is
consistent with the findings of previous work1-11.
Figure 6 plots CL against CD with decreasing
ground clearance, starting from 100mm to
10mm, for the single incidence case of =0o. It
can be seen that as ground clearance is reduced
(and therefore lift is increased) there is a penalty
of increased drag. Data for higher angles of
incidence show a continuance of this trend,
 however the available increase in lift generated
by ground effect is clear. These results compare
favourably with those gathered on reverse delta
wings in ground effect by Dr. Lippisch3,4.
Figure 7 presents the variation of pitching
moment with ground clearance. It was found
that the increase in nose up pitching moment as
ground clearance was reduced, was small until
h=20mm, below which further reduction of
ground clearance resulted in much larger
increases in CM. The onset of this effect is likely
to occur at lower ground clearance if the ground
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
plane boundary layer were not present. Despite
this, the data would indicate that only at the
lowest ground clearances does the forward
movement of the centre of pressure become
appreciable.
Figures 8 to 12 plot the variation of the
aerodynamic characteristics for the
configuration with varying incidence, within the
range 0o < a < 6o, for 40mm, 100mm ground
clearance and free flight test conditions. Figure
8 plots the graph of CL versus , which shows,
as expected near linear rises in CL with
incidence with slight non-linearity at higher
incidence probably due to the effects of
viscosity and flow separations in regions such as
the wing fuselage junction. CL is seen to be
higher with reduced ground clearance across the
whole incidence range. The graph also seems to
suggest that the lift curve slope has a tendency
to increase slightly with reducing ground
clearance, although more data to populate the
curves would be preferable to confirm this
finding. The results of Lippisch et al3,4 also
show this trend.
Figure 9 presents the corresponding plot of CD
versus incidence. The trend of increasing drag
coefficient with incidence is clear in the curves
for all three ground clearance cases. The
comparison between the free flight data and the
h=100mm data appears somewhat inconclusive,
and both seem to be similar until 6o incidence
when the free flight result is clearly higher. The
drag coefficient for h=40mm appears to be
highest by a factor of about 5-10%, across the
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
whole incidence range. This is consistent with
the configuration generating high lift at lower
ground clearance. The variation of CL/CD,
presented in figure 10, is as expected and shows
that, similar to CL, the highest values are seen at
lowest ground clearance, clearly demonstrating
the wing in ground effect. What the plot also
shows is that, while the drag coefficient rises
with ground clearance, as demonstrated in
figures 4 and 9, relative to the rise in lift it is not
as great and consequently the overall effect is to
increase considerably the overall value of
CL/CD.
Figure 11, plotting the variation of CM with
incidence for the three ground clearance cases,
shows similar trends as CL, except for h=100,
where the value CM might be expected to be
close to the free flight result.
The variation of CL versus CD is presented in
figure 12, for the 40mm, 100mm and free flight
test conditions. For any given value of CD, the
lift coefficient for h=100mm is always
considerably higher than for the free flight case.
However, for values of CD between 0.3 and
0.32, the lift coefficient for the h=40mm case is
almost identical to those for free flight, and it is
only above CD=0.32 where the CL for h=40mm
becomes considerable greater, reaching same
order as those at h=100mm.
Wake Pressure Survey
Figure 13 presents the results of the wake
pressure traverse as the model, set at zero
degrees incidence, was moved out of ground
effect. Contours of total pressure ratio, p0/p0 ,
are plotted for ground clearances, h, of 10mm,
20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 60mm, 100mm and in
free flight. Figure 13 a) also provides a
schematic of the relative position in the x-y
plane of the model, and allows the features, such
as the float and winglet vortices to be properly
identified. Also shown, in figure 13 c) is the
relative position of the ground plane, since the
pressure data extends only down to h=10mm
above the surface.
 The wake flow structure, measured for the “free
flight” case with no ground plane identified the
relatively large wake shed from the model
mounting strut which appears to almost drown
out the fine features generated by the high
mounted tail surface. In retrospect this
cylindrical mounting strut should have been
covered with a symmetric aerofoil shroud to
prevent the development of a large wake.
In the 0 Deg, 10mm plot (Figure 13 c) there is a
single, strong vortex, defined by an extremely
low pressure core. This feature originates from
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
the wing tip. In this case it is clearly evident that
this tip vortex interacts strongly with the ground
plane boundary layer, which separates to form a
feeding shear layer that feeds the vortex and
increases considerably the core suction. This
effect will not be observed in the case of a full
scale flight vehicle, whose tip vortex will only
induce a very weak ground boundary layer.
An important point to notice about this tip
vortex is that it is positioned a long distance
from the horizontal stabilising tail surface,
indicating that it has little impact on the
effectiveness of the tail. The tail itself generates
a very weak tip vortex which seems virtually
unaffected by the proximity of the ground to the
craft, no doubt due to its high mounting
position. This condition varies little across all
experiments.
In the 0 deg, 20mm plot (Fig. 13 d) the vortex
strength is seen to be reduced considerably
despite the strong separation is causes in the
ground plane boundary layer. Also, the vortex
core has shifted inboard relative to the model.
This indicates a reduction in the effective span
of the model and correspondingly, one would
expect to see a reduction in the amount of lift
being produced.
The 0 deg, 30mm plot (Fig. 13 e) shows the
vortex again moving inboard with a further
reduction in its strength. There also appears to
be a secondary vortex developing, such that the
classic double vortex system, seen in the wake
of aircraft wings and evident in the free-air
measurements, is established. At 30mm ground
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
clearance a strong tip vortex / ground plane
boundary layer interaction is still evidence but
in this case it appears that the boundary layer is
no longer “feeding” the tip vortex, and a
separate ground plane vortex seems to be
formed.
In the free-air wake survey, shown in figure 13
b), a weak vortex pair, probably associated with
the wing-fuselage junction, appears to be
formed at about y=30mm, either side of the
model symmetry line (in this case, slightly offset
at 330mm). This feature first appears clearly as
the model is raised to h=30mm (in fig 13 e).
The 0 deg, 40mm plot (fig. 13 f) demonstrates
further development of the tip vortex system,
which now appears to be clearly separate from
the induced vortical feature in the ground plane
boundary layer. A further shift inboard of the tip
vortex system is also observed, with the
secondary vortex having moved further outboard
with respect to the primary vortex. By 60mm
ground clearance the form of the vortical wake
flow structure, negating the ground plane
boundary layer, is now very similar to the free
air flow structure.
In the 0 deg, 60mm plot (Fig. 13 g) it can be
seen that the effect of the wing tip vortex on the
ground plane boundary layer is now much
reduced, the boundary layer being much thinner
after the y=240mm point, underneath the model.
By a ground clearance of 100mm (Fig. 13 h) the
ground plane boundary layer under the model is
15mm, which is the same as the undisturbed
boundary layer thickness, measured with no
model in the tunnel.
Finally the 0 deg, free flight plot (Fig. 13 b)
shown top right with the ground plane removed
confirms that from 60mm upwards, the ground
has little effect on the wake behind the WIG
craft model.
Figure 14 presents the results of the wake
pressure traverse as the model, set at a =0o
ground clearance of h=40mm, is pitched from
zero to 6o incidence. For the >0o incidence
 cases, 40mm represents the average ground
clearance, but the local value is obviously
higher at the nose and lower at the tail. Contours
of total pressure ratio, p0/p0 , are plotted for
incidences of 0, 2, 4 and 6 deg incidences.
Comparing the 0 deg, h=40mm plot (Fig 14 c)
with the 2 deg, h=40mm plot (Fig. 14 d) it can
be seen that the small change in incidence has a
large effect on the trailing wing tip vortex
system. The primary tip vortex is strengthened,
as indicated by the increase in core suction, and
is seen to shift ~10mm outboard while the
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
secondary tip vortex, which is also strengthened,
passes over the top of the primary. The ground
plane vortex is enlarged and strengthened
though still appears to be separate from the
trailing wing tip vortex system.
A comparison of the 2 and 4 degree incidence,
40mm plots (figs. 14 d and e) indicates the same
trends with incidence as shown between 0 and 2
degrees incidence. The primary wind tip vortex
is seen to have shifted 10mm further outboard
and is strengthened considerably by the further 2
degree increase in incidence. The secondary
vortex has also shifted further inboard and is
further strengthened. In addition, the ground
plane vortex is seen to be more extensive and it
appears that it could be beginning to interact and
even feed the trailing wing tip vortex system.
These trends are further confirmed by analysis
of the flow structure in the wake of the model at
6 degrees incidence, 40mm average ground
clearance, shown in figure 14 f. In this case the
trailing wing tip vortex system appears to be
linked with the ground plane vortex which,
further strengthened, appears to have induced a
secondary ground plane vortex. The evidence
for a feeding shear layer between the ground
plane boundary layer and the trailing wing tip
system is more evident. Close inspection of all
the wake pressure survey plots in figure 14
indicates that the effect of incidence in close
proximity to the ground is to rotate the whole
trailing wing tip vortex system round such that
the primary feature moves outboard and the
secondary feature further inboard.
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Smoke testing, provided an opportunity to
examine the vortex structure in a three
dimensional way and highlighted the extent to
which the wing tip vortices were forced away
from the centre line of the model as it
approached the ground plane. It also provided a
striking demonstration as to the effect of the
high pressure build up underneath the wing in
ground effect. This was evident in the increased
upwash angle close to the leading edge,
compared with a similar situation with no
ground plane, which is indicative of increased
circulation and therefore lift force.
Conclusions
The results obtained from experimental testing
on the generic reversed delta wing WIG craft
model have confirmed the trends found by Dr.
Lippisch and provide a clearer insight into the
complicated wake flow downstream of a
reversed delta wing surface craft, and the effect
of ground proximity.
It has been shown that the horizontal tail surface
is not influenced by the ground as the craft
approaches the surface. This means that while
the main wing is subjected to higher amounts of
lift and therefore pitching moment the tail
retains its original lift force. This means that the
size of the tail must be such that it produces
enough restoring moment to counteract the
pitching moment of the main wing. At greater
ground clearances or even out of ground effect,
the large horizontal tail will mean that the craft
will exhibit a high degree of stability and in
addition will afford the pilot good control and
handling properties.
It was observed that in no flight condition did
the wing tip vortex system approach the location
of the horizontal tail. The full effectiveness of a
high mounted tail surface on a Lippisch
configuration will thus be maintained
throughout the full flight profile without any
sudden loss of control.
 Acknowledgements
Thanks to Hanno Fischer and the staff of City
University, London and Iowa State University,
USA for their cooperation and guidance during
the development of this paper.
References
1. Urquhart, S. “Aerodynamic studies of a
Reversed Delta Wing in Ground Effect
Craft” Aeronautical Engineering Thesis. City
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253
University, London. 2004.
2. Wieselsberger, C. “The Influence of the
Ground Effect on Wing Drag” Ergebrisse der
Aerodynamischen Versuchsanstalt zu
Göttingen II Lieferung. (1923), 41-42.
3. Lippisch, A. Personal papers, Iowa State
University Library.
4. Lippisch, A. “Ein Dreieckfliegt Die
Entwicklung der Delta – Flugzeuge bs 1945”.
Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart, 1976.
5. Nickel, K. & Wohlfahrt, M. “Tailless
Aircraft in Theory & Practice”. Butterworth-
Hienemann, 2003.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6. Rozhdestvensky, K. Y., “Basics of
Aerodynamics in Extreme Ground Effect”.
Proceedings of the EuroAvia Ground Effect
Symposium – EAGES 2001.
7. Van Opstel, E. “Introduction to WIG
Technology” Proceedings of the EuroAvia
Ground Effect Symposium – EAGES 2001.
8. Stewart-Smith, J. “Lift Induced Drag and
Ground Effect”, AIAA Paper 94-6132, 1994.
9. Curry, R. E. “Dynamic Ground Effect for a
Cranked Arrow Wing Aeroplane”, NASA
Technical Memorandum 4799, August 1997.
10.Zhang, X. “Tip Vortices Generated by a
Wing in Ground Effect” Aeronautics and
Astronautics School of Engineering
Sciences, University of Southampton, 2000
11.Zerihan, J. & Zhang, X.,
``Aerodynamics of a single-element wing-in-
ground effect,'' Journal of Aircraft , Vol. 37,
No. 6, November-December 2000, pp. 1058-
1064.
12. Fischer H, Fischer Flugmechanik. Private
communication.
 y 150

72 90

z
300

LE Line
160
TE Line
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

72
70

a) schematic (LE and TE denote leading & trailing edge respectively) with salient dimensions (mm)

b) model mounted in Tunnel T3 at City University, London

Figure 1: Generic Reversed Delta Wing in Ground Effect Craft

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

Figure 2: The wake pressure rake mounted on traverse

0.80

0.70

0.60
CL

0.50

0.40

0.30 Data affected by ground plane boundary

layer below 20mm ground clearance.
0.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ground Clearance (mm)

Figure 3: CL versus ground clearance for = 0o

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0.40

0.35

CD

0.30

Data affected by ground plane boundary

layer below 20mm ground clearance.
0.25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

Ground Clearance (mm)

Figure 4: CD versus ground clearance for = 0o

2.20

2.10

2.00

1.90

1.80
C L /C D

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Ground Clearance (mm)

Figure 5: CL/CD with changing ground clearance for = 0o

0.80

h=10mm
0.70

0.60

0.50
CL

0.40
h=100mm

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35
CD

Figure 6: CL versus CD with changing ground clearance for = 0o

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 0.020

0.015

CM
0.010

0.005
Data affected by ground plane boundary
layer below 20mm ground clearance.
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

Ground Clearance (mm)

Figure 7: CM versus ground clearance for = 0o

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80
CL

0.60

h=40mm

0.40 h=100mm
Free Flight

0.20

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Incidence (Deg)

Figure 8: CL versus incidence for free flight and for h=40 and 100mm
0.60

0.50

0.40
CD

0.30

h=40mm
0.20
h=100mm
Free Flight

0.10

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Incidence (deg)

Figure 9: CD versus incidence for free flight and for h=40 and 100mm

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 3.00

2.50

2.00

C L /C D
1.50

h=40mm
1.00
h=100mm
Free Flight

0.50

0.00
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Incidence (deg)

Figure 10: CL /CD versus incidence for free flight and for h=40 and 100mm

0.025

0.020

0.015
CM

0.010

40mm
100mm
0.005 Free Flight

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Incidence (deg)

Figure 11: CM versus incidence for free flight and for h=40 and 100mm

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80
CL

0.60

0.40 40mm
100mm
Free Flight
0.20

0.00
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
CD

Figure 12: CL versus CD with changing incidence for free flight and for h=40 and 100mm

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 P/Poo
0.98
0.9
0.82
0.74
0.66
0.58

150
150

Y (mm)
100
Y (mm)

100

50

50
h
0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
X (mm) X (mm)

a) Schematic b) = 0o , Free flight

Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

150 150
Y (mm)

Y (mm)
100 100

50 50

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

X (mm) X (mm)
ground-plane
c) = 0o , h=10mm location d) = 0o , h=20mm

150 150
Y (mm)

Y (mm)

100 100

50 50

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

X (mm) X (mm)

e) = 0o , h=30mm f) =0o , h=40mm

150 150
Y (mm)

Y (mm)

100 100

50 50

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

X (mm) X (mm)

g) = 0o , h=60mm h) = 0o , h=100mm

Figure 13: Total pressure ratio contours from wake survey at crossflow plane 487.5mm downstream of
the model nose with varying ground clearance at =0o

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 P/Poo
0.98
0.9
0.82
0.74
0.66
0.58

150
150

Y (mm)
100
Y (mm)

100

50

50

0
0 100 200 300
0 100 200 300
X (mm) X (mm)
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

b) Schematic b) = 0o , Free flight

150 150
Y (mm)

Y (mm)
100 100

50 50

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

X (mm) X (mm)

c) = 0o , h=40mm d) = 2o , h=40mm

150 150
Y (mm)

Y (mm)

100 100

50 50

0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300

X (mm) X (mm)

e) = 4o , h=40mm f) = 6o , h=40mm

Figure 14: Total pressure ratio contours from wake survey at crossflow plane z=487.5mm downstream
of the model nose with varying incidence at 40mm ground clearance

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 180

Spanwise distance from model centre (mm)

160

140

120

100

80

60
Primary tip vort ex
40 Secondary tip vort ex

20

0
Downloaded by Bibliothek der TU Muenchen on February 10, 2024 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-253

0 20 40 60 80 100

Ground clearence (mm)

Figure 15: Observed variation of spanwise position of the primary and secondary tip vortices with
ground clearance, at crossflow plane z=487.5mm downstream of the model nose for a=0o.

15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics