You are on page 1of 369

Retrospective Theses and Dissertations

1994

Design of a wing section in ground effect:


application to high speed ground transportation
Christoph Hiemcke
Iowa State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd


Part of the Aerospace Engineering Commons, and the Mechanical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
Hiemcke, Christoph, "Design of a wing section in ground effect: application to high speed ground transportation " (1994).
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 10478.
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10478

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please
contact digirep@iastate.edu.
INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the


copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by


sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced


xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly
to order.

University Microfilms International


A Bell & Howell Infornnation Company
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Order Nuiaber 950S563

Design of wing section in ground effect: Application to


high-speed ground transportation

Hiemcke, Christoph, Ph.D.


Iowa State University, 1994

UM-I
SOON.ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Design of a wing section in ground effect:

Application to high speed ground transportation

by

Christoph Hiemcke

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department: Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Major: Aerospace Engineering

Signature was redacted for privacy.

Signature was redacted for privacy.


For the Major Department
Signature was redacted for privacy.
For fh^^raduate College

Iowa State University


Ames, Iowa
1994
ii

DEDICATION

For the many teachers and friends

who have been role models and inspiration

to me over the years

Prima di essere You are human

ingegnere voi before being

siete uomini engineers

[Francesco de Sanctis]
lii

Friends, teachers, and places along the way:

(please forgive misspellings and omissions)

Early years:

My parents: Anke Berta Hiemcke (Mami, vieja), Hermann Hiemcke (Dad, der

Alte, viejo); my sisters and brother and their families: Ingrid Vizy. Beata Annegret

Vizy, Ramon Marcel Hiemcke, Sharon Kool-Hiemcke, Matthias Fiene-Vizy, Lena and

Christoph II, Birgit Hiemcke, Gesa Melina. Tibor. Koos Kool, Rebecca; my grand­

parents: Else Catharina Marie Riihmarin (geborene Schuett, Omi), Theodor Wilhelm

Johann Hiemcke (DePa), Betsy Cornelia Hiemcke (geborene Tims, Beppie. DeMa).

Bertha Katharina Schuett (geborene Claussen, Urgrossmutter); other relatives: Theo

&; Els Hiemcke, Tina Fonseca, Michael &: Juttka Hidy, the Schmidt-Wiborg's; my

school and my surroundings: the towns of Rellingen, Tangstedt, Heide, and Biisum.

Frau Hagemann (elementary school teacher), Petra Ickels, Carola Baumbach, Otto,

Dr. Kraffczyk, Herr (Friedcl) und Frau Albersdorfer, and my country: Germany.

Teenage years:

My school and my surroundings: the towns of Moorrege and Uetersen, Germany;

my friends and classmates: Anja Schultz, Karsten Jedamski, Gerd and Dirk Sohngen.

Thomas and Michael Karbe, Sabine Handschuh, Sabine Holz, Kai Lehmann, and

Annette von ?; my French friends Catherine Rabouel and Nadia LeBerre; my teach­

ers: Herr Kruger (French), Herr Thiess (mathematics, Plattdeutsch), Herr Fiedler

(Biology), Herr VVetscherek (mathematics), Herr Schulz (English, geography), Frau

Harzheim (Englisch), Frau Schroder (music), Herr Nieskewitsch (German), Herr Bock
IV

(sports); our zebra finch; Mac Hiipferfink; the Berlin friends: Joachim. Ackie. and

Sybille; iny Polish co-worker in the rose fields, Henryk Martynowski.

Year as foreign exchange student in Lenox, Iowa. USA:

My host family and their families: Billie-Jean Barker, Lonnie Barker, Todd.

Lisa, Lahni-Jean, Kevin and Millie, the grandparents Brannon and Barker. Benji.

Casey and the other cats; my friends, teachers, and acciuaintances: Sue and Jean

Fuersteiiau, Ron Bonnett, Tracey Gridley, Bonnie Schofield, Cindy and Paul Maynes.

Paul Rainforth and family, Lisa Round and family, Dan Carruthers. Diane Robinson.

Christine Baker, Charles Durlacher, Dee Ann Christensen, Kelly Dukes, Mr. Bradley

(principal), Mrs. Pauline Miller (speech and drama), Mrs. Dillenburg (mathematics).

Mrs. Rogers (physiology); my host town: Lenox, the Lake Wobegon of Iowa; my host

country: the United States of America.

Two years in Malaga, Spain:

My school and my surroundings: my parents and Sharon, la Sefiora Josefa, the

city of Malaga, Sunny View (Vista Sol) High School in Torremolinos, the state of

Andalucia; my schoolmates and friends: Tiina Ruuskanen, Sari Pajunen, Diane Pat­

terson, Fiona Rodda, Cati and Lori, Kai Wohlers, Ingrid and SvenjaBary, Felipe Gon­

zalez, Yolanda ?, Mayka Carmen Mate Perez, the Barani's (Antonio, Jean-Jaccjues,

and Alex), the Asuaga's (especially Louisa and Christina), Jose Dobon, Bianca and

Joep; my teachers: Mrs. Sheila Marco (English, literature), Mrs. de Alonso (math­

ematics), Mrs. Jane Barbadillo (principal); "Interpares" and its senior inhabitants,

especially families Schrijk, Berk, van der Keijl, da Costa, and Hoogland.
V

Two years at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa:

My roommate and baritone Matthew Eisenberg; the lol)byrats. especially my

friends Martha Rayner and Jeff Launius; my friends: Elisabeth Waterman Archer

("Liffy") and her family, Chantal Hoareau, Armando Exposito, Juan, Andrew de

Souza: my teachers: David Robinson (physics, adviser) and Professor Breyman (his­

tory).

The undergraduate years at Iowa State University:

My roommates at Alumni Hall, my co-workers at the M-Shop; my friends Kurt

Lynn, Joan Grzywa, Kleanthis Lambrinides (Leo), Bashar Jano, Guna, Manoj Dan-

dekar. Sushil and Latha Bhavnani, Ravi, Minie and Vikram Yadama, Pushpa Verma,

Stacy Maurer, Pam Goomas; my teachers: Professor Hsu, P. J. Hermann, James

Iversen (aerodynamics), L. Seversike (astrodynamics), Magdy Hindawe (structures),

T.J. McDaniel (structures), Rao Vadali (controls), Bill James (propulsion, gas dy­

namics), Ganesh Rajagopalan (aerodynamics), Steve Hooper (structures, design),

Jerry Vogel (design). Rich Jorgensen (flying). Professor Apt (French history), Achilles

Avraamides (ancient history); places: Friley food service. Alumni Hall. M-Shop, ISU

Center.

Graduate Studies, M.S. at Iowa State University:

My friends: Audra (my wife) and family (Ken, Marge, Kara, Laura, Alyssa),

Philip and Elizabeth (Lisa) Theruvakattil, Catherine Morel, Balsy Kasi, Matthew and

Rebecca Chackalackal, John Daniel, Omana and Jos Putherikal, Kumaran Kalyana-

sundaram, Zori, Prakash Mohan, Sylvan Senior, Alex Dameus, Babak, K. Sris, Kaveh,

Antonio Sabariz, Ahmed Sarhan, Trevor Lettering, Mike and Noelle Martin, Lorenzo
VI

Maggioni. Marcia and Ahmet: my students in aerospace structures courses and lab­

oratories; my teachers: Alric Rothmayer (theoretical aerodynamics, my adviser) and

family, Bion Pierson (controls, optimization); places and institutions: Friley food

service (the table of foreigners). Habitat for Humanity, Graduate Student Senate.

Graduate Studies, Ph.D. at Iowa State University:

My friends: Charles Gratto, .Joanna Courteau. Gapa, Henny, Flash. Lidia, the

Courteau's (Dick, Mava, Darcy, Sarah, and Amabo), Danielle and Robert Donet-

Vincent, Marek, Beata, .Jatzek, Dorota, Sonya Rodolfo-Sioson, Ursula von Godanyi.

Bernie and Clarice Gerstein, Kathy Lynott, .Ann Stanley, Jerry Lamsa, De^nnis and

Ronnie Lindemann, Marcelo Pinto, Scot Kelchner, Sam Sudam, Gertrud Lippisch,

Blanca Bailey/Lippisch, Kevin and Janet Renze, Arne and Mitzku Gaedtkens. Su-

sanne Pollmann, Tankut Atan, Renate Vogelsang, Inke, Dani Prinz, Helmut Maier,

Ulla von Dorsten, JefF Huston and family, Pete Barrance, Jason and Kelly Gillette,

Mark and Sara Eversden, Richard Johnson, Bob Hollinger, Sam Wormley; my teach­

ers: Jeff Huston (dynamics, vehicle dynamics, adviser) and family (Patricia, Tiffany,

and Roger), Bob Hollinger (philosophy) and family, David Wilson (history of sci­

ence), Nancy Eaton (library), Stanley Yates (library), David Roochnik (philosophy)

and family, Tony Smith (philosophy) and family, Bill Jensen (technician), Donald

Young (biofluid dynamics), Ali Tiirel (planning in LDCs), George Work (music).

Professor McClain (art history), Carl Bleyle (music history), Mark Mumford (ar­

chitecture history). Professor Kostelnick (literature), Sharon Anderson (pre-marital

counseling), Mark Summerson (employment counseling); secretaries: Susan, Penny,

Dee, Coleen, Gloria, Thelma; places and institutions: city of Ames, Wheatsfield
VII

Co-Op, Cafe Baudelaire, Cafe Lovish (Crubsteak), Cheese'ii Puppets, the Farmer's

Market, Little Taipei, Lee's Eggroll. Bali House, Student Union Board Films, the

Varsity Theatre in Des Moines, the ISU Outdoor Recreation Center.


viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ii

KEYWORDS RELATED TO THE DISSERTATION TOPIC xxi

GROUND EFFECT MACHINES: COMMON ABBREVIATIONS . xxiv

NOMENCLATURE xxix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xxxiii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2. THE AERODYNAMIC GROUND EFFECT AND

ASSOCIATED FLOW REGIMES 6

Wings Near the Ground or Near Water 9

Weak (classical) ground effect regime 10

Moderate (intermediate) ground effect regime, WIG regime 12

Small-Gap Regime 14

Strong (close) ground effect regime, ram-wing regime 14

Extreme ground effect regime 17

Lubrication Regime 17

CHAPTER 3. A SURVEY OF VEHICLES FOR OPERATION IN

VARIOUS GROUND EFFECT REGIMES 18


ix

The Categorization Of Ground-Effect Vehicles 18

Wing-In-Ground-EfFect (WIG) Vehicles (Ekranoplans) 19

Ram-Wing Vehicles (Aeroskimmers) 21

Planing, Air-Lubricated Vehicles (Hydroskimmers) 25

Power-Augmented Ram-Wing (PAR) 26

PAR/WIG Vehicles 27

Planing/Ram/WIG vehicles (Aerofoil Boats, Winged Hulls) 29

CHAPTER 4. A SURVEY OF UNCONVENTIONAL TRAINS . . 34

Introduction 34

A Sketch Of Train History 39

Three technological breakthroughs 39

Steam locomotives and vacuum technology 41

Electric propulsion 43

Diesel propulsion 44

Diesel-electric propulsion 44

Post-war population pressure and energy crises 44

Discussion Of The Various Technologies 48

Conventional high-speed rail trains (steel wheel-on-rail, or duorail tech­

nologies) 49

Monorails and other unconventional non-levitating trains 55

Tracked air-cushion vehicles (TACVs) 57

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains and Linear Induction Motors (LIMs) 64

Technical introduction to maglev and linear induction motors .... 64

A brief history of maglev technology 67


X

Maglev versus high-speed duorail trains 83

Trains using aerodynamic suspension 86

CHAPTER 5. A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF TECHNIQUES

USED IN GROUND EFFECT EXPERIMENTS 90

Mirror-Image Method 90

Fixed Ground Method 94

Moving-Belt Technique 97

Moving-Model Technique 98

Rheoelectric Analog Method 101

A Comparison of Experimental Results for Wings Near the Ground .... 101

A Note on the Aerodynamics of Bluff Bodies (Cars) 103

A Note on the Aerodynamics of Slender Bodies (Trains) 104

CHAPTER 6. A SURVEY OF THEORIES ASSOCIATED WITH

THE DIFFERENT GROUND EFFECT REGIMES 106

Two-Dimensional Mapping Techniques (Analytical) IDS

Two-Dimensional Thin Airfoil Theory (Analytical) 109

Three-Dimensional Finite Wing Theory: Lifting Lines And Lifting Surfaces

(Analytical) 112

Three-dimensional simple (classical, linear) lifting line theory (analytical) 112

Three-dimensional extended (linear) lifting line theory (analytical) . . 114

Three-dimensional double (linear) lifting line theory (analytical) ... 114

Three-dimensional numerical lifting line method 114

Three-dimensional lifting surface theory (analytical) 115


xi

Two- and Three-Dimensional Numerical Methods for Potential Flow: Gen­

eral Comments 117

Two-Dimensional Panel Methods (Numerical) 118

Two-dimensional source panel method (numerical) 119

Two-dimensional vortex panel method (numerical) 120

Two-dimensional Douglas-Neumann panel method (numerical) .... 121

Other two-dimensional panel methods (numerical) 122

Three-dimensional panel methods (numerical) 122

Three-dimensional vortex lattice method (VLM, numerical) 124

Three-Dimensional Wings in Close Ground Effect: Early Methods (Analyt­

ical) 125

Three-Dimensional Wings In Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic Linear 1-D

Channel Flow Theory (Analytical) 125

Three-Dimensional Wings in Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic Linear 2-D

Channel Flow Theory 127

Three-Dimensional Wings In Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic Nonlinear

2-D Channel Flow Theory 128

Three-Dimensional Wings in Extreme Ground Effect: The Growing Influ­

ence of Viscosity 128

CHAPTER 7. THE STUDY OF WING SECTIONS IN GROUND

EFFECT 1.30

CHAPTER 8. A PANEL METHOD FOR PRELIMINARY WING

SECTION DESIGN 132

Motivation for an Analysis Using an Inviscid 2-D Panel Method 132


xii

Nonclimensionalization 133

Coordinate Systems 135

Derivation of a 2-D Vortex Panel Method 139

Extension of the Panel Method to Ground Effect 150

Discrete Vortex Code 154

Vortex Panel Method 156

Constant-Strength Vortex Panel Method 161

Internal Boundary Conditions and Other Difficulties 169

Constant Strength Vortex Panel Code - Initial Results 175

Preliminary Design of an Airfoil in Ground Effect 179

CHAPTER 9. CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL WIND

TUNNEL MODEL 187

Introduction and Initial Ideas 187

Description of the Two Prismatic Wings 191

Fabrication of the Two Wings 193

Fabrication of the Wing Mounting Plug and Traversing Mechanism .... 199

Fabrication of the Pitot Rake 203

CHAPTER 10. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 208

Description of the Wind Tunnel 208

Data Acquisition Equipment and Instrumentation 212

Calibration Procedure 213

Experimental Procedure 215

Problems with the Experimental Procedure 221

Smoke Visualization 222


Xlll

Pitot Rake Experiments

CHAPTER 11. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

Presentation of Numerical Results

Presentation of Experimental Results 236

Experimental pitching moment and pressure drag results 264

Discussion of the Ground Effect Phenomenon 275

Suggested Improvements for Experimental Work 277

Suggested Improvements for Computational Work 278

CHAPTER 12. A RAM-AIR TRAIN PROTOTYPE: FEASIBIL­

ITY STUDY 281

Origins of the Ram-Air Train

The Concept of the Ram-Air Train

Expected performance and possible uses of the ram-air train

Prototype design: sizing, mission

The elevated guideway

Takeoff, braking and landing

The Future of the Ram-Air Train

CHAPTER 13. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS . .

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE DISSERTATION

BIBLIOGRAPHY 301
xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Milestones in railroad history 39

Table 4.2: Energy use and noise levels of transportation systems .... 84

Table 11.1: NACA 5312, a = 6®, experimental data 265


XV

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Proposed ram-air train, or aerodynamic levitation (AeroLev)

train 5

Figure 2.1: Some aerospace nomenclature 7

Figure 2.2: The flow regimes of the aerodynamic ground effect 8

Figure 2.3: Wing showing the wingtip vortex 11

Figure 2.4: Profile in ground effect: image method 13

Figure 3.1: Categories of ground effect vehicles 20

Figure 4.1: Railroad nomenclature 36

Figure 4.2: Trainsets and bogie types 38

Figure 4.3: Categories of trains and tracked ACVs 50

Figure 4.4: French high-speed train (TGV) 53

Figure 4.5: The Piasecki Airtrain 56

Figure 4.6: French Aerotrain 59

Figure 4.7: Combinations of magnetic levitation and linear motors .... 68

Figure 4.8: Short-stator EMS train with LIM propulsion 69

Figure 4.9: Long-stator EMS with LIM propulsion, similar to German

Transrapid TR-07 70
xvi

Figure 4.10: Short-stator EDS with LIM propulsion, similar to Japanese

MLU-001 71

Figure 4.11: Types of Switches 79

Figure 4.12: German Transrapid TR-07 81

Figure 4.13: Terrawing train 88

Figure 5.1: Mirror-image method 92

Figure 5.2: Fixed ground-plate method 95

Figure 5.3: Moving-belt method 98

Figure 5.4: Moving-model method 100

Figure 6.1: Theories associated with the Ground Effect Flow Regimes . . 107

Figure 8.1: Dimensional geometry of a profile in ground effect 133

Figure 8.2: Coordinate systems 136

Figure 8.3: Rotation of the coordinate system 138

Figure 8.4: Geometry of panels i and j on the profile 141

Figure 8.5: Airfoil surface coordinates and panel numbering system . . . 142

Figure 8.6: Definition of a wake panel 146

Figure 8.7: Leading edge moment due to panel i 149

Figure 8.8: Coordinate system for the image profile 151

Figure 8.9: Kutta point and numbering system for the image profile ... 153

Figure 8.10: Panel-centered geometry 158

Figure 8.11: Approaching the midpoint from the top 165

Figure 8.12: Approaching the midpoint from the bottom 166

Figure 8.13: Global and local coordinates 168


xvii

Pressure distribution for a NACA 4412 177

Pressure distribution for a NACA 4412 178

Design code user interface 180

Effect of varying the maximum camber location 181

Effect of varying the camber 182


Effect of varying the thickness 183

NACA 5312 airfoil shape 185


Pressure distribution for NACA 5312, = 1.5, = 0.1 . 186

Self-propelled tracked test rig 189


Test rig pushed by an automobile 190

Top (main) wing during assembly 192


CNC mill with wooden wing section 195

The two aluminum center sections during construction . . . . 196

Outside of the model mounting plug 200


Traversing mechanism with slider blocks 201

Model and Pitot rake in the wind tunnel test section 206

Wind tunnel, smoke injector, and data acquisition system . . 209

Front view of model mounted inside the wind tunnel 211

Scanivalve and calibration transducer 213

Diagram of the data acquisition system 214


Aerodynamic resultants acting on panel i 219

NACA 5312, a — 6^, lift versus ground clearance 230


xviii

Figure 11.2: NACA 5312, panel code results, lift curve with and without

ground effect 231

Figure 11.3: NACA 5312, panel code results, a = OP^ pressure distributions

for various ground clearances 232

Figure 11.4: NACA 5312, ^ = 0.1, panel code results, pressure distribu­

tions for various incidences 233

Figure 11.5: NACA 5312, isolated airfoil, panel code, pressure distributions

for various incidences 234

Figure 11.6: NACA 5312, q = 6°, ^ = 0.1, effect of the number of panels

on panel code results 235

Figure 11.7: NACA 5312, isolated airfoil, lift curve 246

Figure 11.8: NACA 5312, experimental results, lift curve with and without

ground effect 247

Figure 11.9: NACA 5312, isolated airfoil, a = 6®, effect of Reynolds num­

ber on pressure distribution 248

Figure 11.10: NACA 5312, a = 6®, ^ = 0.1, match of experimental data

from top and bottom wings 249

Figure 11.11: Smoke visualization image showing flow symmetry 250

Figure 11.12: Smoke visualization showing stagnated underbody flow . . . 251

Figure 11.13: NACA 5312, a = —4'', experimental pressure distributions

for various ground clearances 252

Figure 11.14: NACA 5312, a = O'', experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 253


xix

Figure 11.15: NACA 5312, a = 4", experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 254

Figure 11.16: NACA 5312, a = 6®, experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 255

Figure 11.17: NACA 5312, a = 8^, experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 256

Figure 11.18: NACA 5312, a = 12®, experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 257

Figure 11.19: NACA 5312, a = 16®, experimental pressure distributions for

various ground clearances 258

Figure 11.20: NACA 5312, ^ = 0.1, experimental pressure distributions for

various incidences 259

Figure 11.21: NACA 5312, a = 6®, ^ = 0.1, effect of Reynolds number on

the pressure distribution 260

Figure 11.22: NACA 5312, a = 6®, ^ = 0.1, comparison of scanivalve and

manometer results 261

Figure 11.23: NACA 5312, ^ = 0.1, comparison of experimental and nu­

merical results for three inclinations 262

Figure 11.24: NACA 5312, a = 6®, ^ = 0.1, matching experimental and

numerical results 263

Figure 11.25: Three equivalent loadings 266

Figure 11.26: NACA 5312, experimental leading edge pitching moment ver­

sus incidence 268


XX

Figure 11.27: NACA 5312, a — 6 ^ , experimental leading edge pitching mo­

ment versus ground clearance 269

Figure 11.28: NACA 5312, experimental pressure drag curve 270

Figure 11.29: NACA 5312, a = 6", experimental results 271

Figure 11.30: NACA 5312, experimental drag polar 272

Figure 11.31: NACA 5312, experimental efficiency results 273

Figure 11.32: NACA 5312, a = 6^, experimental efficiency results 274

Figure 11.33: NACA 5312, a = G'', lift contributions from the top and bot­

tom wing surfaces 276

Figure 12.1: Hovering aerofoil-boat 283

Figure 12.2: Early ram-air train 284

Figure 12.3: Wooden model of the AeroLev train 286


xxi

KEYWORDS RELATED TO THE DISSERTATION TOPIC

advanced ground transport (AGT)


aerodynamic ground effect (AGE)
aerodynamic levitation
aerodynamic suspension
aerofoil boat
aeroskimmer
aerostatic ground effect
aerotrain
air-bearing vehicles
air cushion vehicles (ACV)
air levitation
air suspension
channel flow vehicle
compression airplane
distributed-suction experimental technique
dynamic air cushion vehicle
dynamic ground effect
dynamic interface vehicle
Ekranoplan
electrodynamic suspension (EDS) maglev
electromagnetic suspension (EMS) maglev
flat-plate experimental technique
flying fish
gap flow
ground-board experimental technique
ground cushion
ground effect machine (GEM)
ground effect take-off and landing aircraft (GETOL)
xxn

ground effect vehicle (GEV)


ground-plate experimental technique
ground pressure vehicles
ground proximity
ground representation
ground simulation
ground transportation
ground vicinity-
high-speed ground transportation (HSGT)
hovercraft
hovertrain
hydroskimmer
image-wing technique (experimental and theoretical)
Low Boy
lubrication theory
magnetis levitation (maglev) trains
mirror-wing technique (experimental and theoretical)
moving-belt experimental technique
moving-model experimental technique
plajiing boat
railroads
ram-air cushion
ram-wing
reflection method technique (experimental and theoretical)
reflection-plate experimental technique
road vehicles
seabirds near the water
slot flow
static ground effect
surface effect ship (SES)
surface effect vehicle
surface skimmer
terrafoil
towed-model experimental technique
tow-tank experimental technique
tracked air cushion vehicle (TACV)
underbody flow
undersurface flow
wing in ground-effect (WIG)
winged hull
XXUl

IN GERMAN:

Aerodynamischer Bodeneffekt (aerodynamic ground effect)


Bodeneffekt (ground effect)
Bodeneffektgeraet (BEG) (ground effect machine)
dynamischer Bodeneffekt (dynamic ground effect)
Flugflaechen-Boot (aerofoil boat)
Gleitboot (planing boat)
Luftkissen (air cushion)
Luftkissenfcihrzeug (LKF) (air cushion vehicle)
Magnetschwebebahn (raaglev train)
Schwebefahrzeug (hovering craft)
Staufluegel (ram-wing)
Staufluegelfahrzeug (ram-wing vehicle)
Tragflaechenboot (hydrofoil boat)
xxiv

GROUND EFFECT MACHINES: COMMON ABBREVIATIONS

ABL - Atmospheric Boundary Layer.

ACV - Air-Cushion Vehicle.

Aero - Aerodynamics Laboratory of the David Taylor Model Basin,


Washington, D.C. (U.S.A.).

AGE - Aerodynamic Ground Effect.

AGT - Advanced Ground Transport.

AMS - Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Sciences, Princeton


University, New Jersey, U.S.A.

APT - Advanced Passenger Train.

APT-P - Advanced Passenger Train - Prototype version.

APT-S - Advanced Passenger Train - Service version.

ASW - Anti Submarine Warfare.

AVE - Alta Velocidad Espanola, Spanish HSR system consisting of


TGVs. Also the Spanish word for bird.

BL - Boundary-Layer.

BMVg - Bundesministerium fiir Verteidigung (West German ministry of


defense).
XXV

BR - British Railways.

BRB - British Railways Board, Research & Development Division,


R&DD Derby, United Kingdom.

BuWeps - Bureau of Naval Weapons (U.S.A.).

CAB - Captured Air Bubble.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 49 governs railroad).

CIGGT - Canadian Institute for Guided Ground Transport.

DB - Deutsche Bundesbahn, German national railways.

DFVLR - Deutsche Forschungs- und Versuchsanstalt fiir Luft- und


Raumfahrt.

DOT - Department Of Transportation (U.S.A.).

DOT- - Department Of Transportation Office of High-Speed Ground


OHSGT Transportation (U.S.A.).

DTMB - David W. Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C. (U.S.A.),


formerly Experimental Model Basin.

EMS - ElectroMagnetic Suspension.

EDS - ElectroDynamic Suspension.

FRA - Federal Railroad Administration (U.S.A.).

GE - Ground Effect.

GEM - Ground Effect Machine.

GETOL - Ground Effect Take-Off and Landing.


xxvi

GEV - Ground Effect Vehicle.

GVT - Gravity Vacuum Transit.

HSR - High-Speed Rail.

HSST - High Speed Surface Transportation.

ICE - Inter-City Express (German HSR).

IGE - In Ground Effect.

IVHS - Intelligent Vehicle-Highway System.

ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 1991.

ITG - International Track Gauge for railroads,


1.668 meters, or 5'5.7".

.IR - Japanese Railways, national railways.

JSSS - Jane's Surface Skimmers.

LB - Douglas Aircraft, Long Beach, California (U.S.A.).

LIM - Linear Induction Motor.

MAGLEV - MAGnetic LEVitation.

MIRA - Motor Industry Research Association (United Kingdom).

MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U.S.A..

NMI - National Maglev Initiative, 1990.

NRC - National Research Council (USA).

0 M - Operation & Maintenance.


xxvn

OGE - Out of Ground Effect.

OST - Office of the Secretary of Transportation (U.S.A.).

OTA - Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress.

PAR - Power Augmented Ram-wing.

PMS - Permanent Magnet Suspension.

ROW - Right-of-Way (land surrounding railroad tracks).

RTRI - Railway Technical Research Institute of Japan.

SEV - Surface Effect Vehicle.

SES - Surface Effect Ship.

SRL - Seiler Research Laboratory, U.S. Air Force Systems Command.

SS/GTS - Super Speed Ground Transportation System.

SST - Super Speed Train.

TAB - Tandem Aerofoil Boat.

TACRV - Tracked Air Cushion Research Vehicle.

TACV - Tracked Air Cushion Vehicle.

TGV - Train a Grande Vitesse (French HSR).

TLRV - Tracked Levitated Research Vehicle.

TLV - Tracked Levitated Vehicle.

TMLV - Tracked Magnetically Levitated Vehicle.

TR - Transrapid, German maglev train.


xxviii

TRACV Tracked Ram Air Cushion Vehicle.

TRB Transportation Research Board, part of NRC.

TRECOM Transportation Research Command, U.S. Army, Fort Eustis,


Virginia.

TSC (John A. Volpe National) Transportation Systems Center of


the U.S. Department Of Transportation at Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

TWIG Tandem Wing In Ground Effect.

UHSGT Ultra High Speed Ground Transportation.

UIC Union of International Railways (regulatory body).

UMTA Urban Mass Transport Administration, part of USDOT.

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers.

USDOT United States Department of Transportation.

VIA Canadian national passenger rail corporation.

VNTSC Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

V/STOL Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing.

WIG Wing In Ground effect.

WSEV Winged Surface Effect Vehicle.

WTOL Water Take-OfF and Landing.


xxix

NOMENCLATURE

number of counts from the data acquisition system.

chord length, distance between the leading and trailing edges.

lift coefficient, two-dimensional.

drag coefficient, two-dimensional.

moment coefficient, two-dimensional.

pressure coefficient.

distance.

unit vector

height above the ground; in this case the distance between the
trailing edge and the ground vertically beneath it.

unit vector along the global abscissa.

unit vector along the global ordinate.

panel length; two-dimensional lift.

two-dimensional lift.

two-dimensional moment.
XXX

N - number of panels representing one airfoil.

p - pressure.

q - dynamic pressure.

r - geometric scale ratio (size of the model divided by the size of the
original).

r - position vector.

Re - Reynolds number.

S - planform area.

s - panel surface coordinate.

t - thickness of the airfoil.

V - velocity.

X - global cartesian coordinate, abscissa.

X - local cartesian coordinate, abscissa.

Z - global cartesian coordinate, ordinate.

z - local cartesian coordinate, ordinate.

a - incidence, angle between the chord line and the freestream.

r - circulation.

7 - vorticity strength.

AC - number of counts corresponding to a pressure differential.

Ap - pressure differential.
xxxi

9 - panel inclination; also angular position of point Q in the


panel coordinate system.

A - temporary variable for facilitating integration.

^ - dummy panel coordinate, similar to x p .

p - density.

$ - velocity potential.

^ - streamfunction.

Subscripts:

ac - aerodynamic center.

AMB - ambient conditions, outside the wind tunnel,

c - camber

CAL - pertaining to the calibration transducer or procedure.

G - gap region, space between the bottom edge of an endplate and


the ground.

GBL - ground boundary layer.

i - general index.

int - internal; inside the airfoil.

j - general index.

LBL - lower surface boundary layer.

LE - leading edge of the profile, also refers to the region between the
xxxii

wing and the ground in the vicinity of the leading edge.

n - normal.

p - panel, panel-fixed coordinates.

Q - refers to a point Q near the panel.

r - radial.

t - tangential.

TE - trailing edge of the profile, also refers to the region between the
wing and the ground in the vicinity of the trailing edge.

U - underbody region, space between the wing and the ground.

UBL - upper surface boundary layer.

V - due to the vortex distribution.

6 - transverse, circumferential (component of a vector).

oo - freestream condition; test section condition far upstream of


the model; also refers to a quantity that is due to the
influence of the oncoming freestream.

Superscripts:

* - denotes a dimensional quantity.

' - denotes a two-dimensional quantity.


xxxiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my adviser, Professor JefF Huston, for taking a sincere interest in me

and in my work. His support was in the form of philosophical discussions, technical

discussions, conceptual questions, probing questions, thought-provoking questions,

encouragement, pressure, critiques, honest opinions, informal comments, joking re­

marks, and thorough reviews of my manuscripts.

I am thankful for his respect and tolerance, and for giving me great freedom in

my work. That freedom allowed me to focus not just on technical problems, but to

develop my sense for ethics, social concerns, history, and creativity.

These comments do not just apply to my research, but also to my work in the ISU

Courseware Development Studio, which is directed by Professor Huston. Under his

guidance I learned to better understand my audience, to write proposals and papers,

and to cope with bureaucracy. But most of all, I developed a better understanding

of the professions of engineering and teaching.

I also thank the other four members of my committee, Dean Nancy L. Eaton,

Dr. James D. Iversen, Dr. Jerald M. Vogel and Dr. David B. Wilson, for their time

and support.

I thank Dean Eaton for consistently acting in the interest of the Alexander

Lippisch Collection at ISU's Parks Library.


xxxiv

I thank Dr. Iversen for initiating rny work on the Lippisch Collection, and for

his continued interest in it.

I thank Dr. Vogel for his advice on panel methods and for facilitating the

construction of the experimental model.

I thank Dr. Wilson for his support of my work on the Lippisch Collection and

of my interest in history in general. I am especially thankful for his guidance leading

up to my presentation on Lippisch to the Midwest Junto for the History of Science

in Chicago in 1993.

Last but certainly not least I thank my wife Audra for her unceasing support

and for taking my mind off my work.


1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The delicate balance of the world's ecosystems is seriously threatened by hu­

manity's wasteful ways. It will not be possible for future generations to live from

day to day without considering the consequences of their actions - but perhaps it

will require a combination of resource scarcity and immediate health threats to bring

people to reason.

One symbol of the excessive consumerism of our time is the automobile. Adver­

tisements have taught the public to associate it with personal freedom and mobility.

But does not personal freedom involve mainly mental rather than physical mobility?

Is it "freedom" to continuously worry about the inconvenience and expense of im­

minent mechanical problems? Is it "freedom" to be caught up in an unending series

of payments? Is it "freedom" to be subjected to the stress of noisy and unsightly

motorways and traffic jams?

Efficient mciss transportation systems would provide people with the necessary

mobility without the problems of ownership. They would also vastly reduce pollu­

tion and traffic congestion. This is particularly important considering that by 2020

surface travel in the United States will double from the 1988 levels [1]. There are

also economic reasons for developing efficient mass transportation systems; in 1990,

economic losses due to traffic congestion and airport delays in the United States were
2

US$ 80 million and US$ 5 billion, respectively. Future generations will once again be

forced to rely on trains, trams, buses, aircraft and ships. Despite the fact that most

transportation research is carried out in the automobile and aviation industries, it

seems advisable to improve surface transportation systems. This dissertation centers

on a new concept for a tracked transportation system - a train suspended under a

lifting wing. This wing operates just above a T-shaped concrete track and rides on

a cushion of air. The air cushion is due to the aerodynamic ground effect, i.e., the

flow of air past the forward-moving wing.

The phenomenon of the aerodynamic ground effect has been known and studied

for many years. One of the researchers in the field was Dr. Alexander Lippisch, a

German aerodynamicist who had become widely known for his delta-wing designs

before and during World War II. Delta-wing aircraft have wings with a triangular

planform. The wings start not far behind the nose and extend all the way to the tail

section, reaching a maximum span there.

Following the war, he came to the United States and worked for Collins Radio

Company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa until the mid-1960s. Afterward, he worked as a con­

sultant for companies in Germany and the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s he

designed a series of ground effect vehicles, including raceboats with water propulsion

which skimmed just above the surface of the water and airscrew-driven flying boats

that operated optimally in ground effect (see [2] through [17]).

Dr. Lippisch died in 1976, and in the years which followed, his widow, Mrs.

Gertrud Lippisch, gave some of his papers and photographs to the Parks Library

at Iowa State University. Mrs. Lippisch was encouraged by the care the material

received there, and by the interest and dedication of the head of the Department
3

of Special Collections, Dr. Stanley Yates. She decided to donate the rest of the

materials in 1990 on the condition that someone would come to her home to review

the materials under her supervision. This person would have to speak German and

be familiar with the subject area. For this reason, Dr. Yates contacted Dr. James

Iversen, Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering. Dr. Iversen in turn

contacted the author, who is German and was at the time a graduate student of

aerospace engineering. Dr. Iversen has a strong interest in history and has been very

supportive of the effort to organize the Lippisch Collection.

The author had the honor and pleasure to visit Mrs. Lippisch several times

before her death in late 1991. Most of the Lippisch material was transported to the

Parks Library at Iowa State University in early 1991 [18]. In the year which followed,

the author organized the material according to Lippisch's major research areas, and

became interested in the aerodynamic ground effect as a result. Dr. Lippisch had

envisioned use of his ground effect aerofoil-boat on remote river systems for the

transport of food and medical supplies, as a patrol boat along rivers and coasts, as

well as for carrying freight across oceans. Since the author has a strong interest in

public transportation, he wished to determine whether the aerodynamic ground effect

could be utilized in a high speed ground transportation system. The fundamental

question was whether the wings would generate sufficient lift. For this reason, the

present work centers on the design of a train-like vehicle that has wings - the Ram-Air

Train (see Figure 1).

The following chapter is an explanation of the aerodynamic ground effect and

associated flow regimes. Chapters 3 and 4 are surveys of vehicles that utilize the

aerodynamic ground effect and of systems of high speed ground transportation. The
4

various experimental techniques are identified and compared in Chapter 5. This is

followed by a chapter on the different flow regimes of ground effect, with a discussion

of the aerodynamic theories that describe those regimes. A motivation for studying

two-dimensional wing sections in ground effect is given in Chapter 7. The Eighth

Chapter is a description of the panel method used to find a wing section that would

be useful near the ground. The experimental testing of that wing section is the

subject of the Ninth Chapter. In Chapter 10 an appropriate design tool for airfoils in

ground proximity is chosen, resulting in an optimization of the airfoil in the Chapter

11. In the Twelfth Chapter the proposed ram-air train is sized and its feasibility is

discussed - a sketch of the train is given in Figure 1 below. The final chapter includes

conclusions, open questions and plans for the future.


iWSSSKM®;

Figure 1.1: Proposed ram-air train, or aerodynamic; levitation (Aerol.cv) train


6

CHAPTER 2. THE AERODYNAMIC GROUND EFFECT AND

ASSOCIATED FLOW REGIMES

A wing is said to be operating in the aerodynamic ground effect (AGE) if the

air flow around it is influenced by the presence of the ground. The presence of the

ground only becomes significant when the wing-to-ground clearance is less than a

semi-span of the wing (for an explanation of some of the aerospace engineering terms

see Figure 2.1). As the wing descends from that altitude to a height of just a few

millimeters from the ground, the nature of the flow changes quite dramatically. The

various flow regimes are depicted in Figure 2.2 and are described in the following

sections. A summary of experimental findings will be given in each case.

One usually finds that any efficient human mechanism already occurs somewhere

in nature. This is also the case with wings in ground effect. When a large seabird

slowly takes to the air its wings' trailing edges are just barely above the water surface

during the downstroke. In fact, it also uses its feet to run on the water for additional

thrust. During takeoff and landing these birds utilize the dynamic ground effect

(dynamic because their wings are in motion to create even more lift). Examples

of these birds are albatrosses and swans (see [19] and [20]). Another example from

nature is flying fish, which make use of the ground effect as they launch themselves

out of the water with the aid of their wings to skim just above the waves for a brief
I

<z
€ span, b

freestream, uoo ^ lift, L

drag, D

thickness-

X=0 ground A: = 1

leading edge trailing edge

Figure 2.1: Some cierospace nomenclature


8

Aerodynamic Ground Effect


(AGE)
J

Wings Near the Lubrication


Small-Gap Regime
Ground or Water Regime
J L

Strong or Extreme
Classical Moderate or Close Ground
Weak Intermediate Ground Effect:
Ground Ground Effect: Boundary
Effect Effect Ram-Wing Layer
Regime Regime
J

Figure 2.2: The flow regimes of the aerodynamic ground effect


9

moment (see [21] through [38]).

Wings Near the Ground or Near Water

When swallows shoot across a lake at dusk to feed on insects and when flying

fish are airborne, their wings are just inches away from the water surface. The same

is true during the takeoff and landing phases of airplanes. In all of these examples

the wings are at a distance of approximately a semi-span from the surface. Airplanes

certainly do not usually descend to within a chordlength of the ground. Nevertheless,

the effect of the ground on an airplane operating in its vicinity has been recognized

for quite some time, especially by pilots who found that their craft seemed to ride

on a cushion of air just above the runway. Pilots on long transoceanic voyages found

that flight near the water was very stable and considerably extended the range. The

conclusion was that a wing near the ground experiences more lift and less drag than

an isolated wing, i.e., a wing which is far away from the ground.

The flowfield around an airplane operating at a height of approximately a semi-

span above the ground is only affected by the presence of the ground at second order,

meaning that the ground effect changes the flow-field by less than ten percent. This

is termed the weak ground effect regime. If the airplane is allowed to descend to

within a chordlength of the ground, the ground becomes a leading order influence on

the flowfield, meaning that the ground effect changes the flowfield by more than ten

percent. This situation involves the intermediate ground effect regime.


10

Weak (classical) ground effect regime

This flow regime entails ground clearance ratios (height-to-chord) that are greater

than 3 and includes the case of aircraft flying above water or above runways. Al­

though the ground has only a second order impact upon the flowfleld, airplanes

experience a pronounced air cushion. There is an increase of the lift-to-drag ratio,

and the reduced drag results in a lower fuel consumption. The cushioning effect is

the reason for the often smooth touchdowns and takeoffs of aircraft, as well as for

the prolonged glide (floating) of low-wing airplanes on landing. This prolonged glide

is not usually desirable in that it increases the landing distance. The increased fuel

economy was utilized by the Dornier Wal flying boats and by the Do X flying boats

of the German postal service when they were operating in the south Atlantic in the

1930s (see [39], [40] and [41]). The Do X was built in the 1920s. With a wingspan of

137 feet, a length of 131 feet, a flight weight of 123,000 pounds (54.5 tons) and twelve

engines in back-to-back pairs for thrust, it was the largest aircraft of its day. In 1927,

Charles Lindbergh reported taking advantage of the ground effect to increase range.

The weak ground effect can be explained in a variety of ways. The effect of the

ground is to prevent higher pressure air from escaping from underneath the wing to

the top side (see Figure 2.3). The strength of the wingtip vortex is therefore reduced,

as is the associated downwash. The reduction in downwash causes the lift vector to

tilt forward, thereby reducing the induced drag. The increased lift-to-drag ratio is

due mainly to this reduced drag.

In the case of two-dimensional flow the wing is assumed to be infinite so that

there are no wingtip vortices. An alternative explanation is needed here because

one is dealing with wing profiles. The most elegant interpretation may be to use
wingtip vortex

induced drag

Figure 2.3: Wing showing the wingtip vortex


12

the image method. One imagines the ground to be replaced by a mirror-image of

the airfoil so that the midplane between the two airfoils forms a symmetry plane

(see Figure 2.4). This effectively models the ground since there is no flow across

the symmetry plane. One can thus interpret the ground effect as the image airfoil's

influence on the flowfield around the airfoil. The image airfoil will induce small

vertical and horizontal velocities at the airfoil.

Experiments (see [42] through [74] and [5]) have shown that for wings at positive

incidence in weak and moderate ground effect, the lift-to-drag ratio increases and the

induced drag decreases as the height decreases. The lift curve slope also rises, mean­

ing that there is a stronger increase in lift for a given increase in incidence. As a

consequence, the maximum lift is reached at a lower incidence. It is not clear, how­

ever, what happens to the maximum lift itself. The profile drag remains constant; it is

the drag which is due to viscosity (skin friction drag) and to the vertical displacement

of the air near the profile (pressure, or form drag). The incidence for zero lift rises to

become less negative or even positive. The aerodynamic center moves aft to increase

the static longitudinal stability, meaning that following a nose-up disturbance the

profile will of itself return to its original attitude. There is stability of height (heave

stability), meaning that following an upward displacement the profile will of itself

descend to its original altitude. Finally, the lift at zero incidence remains constant.

Moderate (intermediate) ground effect regime, WIG regime

Once the ground clearance decreases to the order of a chordlength, the ground

exerts a stronger influence upon the flowfield. This type of flow is known as the

intermediate or moderate ground effect regime or as the wing-in-ground-effect (WIG)


13

suction lift
low pressure

main wmg

high pressure
ram-lift

midplane
symmetry plane

image wing

Figure 2.4: Profile in ground effect: image method


14

regime. Theoretically, one must include higher-order terms in the solution when the

ground clearance-to-chord ratio is between 0.5 and 3. These terms are no longer

negligible. From a two-dimensional perspective, the mirror-airfoil is inducing higher

velocities near the airfoil than in the case of weak ground effect. This means that

more air flows over the top of the main airfoil, lowering the pressure there. This low

pressure on the top surface effectively sucks the wing upward, a phenomenon known

as suction-lift. Since the air underneath the wing slows down, the pressure rises,

causing an increase in the upward force. Of the total lifting force experienced by a

wing-in-ground-effect, between 60 and 70% is the suction-lift produced by the airflow

over the top of the airfoil. The other 30 to 40% are due to the higher-than-normal

pressure underneath the wing.

Small-Gap Regime

Due to geometric and safety constraints most aircraft do not operate at heights

less than a chordlength. But experience has shown that the benefits of the ground

effect continue growing with decreasing ground clearance. For this reason, vehicles

have been specifically designed to operate in strong ground effect. If the clearance

is further reduced, viscous effects become significant, and the extreme ground effect

regime is entered. If the gap becomes smaller still, the inertia effects become negligible

in comparison to the viscous effects. This is the realm of lubrication theory.

Strong (close) ground effect regime, ram-wing regime

When a swan or a duck struggles to become airborne, it not only uses its feet for

additional thrust but also utilizes the strong ground effect. This is because the trailing
15

edge of its wing is just millimeters above the water surface during the downstroke.

The air beneath its wings is nearly stagnant, resulting in near-stagnation pressure

on the wing-underside. This ram-pressure causes a great increcise in the lifting force.

Of course, the problem is complicated by bird beating its wings at the same time,

causing a highly unsteady flow. Nature is far more sophisticated than humankind's

attempts at flight.

But the point remains that when the trailing edge is close enough to the ground

it interferes with the outflow of air underneath it, causing the air to slow down. As

the air underneath the wing moves toward stagnation, it forms a ram-air cushion

and the pressure rises. The resulting lift force is called ram-lift. The result of these

phenomena is a lift increase. In fact, between 60 and 70% of the total lifting force is

ram-lift, the remainder being the suction-lift produced by the accelerating flow over

the top surface.

For the case of the ram-wing regime, the gap under the trailing edge is still

larger in magnitude than the thickness of the boundary layer at that point. This

allows the theoretical analysis to be of the inviscid type. The trailing edge ground

clearance-to-chordlength ratio is of order 0.1, ranging from 0.05 to 0.3, approximately.

For normal airfoil thicknesses (about 10 percent) and moderate incidences (about 5

degrees), the geometry of the gap varies significantly so that the problem is nonlinear

in that region. Any aerodynamic theory must therefore be inviscid and nonlinear.

The ram-wing regime has been investigated experimentally by several researchers

(see [48], [54], [52], [57] through [60], [5], [61] through [65], [68] through [74]). Reduc­

tions in ground clearance revealed a decreas drag for equal lift as well as an increase

of lift at equal (positive) incidence. Bagley [58] showed that the boundary layers must
16

be considered if pressure distributions are to be found. This is especially true on the

bottom surface near the trailing edge. The maximum lift-to-drag ratio was around

20, which is two and one-half times as high as for an isolated wing. The maximum

lift remains constant. Separation did not occur for airfoils with a thickness of ten

percent and angles of attack below ten degrees, but the thickness probably should

not be much smaller. Serebrisky and Biachuev [52] found that the pressure dropped

slightly near the leading edge of the upper surface, whereas it rose near the trailing

edge. This unfavorable pressure gradient causes separation to occur at a lower inci­

dence than for an isolated wing. They also found the pressure on the lower surface

to rise strongly, confirming that the flow there is retarded as long as it is attached.

It is fortunate that Datwyler [48] and Muller [54] carried out flow visualization

studies of the strong ground effect as this allows a validation of the flow characteris­

tics. One of Miiller's experiments involved a ten percent thick airfoil and its image.

The incidence was approximately ten degrees and the trailing edge to chordlength

ratio was near 0.17. Unfortunately, he did not report the Reynolds number. The

photographs revealed a smooth flow through the gap, free of separated regions and

with negligibly thin boundary layers. Due to the large incidence, however, the flow

was separated on the top surface. He noted that the two wakes did not interfere with

each other, which validated the image technique and negated the need for a wake

splitter plate. Miiller's results were also reported in [75]. Werle [61] confirmed the

above results many years later, but he found that the wakes do interfere if the flow

is separated.
17

Extreme ground effect regime

When the gap under the trailing edge is of the same order of magnitude as the

boundary-layer thickness, viscous effects can no longer be neglected. The gap flow is

then governed by boundary-layer equations.

Lubrication Regime

The ground clearance can be reduced to such extent that the inertia effects

become negligible in comparison to the viscous forces. The problem is then governed

by lubrication theory. An example of this is when two sheets slide with respect to

one another.
18

CHAPTER 3. A SURVEY OF VEHICLES FOR OPERATION IN

VARIOUS GROUND EFFECT REGIMES

The nomenclature describing ground effect vehicles is often used carelessly. For

this reason, the present chapter begins with a summary of the different types of

craft. Each subsequent section has as its subject a different type of ground effect

machine, providing both a history of its development and a description of the relevant

aerodynamics, i.e., the associated ground effect regime.

The Categorization Of Ground-Effect Vehicles

The many categories of ground-effect vehicles have evolved as a consequence of

the different ground-effect regimes. For example, it is possible to fly a wing in such

a way that its trailing edge prevents air from flowing out underneath it. This is the

ram-wing, or aeroskimmer. If one flies the same wing further away from the ground,

it is called a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), or an Ekranoplan (anglicized version of

the Russian word). If one directs engine exhaust under the wing while its trailing

edge is nearly touching the surface it is called a power-augmented ram-wing (PAR).

One could also make the rear portion of the undersurface touch the water and make

the craft ride on a film of air that provides air-lubrication. This is called a planing

craft or a hydroskimmer. One can also design vehicles that use a combination of the
19

above-mentioned ground-effect regimes, as shown in Figure 3.1. Or one can forget

about the use of wings all together and simply use fans to force high-pressure air

into a chamber sealed with rigid or flexible skirts. This is known as an aerostatic

ground-effect vehicle, and it is capable of hovering without forward motion. This

is in contrast to an aerodynamic ground-effect (AGE) craft, which relies on forward

motion to enable its wings to produce lift.

In the 1960s, a number of review articles were written about ground-effect ma­

chines (see [76] through [88]). The present work relies particularly on the article of

Foshag [88].

Since aerodynamic ground-effect vehicles are the focus of this work, only they

will be described in the following sections.

Wing-In-Ground-EfFect (WIG) Vehicles (Ekranoplans)

The most common ground-effect phenomenon involves the take-off and landing

of common aircraft. On or very near the ground the wings of all common aircraft

are within a semi-span of the runway. But even for low-wing aircraft the distance

between the trailing edge and the ground is on the order of a chordlength, leaving

plenty of space for air to escape underneath it. An aircraft operating this way is

called a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) airplane. Based on the Russian word, it is also

called an Ekranoplan airplane. Generally these Soviet aircraft also operate in other

ground-effect modes, as will be discussed below. Early aviators and aeronautical

engineers were very preoccupied with the takeoff and landing phase. This led to

systematic studies of the effect of the ground on full-size aircraft in the 1920s and

1930s (see for example [89] through [92]). Of course, there were also many tests
Ground Effect Vehicles (GEV)
Ground Effect Machines (GEM)
Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV)

Captured Air Aerodynamic


Bubble (CAB) GroundEffect
Aerostatic GEM Vehicles (AGEV)
Vehicle (hybrid
(uses lifting fans),
between (use forward
e.g., hovercraft
aerostatic and motion to to
o
aerodynamic GEM) produce lift)
X"

Wing-in- Ram- Power-


Aerostatic Planing Aerofoil
Peripheral Ground- Wing Aug­
Plenum Craft; PARAVIG -Boats;
Jet Effect Machine; mented
Chamber Hydro- Machine Winged
Machine (WIG) Aero- Ram-Wing
Vehicle skimmers Hulls
Machine skimmer ^ (I^R) ^

Figure 3.1: Categories of ground effect vehicles


21

on models, such as NACA's tests involving delta-wing models (see [93] and [94]) in

the 1950s and British studies of a Gothic-wing in 1960 (see [95] and [96]). Of the

total lifting force experienced by wing-in-ground-effect craft, between 60 and 70% is

the suction-lift produced by the high-speed airflow over the top of the airfoil. The

other 30 to 40% are due to the unusually high pressure underneath the wing, i.e., the

ram-air cushion.

Ram-Wing Vehicles (Aeroskimmers)

The first vehicle designed exclusively to make use of one of the ground-effect

phenomena was of the ram-wing type. It was a torpedo boat designed and built for

the Austrian Navy in 1916 by von Thomanhul (see [97]).

Ram-wings operate with their trailing edges just above the surface, thereby

trapping high-pressure air under the wing. This cushion of stagnated air produces a

strong lifting force on the wing. Between 60 and 70% of the total lifting force is ram-

lift, the remainder being the suction-lift produced by the accelerating flow over the

top surface. One can further reduce the efflux of high-pressure air from underneath

the wing by installing sideplates. These endplates are connected to the wingtips

and reach down to just above the ground, preventing air from flowing around the

wingtips. Vessels that employ both a ram-wing and sideplates are known as channel-

flow vehicles or tunnel-hulls. Ram-wing vessels are not capable of free-flight because
they usually do not generate sufficient lift away from the ground. In addition, they

are typically only stable near the ground.

Following the Austrian effort of 1916, the next application of the ram-wing con­

cept was the sledges built by the Finnish engineer Kaario beginning in 1935. His
22

propeller-driven channel-flow sledges flew just centimeters above frozen lakes of his

native land (see [98] and [99]). The ground clearance to wingspan ratio was between

0.02 and 0.05. His work remained nearly unknown until a strong interest in ground

effect vehicles developed in the late 1950s. A symposium at Princeton University

in 1959 [100] triggered a flurry of activity. Kaario gave a presentation [99] at that

meeting. Between 1932 and 1959 Kaario built several improved versions of his sledge.

Other efforts during this time period included the ram-wings of Crook [101] and the

compression-plane of Warner (see [102] through [106]). All of these vehicles experi­

enced pitch instabilities and control problems. In fact, Kaario added long skis to his

designs to avoid pitch-up problems.

In the late 1950s, the United States Marine Administration (MARAD) sought

ways to make the U.S.-American merchant fleet more competitive. The MARAD

experts envisioned large air-cushion vehicles (ACVs), also known as surface-effect

ships (SESs). In 1960, Vehicle Research Corporation (VRC) designed a model of a

channel-flow vehicle, the VRC-1. This was not a pure channel-flow vehicle because

it used a peripheral jet sidewall system for lift at low speeds. At higher speeds, it

transferred to WIG mode with the side jets operating to function as air seals. The

project was under the direction of Peter J. Mantle, later at General Dynamics. VRC

was awarded a contract with the MARAD to build the model and to design a 100-

ton vehicle for up to 150 passengers or 40 short tons of freight. This ship, called the

"Columbia", was to have a range of 800 kilometers and speeds between 185 and 220

km/h (115-140 mph). The 30-foot long VRC-1 was built and first tested at Edwards

Air Force Base in 1964. Only hovering tests were carried out, and when pitch stability

problems were encountered the project was terminated (see [107] through [115], [67]
23

and [116], page 47).

Other ram-wing vehicles built in 1961 were that of Bertelsen (see [117], [118] and

[119]) and that of Swietzer Brothers (see [120]). The Swietzer craft was tailless, had

a low aspect ratio, a span of 8 feet, and a length of 19 feet. Its floats served as end

plates and provided stability since they were always in light contact with the water.

The vehicle attained speeds of 80 mph over two-foot waves.

In Japan, Kawasaki was building a ram-wing vehicle. The KAG-3 project began

in 1961 and was supervised by Ashill and Ando (see [116], page 12). Its wingtip

floats served as end plates and provided stability by remaining in light contact with

the water. The KAG-3 had a wing with an aspect ratio of 0.7, a constant chord of

3.58 meters, an angle of incidence of six degrees and a NACA 6409 airfoil section.

It was propelled by an 80 HP outboard motor and had horizontal stabilizer not far

from the water surface. It achieved lift coefficients in excess of unity. Its gross weight

was 1320 pounds, its length 20.6 feet, and its width 17.3 feet. The KAG-3 had

satisfactory pitch stability, and its cruise efficiency Wcis over twice that of a good

planing boat. Nevertheless, the project was halted because it was found not to be

sufficiently seaworthy. Under some conditions, it displayed severe porpoising (see

[121] through [131]).

Lockheed-California began design studies of a ram-wing vehicle in 1961, calling it

the "winged hull" (see [132] through [148]). This was essentially a speedboat driven

by an outboard motor. Engineers fitted it with hydroskis at the bow and added

rectangular wings with endplates on both sides. The ram-wing lifted most of the hull

out of the water and the vessel's speed increased by 50%. It had an aspect ratio of

1.27 and achieved a lift-to-drag ratio of 14. Improvements to this design led to the
24

Dynamic Interface Vehicle (see [149] and [150]), which encountered pitch stability

problems. Lippisch speculated that this may have been caused by flow separation

on the excessively thin wing section. Lockheed continued its studies of ram-wing

vehicles through the use of the "water wind-tunnel", which was just an open-water

test system. Models were simply pulled by a boom extending ten feet to one side of

the bow of a speedboat.

Pitch stability problems continued to plague ram-wing vessels, such as the craft

built by Armstrong in 1962 (see [151]) - as they got too high ofF the ground the

nose tended to pitch upward, sometimes causing the craft to flip over backward.

Armstrong's vehicle was essentially a stepped-bottom raceboat with a delta-wing

that had large flaps. Its wings operated close to the surface and it was powered by an

outboard motor. The pitch stability problem was solved by Lippisch in 1963 when

he added a large horizontal tail to his Collins X-112 (see [5] through [16]). As will

be discussed in a later section this vehicle operated as a ram-wing during parts of its

flight only. Lippisch mounted the horizontal stabilizer so high that it operated out of

ground-effect and he made it large enough to provide pitch stability at all attitudes.

After encountering some initial stability problems, Lippisch applied the same idea

to his aeroskimmers. He began designing these raceboats for KiekhaefFer Mercury

in 1968 - his models were designated as AS-1 through AS-5. The full-scale boats

were tested between 1969 and 1973 and were designated as X-114 through X-117

(see [2], [3], [4] and [12]). It should be noted that the designation X-114 appears

twice in Lippisch's work: once for the aeroskimmer designed by Lippisch Research

Corporation (LiReCo), and once for the aerofoil boat built by Rhein-Flugzeugbau

(RFB) beginning in 1974.


•25

Theoretical work involving ram-wings was performed by Barlow at the David

Taylor Model Basin in 1962 and by Timothy Barrows working for the DOT/FRA

between 1970 and 1972 (see [152], [153] and [154]). Work began on the ram-wings of

Dickinson [155] and of Kumar [156] in 1963. In 1967 Kumar again reported on his

efforts.

In the same year a research project directed by M. P. Knowlton at Princeton

University [157] involved a 1/16 scale wind tunnel model of a ram-wing for high-speed

ground transportation. It derived part of its lift from the redirection of the propeller

slipstream underneath the vehicle. Working as a student with the Princeton team

was Timothy Barrows, whose name appears in conjunction with S.E. Widnall and

with high speed ground transportation projects carried out at M.I.T. under funding

from the DOT/FRA in the early 1970s.

In 1973, Gallington and his co-workers reported successful flights of their ram-

wing models - they had used Lippisch's high tail configuration to avoid pitch problems

(see [69], [70], [158] and [159]). Additional theory was developed in 1974 by Miller

and others (see [160] and [161]).

Planing, Air-Lubricated Vehicles (Hydroskimmers)

It was probably in the era of the first world war that both boats and flying

boats needed to achieve higher and higher speeds. But a vessel operating in the

displacement mode is subject to tremendous hydrodynamic drag. To circumvent this

problem the contact area between the vessel and the water must be minimized - this

can be achieved by using hydrofoils, aerostatic air cushions, or by making the craft

plane on a film of air.


26

Air-lubrication is achieved by lifting the bow and most of the mid-section of the

hull out of the water and by skimming the water surface with the stern. Studies on

planing surfaces include the 1948 work of Korvin-Kroukovsky (see [162] and [163])

and the 1954 work of Savitsky and Neidinger at the Stevens Institute of Technology

[164]. Alexander Lippisch began work on planing boats in the late 1950s (see [2],

[3], [4] and [12]). He designed some planing speedboads during the early 1960s -

they were designated as X-101 through X-106 and served as testing platforms for

Collins Radio's avionics equipment. In 1961, Aerophysics Co. began studies on its

Hydroskimmer HS-2 (see [165], [166] and [167]). The westernized name given to

Soviet vehicles of this type is nizkolet craft.

Power-Augmented Ram-Wing (PAR)

One disadvantage of the ram-wing is that it only works after the forward speed

is sufficiently large to create an air cushion. To create this air cushion at an earlier

stage one can mount the propulsion unit ahead of the wing and direct its exhaust over

and/or under the wing. The results are very low speeds and very little loading during

the takeoff and landing phases. This type of vehicle is called a power-augmented

ram-wing and it seems to have been developed in the Soviet Union at the Odessa

Engineering Institute of the Merchant Fleet (OIIMF) - the 1970/71 issue (page 327)

of Jane's [168] includes a desription of the OIIMF-2, built by students under the

direction of Y. Budnitskiy. It was a tandem-wing channel-flow vessel whose two

propellers forced air past the main wing. A similar configuration also appeared in a

1967 patent of Bertelsen [169].

Most recently came news of the newest Soviet PAR/WIG design [170] - a tundra
•27

triplane designed by A.N. Panchenkov, follower of the Italian-born Soviet designer

Robert Oros di Bartini. This 4,000-ton vehicle will not be capable of free-flight;

instead, it will skim over tundra, over deserts and over snow-covered terrain at 300

mph at a height of 40 feet. Of its twelve turbojet engines, six are mounted just

over the front-most wing, allowing exhaust to be directed under or over the two rear

wings. The vehicle has a wingspan of 166 feet and a length of 408 feet and, if built,

could pose a threat to the delicate tundra ecosystem.

PAR/WIG Vehicles

This type of hybrid vehicle operates in several ground effect modes. During

takeoff and landing engine exhaust is directed under the wing to produce the PAR-

effect. As the speed increases, all of the engine output is used for thrust and the

machine becomes a pure ram-wing. As the craft ascends further, the trailing edge

leaves the immediate vicinity of the surface and high-pressure air is able to escape

from underneath the wing; it is then a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) vehicle, capable

of free-flight.

The first PAR/WIG craft was the so-called Caspian Sea Monster, designed by

Rostislav Evgenyevitch Alekseev (see [171], pages 50-52). The first trials of this 313-

ton airplane took place in 1965. It had a span of 40 meters (131 ft), a length of

91 meters (300 ft), a chordlength of 17 meters and was able to carry a payload of

94 tons, which corresponds to 900 troops. Capable of 300 knot speeds, it had eight

turbine engines mounted on a stub-wing near the nose and two engines on the tail.

The front engines could be tilted to produce the PAR-effect. The ratio of ground

clearance to chordlength was between 0.2 and 0.8, approximately. This corresponds
28

to the trailing edge being between 3.5 and 14 meters above the ground. Similar

aircraft were designed by the Italian-born Soviet designer Robert Oros di Bartini.

In the United States, Captain Thomas Meeks of the Naval Air Development

Center initiated the Advanced Naval Vehicles Concepts Evaluation in July of 1976.

The Naval Air Development Center had been carrying out related wind-tunnel work

in the early 1960s. Lockheed-Georgia designed a PAR/WIG logistics transport with a

takeoff weight of 1.4 million pounds, of which 441,000 pounds were pay load (see [172]

through [178], [179], page 133, and [171], pages 128-129). It had four turbofan engines

on a stub wing near the nose; this canard could be rotated for power-augmentation

or kept straight for pure forward thrust. The vehicle had a length of 73 meters (238

feet) and its 33-meter (108 foot) wings had an aspect ratio of 1.19 and sideplates

to prevent wingtip vortices. The range was to be 4,000 nautical miles, at a cruise

Mach number of 0.4 and a cruise ground clearance ratio of 0.15 or less (-^ = 2Tm^'

These plans were shelved despite good fuel economy and good payload fractions. The

reason given was that the cruise speeds were too low.

The next Soviet PAR/WIG aircraft was the "Orlyonok", or "Little Eagle", de­

signed by the Ekolen design bureau and first flown around 1980. The official des­

ignation of this 275,000-pound aircraft was the Sukhoi-Nizhny Novgorod A.90.150

Ekranoplan (see [180]). The designer of the Caspian Sea Monster of the early 1960s,

Rostislav Evgenyevitch Alekseev, was involved in this project as well. The Orlyonok

did not have canards. It had two takeoff turbine engines mounted in the underside

near the nose that only operated during takeoff and landing. Their exhaust was

trapped in the space under the 103-foot wing, which was sealed by sideplates and

special flaps. Forward thrust was provided by a single turboprop engine mounted on
29

the T-tail. With a length of 190 feet, the craft could carry 30 tons of supplies or

150 passengers. During cruise the speed was 250 mph (216 knots) and the clearance

between trailing edge and ground was between 25 and 40 feet. With a chord of 30

feet this corresponded to a ground clearance ratio of 0.8.

Planing/Ram/WIG vehicles (Aerofoil Boats, Winged Hulls)

Another hybrid ground-effect machine resembles the flying boats of the 1920s.

It can operate in many modes; at very low speeds, it displaces the water like a ship.

As the speed increases it resembles a hydroskimmer as it planes on its wingtip floats,

on its wings' trailing edges and on its stepped hull. It then lifts itself out of the

water to become a ram-wing aircraft, with the floats sealing off the wingtips similar

to sideplates. If it leaves the surface more it becomes a wing-in-ground-efFect vehicle

and finally, in some cases, a normal airplane.

Such a vehicle was first built by Lippisch in 1963. He called his wooden Lip-

pisch/Collins X-112 an aerofoil boat, or winged hull. Its wings had the shape of a

reverse-delta and had reverse-dihedral. The X-112 had a large T-tail to provide pitch

stability. This vehicle demonstrated the possibility of operating in all modes, ranging

from a displacement boat to a free-flying aircraft. It had an aspect ratio of 1.7, a

length of 8 meters (23 ft), a span of 4.5 meters (14 ft) and an empty mass of 170

kilograms (400 pounds). Its gross weight including two occupants was 710 pounds.

Powered by a two-cylinder, 25-horsepower engine it achieved a lift-to-drag ratio of 25

and a transport efficiency of 20 ton-kilometer per kilogram of fuel (about 30 ton-mile

per gallon of fuel). The built-in incidence was 5.5 degrees, the span loading was 10

and the ratio of weight to engine power was 50 The required power at a
30

speed of 150 km/h was 0.2 (s®® [5] through [16]). The aircraft was do­

nated to the EAA museum at Hale's Corners (Oshkosh) near Milwaukee, Wisconsin

in late 1973.

In the same year (1963), Lockheed-California designed a 2,240,000-pound tandem-

wing transport. This so-called Weiland-tandem had a length of 500 feet, two wings

of 500 by 100 feet and a horizontal stabilizer of 500 by 80 feet. Its wings connected

two slender seaplane-like hulls that also served as floats. Despite the tandem config­

uration and the horizontal stabilizer the craft encountered the pitch-heave instability

and was destroyed in a crash, and the project Wcis cancelled (see [62] through [64]

and [181] through [184]).

With the help of the West German Defense Department and the consultations

of Dr. Lippisch, Rhein-Flugzeugbau (RFB was a subsidiary of VFW-Fokker Gmbh,

which is now a Messerschmitt Bolkow-Blohm [MBB] subsidiary) began work on its

cierofoil-boats in 1967. This resulted in two working prototypes. The single-seat

Lippisch/RFB X-113Am had a length of 27.6 ft, a wingspan of 5.89 meters (19.3 ft),
ey
a wing area of 13 square meters (140 f t ), a flight weight of 360 kp (800 pounds

gross weight), a design weight of 300 kp, and it first flew in 1970. In late 1972, it was

flown at the estuary of the Weser-river to demonstrate seaworthiness. It was a center-

fuselage trimaran design and had a fiberglass-tube structure. With its 40-hp Nelson

powerplant, the X-113Am achieved efficiencies of 50 ton-miles per gallon of fuel, at

speeds of 90 to 180 knots. The 6-seat Lippisch/RFB X-114 had its first trials in

1977 and had a wingspan of 22 feet. It was a low-wing catamaran and was evaluated

for roles in marine patrol, rescue and civilian commuting. It was amphibious since

it had a retractable landing gear that folded into its wing-tip floats; at low speeds
31

the landing gear also functioned as a water-rudder. Its reversible-pitch propeller was

housed in a shroud and was powered by a 200-horsepower reciprocating engine. In

free flight, the X-114 achieved a lift-to-drag ratio of 8, whereas it improved to 20

in ground-effect. RFB later added hydrofoils to improve the takeoff characteristics

of the X-114. Both the X-113Am and the X-114 used seven percent thick Clark-Y

profiles.

To complete the history of Lippisch's aerofoil-boats we briefly jump forward in

time, to the late 1980s. After some years of relatively little activity, RFB began to

cooperate with Flarecraft Corporation (formerly GECC: Ground Effect Craft Cor­

poration) in the United States in 1987. This entailed the further development of the

"Airfish-1", an aerofoil boat designed by RFB's technical director Hanno Fischer and

his colleague Klaus Matjasic. Flarecraft introduced two new aerofoil boats in 1991,

the "Airfish-2" and the "Airfish-3". Powered by a 65-hp engine in conjunction with

a shrouded propeller, the "Airfish" cruising speed was 72 mph and its range was 300

miles. The wingspan was 20 feet and the length was 34.5 feet. The two-seater could

carry a pay load of 550 pounds and was able to fly over low obstacles (see [185], [186]

and [187]). A commercial version of the craft called "Flarecraft 370" had its debut

on the U.S. boat market in 1991. It was built by a subsidiary of Deutsche Aerospace

and could fly 280 miles on ten gallons of fuel. Since the craft could not fly higher

than a few feet, no pilot's license was required.

But now back to the 1970s. In the Soviet Union news of the aerofoil-boat initiated

research at the Central Laboratory of Lifesaving Technology (CLST) in 1971. The

CLST was a subdivision of the Rescue Organization for Inland Waters (OSVOD).

Their efforts resulted in the flight of their first aerofoil-boat, the ESKA-1, in August
32

of 1973 (see [171], pages 38-41). ESKA stands for Ekranolyetny Spasatyelny Kater-

Amphibya (surface-effect amphibious lifeboat). This aircraft flew at 140 km/h (86

mph) and generated 40 to 45% more lift when flying in ground-effect. Its wings

were mounted at 2 to 8 degrees of incidence. It could carry 20 kg per horsepower

of engine output, whereas a regular aircraft can only carry 4 kg, making this a

tremendous improvement. The ratio of ground clearance to chordlength was between

0.09 and 0.43. This corresponded to heights of 0.3 to 1.5 meters and a chordlength

of 3.5 meters. In order to be able to recognize the names of Soviet engineers in this

field in the literature, a list of those involved in the ESKA-1 project is given here:

A. Balnycv, S.T. Chernyavsky, Y. Gorbenko, A.W. Gremyatsky, V.B. Gribovsky,

Evgeniy P. Grunin, N.I. Ivanov, A. Kuzakov and V.B. Shavrov.

The idea of the tandem aerofoil boat (TAB) was taken up by Gunther W. Jorg

in Germany during the early 1960s. Starting in 1963 he built 28 radio-controlled

models. His first full-scale vehicle flew in 1974. This "airfoil-flying-boat" and its

successor had two seats and were not capable of free flight. In 1980 he first flew his

4-6 seater which was made of fiberglass (see [171], pages 369-371).

There have been thoughts of building very large winged hulls for the purpose of

trans-oceanic transport. Such a vessel appears in a 1965 patent [147] by Alter and

Koriagin, working at Lockheed California. In 1966 Comisarov and Brasseur, working

at the DTMB, studied a WIG transport aircraft [188]. Lippisch's proposals for a

300-ton winged hull transport became public in 1973 (see [189], page 98). In 1974,

researchers at the Water Research Company proposed a 500-ton WSEV (winged

surface-effect vehicle). This huge transporter (by comparison, the C-5 Galaxy weighs

382 tons) strongly resembles the aerofoil-boats (see [190] and [191]). A similar freight
33

plane was proposed in France by Bertin-Cygne (see [192], page 27); of its 1,000-1,400

ton gross weight, between 550 and 900 tons were payload. It was to cruise at 200

knots. Most of these transports only have a limited free-flight capability; they are

designed to operate optimally as wings in ground-effect (WIGs).


34

CHAPTER 4. A SURVEY OF UNCONVENTIONAL TRAINS

Introduction

The reason for this chapter is that this dissertation has as its long-range goal

the design of an unconventional train. Further, the author is very interested in the

subject of public transportation, and has been influenced by his father, who is a

steam locomotive enthusiast. The information in this chapter comes from a variety

of sources, which are given in chronological order ([193] through [236]).

Many terms specific to the subject of high-speed trains will be used in the sections

that follow. For this reason some of them are discussed at this point. Please refer

to Figure 4.1. It shows a railroad, which is a permanent path having a line of two

parallel rails fixed to ties and laid on a roadbed. The railroad provides a track for

locomotives and passenger or cargo cars. The ties or sleepers are wooden or concrete

transverse supports to which the rails are fastened. The rails are bars of rolled steel.

They are called continuous rails if they are welded together. The track gauge is the

same as the width of the track. Since the track refers to the two parallel rails, the

gauge is a measure of the distance between the two rails. The track is also referred

to as the classical steel duorail. The railroad bed is the mass or heap that comprises

the supporting surface for the ties and the track. The topmost layer is the ballast,

followed by the subballast. Both consist of gravel or broken stone. The author believes
35

there to be a third layer called the suhgrade. The railroad bed rests on a foundation

of earth which is typically owned by the railroad company or the state. This strip

of land occupied by the railroad is called the right-of-way (ROW). If the railroad

is electrified, there are periodic masts, or poles, from which the electric lines are

suspended. The network of overhead lines is referred to as the catenary. If the track

is banked in curves, i.e., if one rail is higher than the other, then it is a superelevated

track. If the track is not superelevated, one refers to at-grade operation.


Turning next to a description of a conventional train, please refer to Figure 4.2.

Trainsets consist of one or more locomotives as well as passenger cars and cargo cars.
The locomotive houses the propulsion units and is sometimes called the power car.

The other cars are not powered and are also known as trailers or rolling stock. Some

trains still have a caboose, which is a car used by the train crew. Steam locomotives

also have a tender to carry water and fuel such as wood, coal, or petrol. The only

parts of the trainset in contact with the rails are the steel wheels. Conventional trains

are also called wheel-on-rail trains, and they are said to involve wheel-rail technology.

Two wheels share the same axle, and two axles are mounted on a metal frame to form

a swiveling carriage called the bogie, or truck. The bogie is attached to the car or

locomotive body so that it can swivel (rotate about a vertical axis). Normally, each

bogie carries one end of a railroad car. However, if it is an articulated trainset, then

two adjacent cars share a single bogie. The concept of an articulated trainset was

first proposed in 1818 [217]. Electric locomotives are powered by electric motors and

pick up current from the overhead catenary or from special wayside electrified rails.

If they pick up current from the catenary, then a pantograph, or panto, is mounted on

top of their roof. A pantograph is a pick-up mechanism, and it is often a collapsible


36

pantograph

overhead line '


catenary

steel rail

tie or sleeper

ballastr
railroad bed
subballast
su"bKrade.^t?:^%i:7^
earth foundation

Figure 4.1; Railroad nomenclature


37

frame.

Unconventional trains oftentimes do not use steel rails. Instead, many operate on

concrete or steel guideways or are suspended from monorails. Propulsion systems in­

clude electric motors, diesel engines, turbojets (aircraft engines), gas turbines, linear

induction motors (LIMs), moving cable systems, vacuum forces, and even gravita­

tional forces. Diesel motors and turbojet engines may drive an aircraft-type propeller,

which may or may not be shrouded (ducted). Unconventional trains seldom feature

steel wheels. They are instead suspended by means of magnetic forces, pressurized

air, or aerodynamic lifting forces, or they are suspended from an overhead monorail.

The chapter is subdivided according to the different technologies of unconven­

tional trains. It begins with a brief summary of the social, political, economic and

technological circumstances leading to the development of the various systems. The

summary is approximately chronological and illuminates the relationships between

the systems.

In addition to a classification according to technological differences, train sys­

tems are further differentiated on the basis of their speed ranges. A low-speed ground

transportation system operates at speeds up to 60 mph. A medium-speed system op­

erates between 60 and 125 mph. A high-speed ground transportation (HSGT) system

is designed for speeds between 125 and 250 mph. Systems operating at speeds above

250 mph are called super-speed ground transportation systems (SS/GTS), super-speed

trains (SST), or also ultra-high-speed ground transportation (UHSGT) systems.


38

I C I
3Er:aE
steerable bogie

normal bogie

power car
(locomotive) trailer, passenger car end trailer

power bogies normal normal


trailer articulated bogie trailer
motor bogies bogie
driving bogies bogie

Figure 4.2: Trainsets and bogie types


39

Table 4.1: Milestones in railroad history

1712 invention of the steam engine by Thomas Newcomen (UK)


1804 first steam locomotive by Richard Trevithick (UK)
1821 invention of the electric motor by Michael Faraday (UK)
1832 invention of the linear induction motor by William Sturgeon
1860 invention of an early internal combustion engine by
Etienne Lenoir (France)
1863 first subway in London (UK)
1876 invention of the internal combustion engine by Otto (Germany)
1879 first electric locomotive by Siemens (Germany)
1881 first electric streetcar by Siemens (Germany)
1885 first motor-powered automobile by Karl Benz (Germany)
1893 invention of the diesel engine by Rudolf Diesel (Germany)
1899 first diesel locomotive in Wiirttemberg (Germany)
1930s rise of diesel-electric locomotives
1950s rise of jetliners and automobiles
1960s increasing pollution and traffic congestion problems; research into
unconventional vehicles (French Aerotrain, British hovercraft,
Japanese Bullet train, maglev in Germany and Japan, tube flight
and TACV in the US)
1970s oil crises, research into conventional high-speed rail systems
(French TGV, German ICE, Swedish X-20G0)

A Sketch Of Train History

Typically, the development of a new transportation system follows a significant

change in the social, political, or economic climate, or in technology. Before describing

the different systems in the sections that follow, a brief sketch of these changes will

be provided. A tabular summary of the changes and events is provided in Table 4.1.

Three technological breakthroughs

Three important technological achievements lie at the root of most conventional

transportation systems. The first was the construction of the first steam engine by
40

Thomas Newcomen in the United Kingdom in 1712. Steam engines were improved by

James Watt (improved condenser) and Richard Trevithick. Trevithick built the first

steam locomotive in 1804, but early locomotives had several problems. The boilers

could not produce enough steam to sustain speedy travel, and the cast iron rails

broke all the time. Robert Stevenson's "Rocket" of 1828 was the first useful steam

locomotive. It featured the first multi-tubular boiler and reached a maximum speed

of 29 mph.

The second technological breakthrough was the invention of the electric motor,

or rotary induction motor, by Michael Faraday in the United Kingdom in 1821.

Closely related to this was the invention in 1832 of the first linear induction motor,

or LIM, by William Sturgeon. The first electric locomotive was built by Siemens and

Halske in Germany in 1879. When electricity became more widely available toward

the end of the 1800s, electric streetcars, or tramways, became very popular in large

cities. The first electric tramway was built in Berlin, Germany, by Siemens in 1881.

Siemens was also first to introduce the overhead contact wire. The first tramway was

horse-drawn and opened in New York in 1832. The first subway was built in London

in 1863 and used steam locomotives. London was also the first city to inaugurate an

electric subway, the famous "Tube" of 1890, which averaged 20 mph.

The third technical breakthrough was the invention of the internal combustion

engine by Etienne Lenoir and Nikolaus August Otto in 1860 and 1876, respectively.
Lenoir's early engines ran very rough, and Otto's four-stroke engine was a vast im­

provement. The diesel engine was invented by Rudolf Diesel in Germany in 1893.

The first practical combustion engines for transportation were built in 1885, which

was also the year in which Karl Benz built the first motor-powered automobile, and
41

Gottlieb Daimler the first motorcycle (their names are still associated with cars, such

as in the name of the German company "Daimler-Benz" and its "Mercedes-Benz"

automobiles). Benz's car was a tricycle with a two-stroke engine, and it was not the

world's first automobile. That honor belongs to Nicholas-Joseph Cugnot, who built

his steam-truck in 1769. The first locomotive powered by an internal combustion

engine was a diesel locomotive in the German state of Wiirttemberg in 1899.

It is sometimes effective to combine two of the above propulsion systems. The

first of these combined systems was the diesel-electric locomotive, which was intro­

duced in Sweden in 1913. Diesel-electric locomotives use their diesel engines to power

electric generators which in turn supply electric drive motors. These powerful loco­

motives became very popular in the mid-1930s, especially in the United States. The

second combined system was the steam-turbine locomotive, introduced in 1925. Here

a boiler supplied a turbine which drove a generator. One extension of this technology

is the gas-turbine locomotive. Here a jet-engine drives the generator, which supplies

the electric drive motors. That system was introduced in Switzerland in 1941.

Steam locomotives and vacuum technology

Even though steam engines were first used mainly in pumping water out of min­

ing shafts, they soon powered factories, steamships, and steam locomotives. Steam-

driven locomotives and ships played an important part in carrying raw materials,

laborers, and finished goods during the Industrial Revolution. The first exclusively

steam-powered train used in revenue service was the Liverpool&Manchester Rail­

way of 1830. The first train used exclusively to transport passengers was the "De

Witt Clinton" of 1831, and it operated near Albany in the state of New York. Even
42

today, many countries continue to use steam locomotives in passenger and freight

transportation.

The rise of the airplane in the 1920s and 1930s resulted in the transfer of stream­

lining techniques to steam locomotive design, and many speed records were set during

this period. The final bloom of the steam locomotive in the Western world occured

in World War Two, when gasoline and rubber rationing reduced the number of auto­

mobiles. Steam locomotives were the work horses of the war machines, carrying raw

materials, reinforcements, troops, food, parts, prisoners, and civilians.

One by-product of steam-engine technology was vacuum technology. This re­

sulted in the construction of four vacuum-powered subway systems in England and

France in the mid-1800s. The technology was also known as atmospheric propulsion

and pneumatic propulsion^ and it was proposed by George Medhurst in London in

1810. Some systems used a cylindrical passenger car in a subterranean tube; the

tube in front of the car was evacuated using steam-powered pumps, whereas the tube

behind the car was vented to the atmosphere. A similar system is today used by

hospitals for transporting patients' records throughout the building.

Other vacuum-powered subway systems utilized a smaller tube next to a rail

system. This tube was slotted and housed the piston. A link connected the piston to

a conventional passenger car. The slot was usually sealed by means of leather flaps.

A very similar system is used today to launch airplanes from aircraft carriers. Such

catapults consist of a slotted tube and a steam-powered piston. The airplane's nose

wheel assembly is hooked to a link that is in turn attached to the piston.

In the 1960s, the idea of atmospheric propulsion resurfaced as part of gravity-

vacuum transit (GVT) systems. Piston-like passenger cars would accelerate to 150
43

mph while descending into deep tunnels. Both the vacuum ahead of the car and the

gravitational force would cause this acceleration. The car would gradually lose speed

and ascend to its destination using its inertia and the vacuum force. No trial systems

were ever built. Just as in the case of atmospheric propulsion systems, the cost of

tunneling and maintenance is prohibitive.

Another system involving closed tubes was conceived in the 1960s. It is the

tube-flight concept, which consists of a tube-train that flies through the closed tube.
Researchers under J.V. Foa at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute proposed a vehicle

consisting of an axisymmetric body supported by a number of short wing pads. Other

designs featured streamlined vehicles with cross-sections ranging from a thin sickle-

shape to a nearly semi-disk shape. Such vehicles are actually lifting bodies and

propel themselves through the tube by means of on-board engines and propellers.

One variation of this idea was to generate a swirling air mass within this tunnel to

facihtate the vehicle's levitation. Streamlined hfting bodies were studied by research

groups at Tufts University and under M.P. Knowlton at Princeton University.

Electric propulsion

The electric motor and electrification of the large cities made possible the rise of

electric streetcars at the turn of the century. But due to overcapitalization and the

rise of the automobile, more than 30% of the streetcar companies were broke by 1919.

Many of the early streetcar systems are still in operation today, and city catenaries

are also used by trolleybuses. Trolleybuses are named after the trolley, which is the

device that transmits the electric current from the overhead wires (catenary) to the

vehicle.
44

Beginning in the 1950s, several western countries and Japan began building

electric locomotives. Their advantage over other locomotives is that they weigh less

because they do not carry any fuel.

Diesel propulsion

Following its invention in 1860, the internal combustion engine rapidly replaced

the steam engine in most industries and ships. Even the highly efficient (but heavy)

steam locomotive became threatened by its diesel- and electrically-powered relatives.

Diesel locomotives are very powerful and are able to operate on tracks that have not

been electrified. Diesel locomotives became very popular in the late 1940s.

Diesel-electric propulsion

With diesel-electric locomotives, diesel engines drive electric generators which in

turn supply the electric driving motors with current. This method of propulsion was

particularly popular in the mid-1930s. The "Zephyrs" averaged 90 mph (145 kph) in

the United States, with a top speed of 116 mph (187 kph). A German diesel-electric

train set a speed record of 133.5 mph (215 kph) in 1939.

Post-war population pressure and energy crises

In Western nations, the decades following World War Two were marked by eco­

nomic growth and high birth and immigration rates. By the 1960s, many people

owned automobiles and used the rapidly evolving fleet of commercial jetliners. The

direct effect of this was that many highways and airports were built, and that the

railways suffered decreased ridership. The railways further suffered because the gov­
45

ernment effectively subsidized the trucking industry by building and maintaining the

roads. This was true particularly in the United States. A significant percentage of

railroads was closed and abandoned, and passenger traffic in the United States all

but collapsed.

A further effect of increasing automobile ownership and commercial air traffic was

that by the 1960s, there were serious congestion and pollution problems. Coupled

with the energy crises of the early 1970s, during which OPEC (oil-producing and

exporting countries) threatened to reduce oil exports in order to cause the oil prices

to rise, these problems forced Western governments to reconsider railroads and related

new technologies.

France was the first country to seriously consider improving its public trans­

portation system. In the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, tracked air cushion

vehicles were built and tested. These Aerotrains hovered on a cushion of pressurized

air. However, by 1968 France opted for a high-speed conventional train in order to

minimize cost. As a historical note, the first operational hovercraft was built in the

United Kingdom by Christopher Cockerell in 1955. The first full-scale hovercraft was

the British SRN-1, and it made a Channel crossing in 1959.

Japan was particularly enthusiastic about high-speed rail. It had the additional

geographical problem of having its relatively large population confined to its narrow

habitable coastline. It was first to offer high-speed passenger train service in 1964 by

introducing its Shinkansen "bullet-trains".

But most efforts in the 1960s focused on more daring technologies. The oil crises

had not yet struck, and the West was probably quite optimistic and confident. The

primary consideration was to diffuse the congestion, and system costs and energy
46

efficiency were secondary. Perhaps it was this mood that prompted research in the

areas of air cushion technology, tube-flight technology, personal rapid transit systems,

and magnetic levitation technology.

Following the lead of France, tracked air cushion vehicles were investigated in

the United Kingdom and in the United States. The British prototype of 1966 was a

tracked hovercraft called "Hovertrain". The train was built by Tracked Hovercraft,

Ltd., and featured a linear induction motor for propulsion. In the United States,

the Tracked Air Cushion Research Vehicle (TACRV) and the LIM-powered (Linear

Induction Motor) Tracked Levitated Research Vehicle were first tested in 1974.

Both tube-flight vehicles and personal rapid transit (PRT) systems received much

attention in the 1960s. As discussed before, some tube-flight vehicles were propelled

by combinations of gravitational and vacuum forces. Others were lifting bodies that

simply flew inside tubes. Personal Rapid Transit systems consist of cars for between

one and six passengers. The wheeled versions may operate on concrete U-channel

guideways or hanging from overhead unibeam guiderails. Many personal rapid transit

vehicles featured air-cushion suspensions (such as hoverpads) and linear induction

motors.

Another product of the optimism and energy abundance of the 1960s were mag­

netically levitated trains. Both Germany and Japan began their research in the late

1960s, with first operational models in 1969 and first prototypes in 1971.

Of all high-speed ground transportation technologies studied in the 1960s, only

maglev appears to have survived. The energy crises of the early 1970s forced the

West to reduce expenditures and energy use. Both air cushion and magnetic levita­

tion technologies require a large amount of energy to be spent on levitation. Both


47

tube-flight and personal rapid transit systems require large investments into civil

engineering structures (expensive tunneling and guideways) and have a very limited

passenger capacity. Research into tube-flight continued for a few years in an altered

form; vehicles flying in troughs were studied in the early 1970s, and winged vehicles

suspended from a monorail in the mid 1970s. It is possible that maglev survived

because many types of companies are able to profit from its construction and opera­

tion. Construction companies can build the steel and concrete guideways, aerospace

companies can build the vehicle and its control systems, electrical component man­

ufacturers can provide the linear motor, the windings, the cooling fans, and the

electrification system, and power companies can sell large amounts of electric energy

to the operators. Nevertheless, an initial investment needs to be made by someone,

and this has killed every German and Japanese initiative up to this point.

The oil crises caused Western governments to slash research funding in the area of

high-speed ground transportation. They had decided that all of the exotic proposals

were too expensive and too risky. In the United States, research funding stopped

completely in 1975. Only research into conventional high-speed rail was funded,

and only at a low level. There was also some federal funding of maglev research

in Germany and Japan (about $1 billion between 1969 and 1993 in each of the two

countries).

The emphasis on conventional steel wheel-on-rail technology in the 1970s resulted

in the French gas turbine-powered turbotrains, the United Kingdom's diesel-electric

High Speed Trains (HSTs), and Germany's electric Class 103.1 locomotives for its

IC (Inter-City) network. By the late 1970s, Advanced Passenger Trains (APTs)

were introduced in the United Kingdom, and TGVs (Train a Grande Vitesse) were
48

nearing completion in France. The prospect of a united Europe gave rise to plans

for a European high-speed rail (HSR) network that would connect Belgium, France,

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. In the

United States, AMTRAK was created in 1971 to consolidate the declining passenger

rail system.

The 1980s were a difficult time for railroad research. Conservative governments

were in place in most Western countries, encouraging privatization and individualism.

As a result, there was hardly any federal support for public transportation. There

were many studies of potential corridors for high-speed ground transportation, but

they seem to have been carried out for propaganda reasons, and not for the public

good. One example is the National Maglev Initiative (NMI) of 1990, which ceased to

be funded in 1991. Most transportation money went into highway research, including

Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS). Perhaps the stronghold of the large

automobile companies and their corporate allies is still too strong to allow alternative

transportation systems to flourish.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc there has been some hope that defense

conversion will free some money and talent for high-speed ground transportation

research. But so far, this has not been the case. The government seems reluctant

to invest in a technology that will not yield spectacular results by the time the next

elections come around.

Discussion Of The Various Technologies

Following the discussion of the chronological sequence of railroad developments,

each type of technology will now be discussed. The organization of the different
49

technologies is depicted in Figure 4.3.

Conventional high-speed rail trains (steel wheel-on-rail, or duorail tech­

nologies)

Here conventional trains are defined as those which operate with wheels on steel

tracks; they are also called wheel-on-rail trains (see [235]). Usually the tracks consist

of two parallel steel rails fastened to ties that are made of wood or concrete. These

rest on a mound of gravel and earth. The material that underlies the track and ties

is called ballast and subballast. The land surrounding the mound is usually owned by

the government or by private railroad companies and is called right-of-way (ROW).

The width of the ROW for a double track is typically 40 to 50 ft. Conventional

trains, such as the Amtrak system in the United States, typically operate at speeds

between 70 and 80 mph. Some of the faster systems, such as the European Intercity

trains or the U.S.-American electric Metroliners, cruise near 100 mph. Conventional

trains faster than 125 mph are called high speed rail (HSR) trains [231]. HSR trains

are in a special category because their high speed necessitates special technologies

and high investments. Examples of these special requirements include continuous-

welded rail, concrete ties, special ballast and subballast, dedicated high-speed tracks,

full electrification, limited curvatures, light-weight trains, as well as sophisticated

sensors, communications, and signaling systems. Electrification is necessary because

diesel engines weigh too much. Aerodynamic shaping of HSR is crucial because both

the aerodynamic noise and the aerodynamic drag dominate at speeds above 125 mph

(see [231]).

Research on high-speed rail began in Europe in the mid-1950s. France em-


Tracked Vehicles, Trains

Conventional Trains, Levitating (Wheelless)


Steel Wheel-on-Rail, Monorails
Trains
Duorail

Linear Magnetic
Diesel- Gas- Tracked Aerodynamic
Diesel Electric Induction Levitation
Electric Turbine ACV; Levitation
Motor Motor Motor Trains
Motor Motor Hoverirains Trains
(LIM) (Maglevs)

Figure 4.3: Categories of trains and tracked ACVs


51

phasized electric propulsion whereas Germany favored diesel engines. The French

research resulted in the "Mistral" trains but did not have a widespread impact. The

first commercially successful and most famous of the high-speed rail trains was the

Japanese Bullet train, or Shin-Kansen (New-Line, also spelled Shinkansen). This

project was started in 1964, and Hikari (lightning) electric trains on the Tokaido

line linking Tokyo and Osaka operated at 210 km/h (130 mph) (see [221] and [203]).

Curves of 4,000-meter radius could be negotiated, as could gradients of l-in-65 (1.5%).

The construction cost was US$ 13 million per mile (1991 dollars, see [231]). A great

drawback of the system is that six hours of maintenance on the track and the catenary

are required every night.

The oil crises of the early 1970s spurred the development of new transportation

systems, among them France's turbotrains, Britain's High Speed Trains (HST) and

Advanced Passenger Trains (APT) and personal rapid transit (PRT) systems (see

[220]). An example of the turbotrain was the RTG (Rame a turbine a gaz) built by

the French company ANF-Frangeco; two gas turbines drove generators that powered

electric motors. These trains achieved speeds of 200 km/h (125 mph) in 1973 and were

manufactured under license in the United States by Rohr Corporation (see [214]). In

1977 the British HST diesel-electric locomotive reached 232 km/h (143 mph). The

production version of the HST was called the Inter-City 125, and cruised at 200 km/h

(125 mph). In 1970, the German Federal Railway (DB) introduced its Class 103.1

electric locomotive into its IC (inter-city) network; it was capable of 200 km/h (125

mph) (see [223]).

In 1964, research had begun on tilting trains, which were trains that tilted as

they negotiated bends. The first functional tilting train was the British APT of
52

1972. However, passengers felt quite uncomfortable during this maneuver because

they did not feel the train turning even though they saw it turning. The APT was

mothballed in 1978. The problems with tilting were solved by the Swedish-Swiss

engineering group Asea Brown-Boveri (ABB). Their X-2000 tilt-train was developed

in cooperation with the Swedish State Railways (SJ). It tilted slightly less and did

not eliminate the sideward force completely, so that passengers could still sense the

approaching curve. The X-2000 had radial self-steering trucks, with the two axles

pivoting independently. This reduced the forces exerted by truck on the rail and pre­

vented derailments. The train had AC propulsion and provided airplane-like service.

Meals were served at the passengers' seats, and telephones, fax, work areas, and con­

ference areas were available (see [233]). The advantage of tilt-trains is that they can

negotiate turns 30 to 40% faster than comparable trains without tilting mechanisms.

The electric APT-P (prototype) was designed for running speeds of 257 km/h (160

mph). It was capable of braking from maximum speed within 1,940 meters.

France's National Railways (SNCF) felt that for high-speed trains, the drag due

to wheel friction was quite negligible compared to the aerodynamic drag. In addition,

too much energy would be wasted for lifting power in the case of levitating vehicles.

It is for this reason that in 1968 France opted for a conventional train of great speed

(train a grande vitesse, or train a tres grande vitesse), the TGV (see [222], [227], and

[230]). The first-generation TGV, the TGV PSE (Paris-Southeast) entered regular

revenue service between Paris and Lyon in 1981. Powered by 25,000 Volt - 50 Hz AC

drives, its average speed was 133 mph (212 kph) and its maximum speed 168 mph.

Its cruising speed was later raised to 270 km/h (169 mph) and it reached a top speed

of 380 km/h (238 mph) in 1981. The train sets were built by GEC Alsthom of Paris
53

Figure 4.4; French high-speed train (TGV)

and cost USS 11.6 million each. The line cost USS 7 million per mile to build (1991

dollars [231]). By the late 1980s, TGV service had increased ridership by 75% (or

by 6.5 million passengers) above that for the same routes in 1980. Most of the gain

came from auto and air traffic. The TGV is shown in Figure 4.

In 1989 a new generation TGV, the TGVA (TGV Atlantique) was introduced.

It links Paris to Le Mans and Tours and cruises at 186 mph. In December 1989

the TGVA reached a speed of 300 mph, breaking the world's record of 253 mph set

by a German locomotive (Transrapid 06, 412 km/h) in 1988. In 1991 a modified

TGVA reached 322 mph (516 kph) [231]. In 1991 there were 251 TGV trains per day

in France. The TGV may become a European standard - in 1987 Spain launched
54

a railroad improvement plan that included the purchase of 24 TGVA trainsets and

the construction of European gauge (1.43 meters, or 4 ft 8.5 in) high-speed lines

between Madrid and the cities of Sevilla and Barcelona. Service between the three

cities began in 1992. The Spanish TGVAs will be built in Spain by GEC Alsthom

and are called "Ave" (the Spanish word for bird, and also an abbreviation for Alta

Velocidad Espanola, or Spanish high speed). In 1993 the third TGV line was opened

between Paris and Arras [235]. The TGV is able to tolerate grades up to 1 in 29 and

curves with a 4,000-meter radius. It can brake from maximum speed to a standstill

in 3,000 meters. The German entries into the European conventional high-speed

train competition include the ET 403 electric train and the ICE (Inter-City Express)

train. The ICE cruises near 190 mph and has been tested at 252 mph (404 kph)

[231]. It is built by a consortium led by Siemens Transportation Systems and has

been in service throughout central Europe since 1991 [235]. The unsprung mass of

each bogie is about two tons, whereas the sprung mass is five tons. Most of the

sprung mass consists of aluminum and plastics. The one-meter diameter wheels are

subject to maximum dynamic loads of 140 kiloNewtons, and axles experience static

loads of twenty tons. There were 60 ICE train sets in operation in 1993, each logging

about 300,000 miles per year. In the same year, the ICE was undergoing trials in

the Northeast of the United States, as was the Swedish X2000 train. The X2000 is

built by ABB Traction of Vasteras, Sweden, and electrohydraulically tilted in curves.

A further entry into the HSR market in Europe is the Italian ETR-500, which is

expected to reach 186 mph [231].

For a given running gear, the friction between wheels and the rails rises with

increasing speed, as does the wear on the rails. However, conventional high-speed
55

trains display very little friction in their running gear - rather, they encounter mostly

aerodynamic drag. Their relatively high cost is due to the need for very precisely

aligned tracks as well as extensive maintenance. For example, about 3,000 workers

check every meter of the Japanese Bullet train tracks every night.

A recent variant of high-speed rail trains is the CyberTran, a lightweight electric

vehicle running on steel tracks. Each computer-controlled vehicle would carry up to

24 passengers and reach speeds of up to 150 mph.

Monorails and other unconventional non-levitating trains

Several types of trains fit neither into the category of conventional railroads

nor into that of levitated vehicles. The first of these is the monorail system, which

consists of cars hanging from overhead unibeam guiderails. The first suspended

monorail began service in the German city of Wuppertal in 1901. It was electrically

powered and is still in operation.

In the 1920s George Bennie developed a suspended monorail that had propeller

propulsion. His "Glasgow Sail Plane" remained in the experimental stage, and the

author does not know whether it was allowed to swing laterally as it negotiated

turns. The propeller could be driven by either electric or diesel engines. The author

believes that a related project was undertaken in Germany around the same time; it

was a light-weight train with propeller propulsion, operating on conventional parallel

steel tracks. The most recent monorail vehicle was proposed in 1991; it was the

"Airtrain" by the helicopter designer Frank Piasecki [228]. He envisioned guide tubes

fixed 35 feet above the ground - these would be open to the bottom and would

accomodate 10-wheeled trolleys from which the train's body hangs. The vehicle
56

Figure 4.5: The Piasecki Airtrain

would be nonderailable and would be able to swing to the side as it negotiates curves

(see Figure 4). The body's construction would be light and of the aircraft type. The

Airtrain would carry 90 passengers and reach speeds of 300 mph. The same type of

vehicle was proposed by Lehl and Zumwalt [215] in 1974, except that their train had

sizeable wings for lift. It was also called "Airtrain", so perhaps the two are related.

A second unconventional system of mass transit is the personal rapid transit

(PRT) system. It consist of cars for between one and six passengers - the wheeled
versions may operate on concrete U-channel guideways or hanging from overhead

unibeam guiderails (see [208]). One example of this was the Morgantown PRT

project.
57

Much mass transit research took place in the United States in the 1970s, and

was sparked by the confidence that resulted from the lunar landing of Apollo 11 in

1969. Examples are the State-of-the-Art Car (SOAC), which was a prototype rail

car, and the Transbus^ which was a luxurious bus.

Federal funding for new technologies for mass transit in the United States sharply

declined following the advent of Republican administrations in 1980. The last large

project involved the Advanced Concept Train (ACT-1), which was a prototype of a

futuristic standardized urban rapid rail vehicle. The two-car train featured a flywheel

energy storage system and an aluminum frame.

Tracked air-cushion vehicles (TACVs)

All of the wheel friction can be avoided if the wheels are abandoned in favor of

a static air cushion. It is possible to suspend the vehicle on one large cushion or on a

series of hoverpads. These cushions are generated by lifting fans that are driven by

piston engines, jet engines or electric motors. As this type of train is able to hover

on its aerostatic cushion, it is also known as hovertrain, or tracked hovercraft.

The first major research in this area was initiated in France in 1957 by the Societe

de I'Aerotrain in conjunction with Bertin et Cie under its chairman Jean Bertin (see

[194], [195], [220] and [171], pages 175 through 178). These companies joined with

Rohr Corporation of the United States to form a U.S.-American subsidiary, Aerotrain

Systems Incorporated. In 1965 the group tested its first half-scale prototype, the

5,500 pound Aerotrain 01. Designed to cruise at 200 km/h (125 mph) this train

achieved 346 km/h (215 mph). The 10 meter long, 2 meter wide and 1.6 meter high

body was suspended above the inverted-T concrete rail by means of an air cushion
58

produced by lifting fans (see Figure 4). There were also air cushions on each side

of the vertical rail to provide guidance. Two internal engines of 50 horsepower each

provided cushion pressure, with a third engine of 260 horsepower providing forward

propulsion via a propeller of two-meter diameter. The air pads were of the flexible

skirt, open plenum type. Various engine types were tried, including rocket boosters

for the high-speed trials. The cushion pressure required to keep the train suspended

was only 0.35 psi (see [197]), which is about one-fifth of the pressure of a human's

bare feet on the ground. Braking was accomplished by pitch reversal and by break

pads that grabbed the vertical rail. To decelerate from 155 mph to zero, the vehicle

required twenty seconds and a distance of 800 yards. In the case of a power failure

the train slid on wooden rollers. The track was a 4.2 mile section between the French

cities of Gometz-la-Ville and Limours. Its total width was five feet and ten inches, it

was made up of 19 feet and 5 inch sections of precast concrete, and its grade did not

exceed 1%. Occasional contact between the vehicle and the guideway occurred and

led to some gradual wear.

The second half-scale prototype was the Aerotrain 02, which achieved a top speed

of 411 km/h (255 mph) in 1969. In the same year the company introduced its first

full-scale medium-range intercity Aerotrain 250-80, the Interurbain 1-80 "Orleans".

This 80-seat train had a length of 25.6 meters (84 ft) and operated on the Orleans to

Paris line. It had two axial fans to create lift and guidance air cushions. Propulsive

thrust was provided by a shrouded 7-bladed propeller that was driven by a silenced

turbofan engine. The guideway consisted of 20-meter (66 ft) prefabricated concrete

beams that had an inverted-T cross section. These beams rested on 4.9 meter (16

ft) high pylons and had a width of 1.8 meters. The center guide rail (stem) was one
59

Figure 4.6: French Aerotrain


60

meter high. In this configuration the train reached speeds between 230 and 300 km/h

(155 and 185 mph). After new turbofan engines were installed in 1973, a speed of

400 km/h (250 mph) was achieved. In 1974 this train attained a speed of 422 km/h

(264 mph). The system also featured hydraulically retractable wheels for low-speed

and emergency operation. The drag coefficient for the vehicle was 0.20. Its empty

weight was 20,000 pounds, and it was capable of carrying the two-person crew (330

lb), 84 passengers (13,900 lb), fuel (2,100 lb) and baggage and freight (3,400 lb) with

a total payload weight of 20,000 pounds. It could negotiate a ten percent grade and

could stop from 155 mph within 2,300 ft. To produce a centrifugal acceleration of

0.15g at 250 mph, the track radius needed to be 28,000 ft, so it was better to use

grades than to build a winding course.

Another effort was the 44 seat "Suburban Aerotrain 180-44". Designed to con­

nect stations that were 2-5 miles apart, the prototype had a Merlin et Gerin linear

induction motor and achieved speeds between 160 and 200 km/h (100 and 125 mph).

The production model will have automotive engines driving wheels.

The latest design was the "Tridim" or "Tridem" of 1975, an urban mass-transit

hovercar. It was to connect stations that were less than two miles apart, at speeds

of up to 80 km/h (50 mph). Each car had eight circular hoverpads; both lift and

thrust were generated electrically [218]. All of the Aerotrain systems required very

little track maintenance.

Another French effort in the area of tracked ACVs was undertaken by the Com-

pagnie d'Energetique Lineaire under Maurice Barthalon. In March of 1968 they

introduced the 30-passenger URBA-4 prototype in Lyon. The cars were suction-

suspended from a monorail by means of a sub-atmospheric air lift system. Its linear
61

induction motors permitted speeds of up to 65 mph (see [198], page 3 and [168], pages

4 and 149).

In the United Kingdom, the National Research Development Corporation (NRDC)

sponsored Hovercraft Development Ltd. (HDL) to develop a model of a tracked hov­

ercraft called the "Hovercar", or "Hovertrain". This model was made public in 1966

and featured LIM-propulsion and a plenum chamber hull fed by six axial fans. The

vehicle traveled over concrete track made of box sections. The project was cancelled

in 1973.

In the United States, serious work in the area of high-speed ground transporta­

tion (HSGT) started in 1965 as a result of a US$ 90 million, three-year national

research program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The hope was to

provide better intercity service in the Northeast Corridor and in the California Cor­

ridor (in this context. Tan [210] mentions several publications, e.g., [193], [201] and

[207]). Part of the money was spent on conventional trains, but most was spent on

unconventional trains. These included tracked ACVs, pneumatic vehicles and tube-

flight vehicles. Tracked ACVs of the time were the French Aerotrain, the British

"Hovercar" and the "Hovair" proposed by General Motors in the U.S.. One example

of a pneumatic vehicle was the gravity vacuum transit (GVT) proposed by Transit,

Inc. of California.

Tube-flight vehicles (tube-trains) were proposed by J.V. Foa at the Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute and by researchers under the direction of M. P. Knowlton at

Princeton University [157]. The Rensselaer vehicle was an axisymmetric body sup­

ported by a number of short wing pads. The shovel-shaped front end of the Princeton

design featured a slit through which part of the propeller slipstream was channeled to
62

pressurize the air under the vehicle. There were even ideas to make the craft ride on

a spiral of continuously moving air, blown into the closed tube at regular intervals.

Similar designs were pursued at Tufts University; one involved a 350 mph bullet-

shaped vehicle with retractable wheels and two turboprop engines, flying inside a

tube (Tan [210] mentions a good review article on tube flight, [209]).

In 1969 the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requested proposals for

a 300 mph (483 km/h) tracked air cushion vehicle (TACV) to be used for inter­

city distances of about 300 miles (see [214]). Four proposals were received; one

from Transportation Systems, a division of the General Electric Company, one from

Aeroglide Incorporated, one from Grumman Aerospace Corporation, and a late en­

try from Vought Aeronautics, a division of LTV Aerospace Corporation. Grumman

was awarded the U.S.$ 3.5 million contract in 1971. Its TACRV (tracked air cush­

ion research vehicle) was first tested in 1974 at the DOT's High-Speed Ground Test

Center in Pueblo, Colorado. It was 52 feet long and had three externally mounted

turbofan engines to create cushion air as well as forward thrust. It hovered one foot

above the concrete guideway near 300 mph (483 km/h). A linear induction motor

built by Garrett was later added, allowing a speed of 450 km/h (280 mph). This

motor was also tested on another vehicle, the Garrett LIM research vehicle, or TLRV

(Tracked Levitated Research Vehicle). This vehicle was also built for the Depart­

ment of Transportation. In March of 1974 that vehicle reached 234 mph; it had

wheels and was accelerated with jet engines before the LIM took over. The final

effort under this grant was the PTACV (Prototype Tracked Air Cushion Vehicle), a

150 mph, 60 passenger vehicle built for DOT by Rohr Corporation [211]. Funding

for all of these projects ended in the mid-1970s (see [214] and [168], pages 154-155).
63

A related project was the UTACV (urban tracked air-cushion vehicle), which was

to operate on an elevated guideway with a vertical metal guide at the center. The

Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA), a branch of the Federal Railroad Ad­

ministration, contracted out the project to Rohr Industries. The author speculates

that the UTACV project was absorbed by the TACV project.

Between 1968 and 1978 research into a High Speed Ground Transportation sys­

tem with aerodynamic lift received low-level funding from the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT). Initially, projects were administered by the Federal Railroad

Administration under the Electric Power and Propulsion for High-Speed Tracked Ve­

hicles program, and later by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST, De­

partment of Transportation) under the Transportation Advanced Research Projects

(TARP) program [72]. Contractors included the Transportation Systems Center

(TSC at Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), Mitre Corporation (McLean, Virginia,

U.S.A.), Princeton University, and related research was also carried out at Rensse­

laer Polytechnic Institute and Tufts University. Early research centered on tube-flight

vehicles, as described above (see [157] and [72]). But by 1972, efficiency consider­

ations and the cost of constructing tunnels had caused emphasis to be shifted to

vehicles operating in an open guideway (see [154], [71] and [211] for example). These

vehicles were wingless lifting bodies that flew in a guideway; the high-pressure air

under the vehicle was prevented from escaping the guideway by means of flexible

winglets mounted on the vehicle (winglet seal). These winglets sometimes featured

large dihedral angles for reasons of roll and sideslip stability.

In 1974 Bertelsen Incorporated introduced its aeromobile, which appears to be

an ACV that resembles a car and travels in a simple trough made of either compacted
64

soil or concrete (see [219], page 203).

In the early 1970s much research was done on PRT (personal rapid transit)

vehicles. Many of the designs featured air-cushion suspensions (such as hoverpads)

and linear induction motors (see [208]).

In the United Kingdom, a tracked hovercraft with a LIM was scheduled for

first trials in 1971 near Ely (see [205] and [168], page 4). The author did not learn

whether this craft ever reached the operational stage. However, the British project

was cancelled in early 1973 [211].

In 1981, Brazil introduced its 20-seat tracked air cushion vehicle, the TALAV. It

is reported to have reached 322 km/h (200 mph). One interesting feature of this train

is its telescoping mechanism; parts of the train move with respect to one another to

create access for passengers or cargo (see [171], page 175).

One disadvantage of trains operating on guideways is the difficulty of switching

tracks and of turning the train around.

Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains and Linear Induction Motors

(LIMs)

This section comprises a technical and historical introduction to magnetic levi­

tation trains with linear induction motor propulsion.

Technical introduction to maglev and linear induction motors

Magnetic levitation (maglev) refers to any object that hovers freely above the
ground by means of a magnetic cushion. It is thus also known as magnetic suspen­

sion. The magnetic cushion can be generated by either permanent magnets or by


65

electromagnets of various designs. Electromagnets owe their magnetism to the phe­

nomenon of electromagnetism, which describes the mutual interaction of electric and

magnetic fields. Electromagnets are electric conductors that only develop a magnetic

field when they are supplied with electricity.

Maglev trains obviously also need propulsion systems to move them along the

track. Possible propulsion systems include propellers driven by combustion engines,

jet engines, and, most commonly, linear induction motors. Linear Induction Motors

(LIMs) are often visualized as electric motors that have been unrolled and flattened;
the vehicle underside is a flat version of the electric motor's rotating central winding

(called the rotor), while the stationary track with its coils/windings is a flattened

version of the electric motor's stationary exterior magnets or windings (called the

stator). There is a great variety of linear motors.

Maglev trains differ in the type of magnetic suspension and in the type of propul­

sion system they feature. There are six major types of magnetic suspensions. First,

a magnetic suspension can either be attractive or repulsive. In an attractive mag­

netic suspension, the vehicle wraps around the guideway and its bottommost part
is magnetically lifted up toward the guideway. The advantage of attractive suspen­

sions is that the vehicle cannot derail since it grasps the guideway. In a repulsive

magnetic suspension, the vehicle's underside and the guideway's top side repel one
another. The advantage of repulsive suspensions is that the vehicle is inherently sta­

ble (the magnetic repulsive force is proportional to the gap between the vehicle and

the guideway).

Beyond being described as attractive or repulsive, there are three further cate­

gories of magnetic suspensions. The first, Permanent Magnetic Suspension (PMS),


66

uses permanent magnets on both the track and the vehicle. Permanent magnets

are metallic objects that have a permanent magnetic charge without having to be

supplied with electricity. The second, Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS), uses com­

binations of electromagnets and ferromagnetic (conducting) strips or coils to produce

interacting magnetic fields between the guideway and the vehicle. The lifting forces

keep the vehicle afloat even when it is not moving, which is an advantage of EMS. The

third, Electrodynamic Suspension (EDS), requires superconducting magnets (SCMs)

on the vehicle and ferromagnetic (conducting) strips or coils on the guideway. As

the name electrodynamic implies, this suspension only functions when the vehicle

is in motion. Superconducting magnets are cooled to temperatures that are within

thirteen degrees of absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin, -273.2 degrees Celsius, or -459.7

degrees Fahrenheit) in order to maximize their capacity to conduct electricity. Ad­

vantages of EDS are that it requires less energy than EMS, and that it allows for

larger gap spaces. On the negative side, superconductivity is difficult to achieve, and

magnetic radiation levels in EDS vehicles are unacceptably high. One alternative

under study is to use high-temperature superconducting magnets that are cooled

with liquid nitrogen instead of the expensive liquid Helium used in superconducting

magnets.

Turning now to propulsion systems for maglev trains, only the different types

of linear induction motors will be described here. Returning to the linear motor's

description as an "unrolled" electric motor, one differentiates between long-stator

and short-stator linear motors.

With the long-stator linear motor, the guideway is the active part of the motor.

It contains the electrified magnets that produce the thrust, or forward propulsive
67

force. The guideway generates a traveling electromagnetic wave which reacts with

vehicle-mounted field windings to propel the train. Reversing the polarity of the

magnetic field provides contactless braking. The passive vehicle acts as the rotor and

weighs comparatively little. Construction of the powered guideway requires great

precision and is expensive. A great advantage of the long-stator system is that the

propulsion coils can be made larger on sloping segments of the guideway to provide

more thrust where it is needed.

With short-stator lineax motors, the vehicle is the active part whereas the guide-

way is passive. The vehicle picks up electricity from an overhead catenary or from

wayside power rails. The electricity supplies the vehicle-mounted magnets that pro­

duce the thrust and that make the vehicle comparatively heavy.

The various combinations of magnetic levitations and linear motors are depicted

in Figure 4.7. Cross sections of three of these maglev trains are shown in Figures 4.8,

4.9, and 4.10.

A brief history of maglev technology

Based on the invention of the electric motor (or, more precisely, the electric

rotary induction motor) in 1821, William Sturgeon built the first linear induction

motor (LIM) in 1832.

The idea of magnetically suspending a vehicle over a track is due to Earnshaw,

who in 1880 experimented with permanent magnets in repulsion. In the early 1900s

a system was proposed based on the attraction of permanent magnets on a vehicle to

ferromagnetic plates on the guideway. But it proved difficult to control the magnetic

fields to achieve height stability, i.e., to keep the vehicle at a constant distance from
Maglev Trains with
LIM Propulsion

EMS, EDS,
Attractive Repulsive
Suspension Suspension
crs
CO

Long-Stator Short-Staior Long-Stator Short-Stalor


LIM Propulsion LIM Propulsion LIM Propulsion LIM Propulsion
(Active Guideway) (Active Vehicle) (Active (luideway) (Active Vehicle)

Figure 4.7: Combinations of magnetic levitation and linear motors


69

passenger cabin

vehicle body
upper frame
sprung mass

linear traction
(short stator)
secondary
pneumatic motor
suspension guidance &:
levitation
undercarriage
ferromagnetic
maglev bogie
strip
unsprung mass
guidance &;
wayside power rail levitation
electromagnet
(current collector)
armature
\\ (ferromagnetic plate,
(passive) guideway passive rotor)
AV
ground

Figure 4.8: Short-stator EMS train with LIM propulsion


70

passenger cabin vehicle body


vehicle upper frame
sprung mass

secondary pneumatic
mechanical suspension

composite support
skid
idance electromagnet
guidance
ferromagnetic strip
undercarriage lifting ferromagnetic strip
maglev bogie pro'pulsion electromagnet
unsprung mass . . . . (long stator)
generator windmg/coil
levitation frame
vehicle underframe magnetic primary suspension
(active) guideway (rotor, lifting electromagnet)
ground

Figure 4.9: Long-stator EMS with LIM propulsion, similar to German Transrapid
TR-07
71

/ ••

\ /\ / \ /\
superconducting
magnet for
traction &;
guidance
pneumatic wheel
J ) (short stator)

superconducting lifting magnet


lifting ferromagnetic strip
armature (ferromagnetic plate, passive rotor)

Figure 4.10: Short-stator EDS with LIM propulsion, similar to Japanese MLU-001
72

the track.

The control problem was solved in 1933 by Hermann Kemper in Germany. He

used electromagnets instead of permanent magnets, which meant that the strength

of the magnetic field could be adjusted by changing the current supplied to the

electromagnets. Kemper became known as "father of electromagnetic levitation".

He took out a patent in 1934, and introduced a working model in 1935. In 1936 he

proposed an evacuated tube maglev system.

World War Two and the optimistic decades that followed it prevented further

progress in the area of magnetic levitation. The 1960s brought a change in attitude

and a renewed interest in public transportation systems. This included magnetic

levitation and linear induction motor propulsion. What follows is an outline of the

various accomplishments in maglev and LIM technology.

As is often the case, the maglev and LIM technologies lay idle until the social

and political climate was ripe for their utilization. When population pressure and

automobile pollution were recognized as serious problems in the 1960s, Western gov­

ernments acted to find solutions to mass transportation. In the United States, the

High-Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 resulted in funding for research in

the areas of maglev and LIM. An early result of that investment was the work of Gor­

don Danby and James Powell at Brookhaven National Laboratory. They proposed

and designed the first EDS system in 1966.

Motivated by mounting traffic problems, the West German Ministry of Re­

search and Technology (Bundesministerium fur Forschung und Technologic, BMFT)

awarded contracts to a number of companies to research the various maglev and LIM

technologies in 1969. Between 1969 and 1993, the BMFT spent DM 1.8 biUion (US$
73

1 billion) on the two technologies. In 1969, Krauss-MafFei Corporation of Munich,

Germany, introduced the first short-stator EMS model.

By 1971, two German companies, Krauss-MafFei and Messerschmitt Boelkow-

Blohm (MBB), had built full-scale short-stator EMS vehicles that achieved 45 niph.

These were the world's first full-scale maglev vehicles, and both utilized attraction

suspensions.

Driven by population and pollution pressures as well, Japan began funding re­

search into maglev and LIM systems. In 1970, research began on an EDS-type system.

Research into EMS systems began in 1975.

In the wake of the 1965 High-Speed Ground Transportation Act, the Federal

Railroad Administration of the United States awarded contracts to Ford Motor Com­

pany and the Stanford Research Institute for research on EMS and EDS systems. At

the same time, Rohr Industries advanced an urban maglev system called ROM AG.

The rights for that system were later acquired by Boeing Company and by Carnegie-

Mellon University.

The year 1974 was a milestone in Germany's research into maglev and LIM

systems. The first full-scale long-stator EMS system was introduced by Thyssen-

Henschel. Its "HMB2" vehicle achieved 20 mph on its 100-meter track. To test

the stability of an EMS at high speeds, MBB had mounted a rocket motor on its

unmanned "Komet" vehicle. It reached 250 mph (401 kph). Meanwhile work had

continued on short-stator EMS systems at Krauss-MafFei, who introduced their Tran­

srapid TR-04 train. It had a length of 15 m, weighed 18.5 tons, and operated on the

elevated 2.4 km long guideway at the Krauss-MafFei works near Munich. It was

capable of a speed of 157 mph (250 kph).


74

The same year also brought a breakthrough in the United States, where the

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) had built a test track near Pueblo, Colorado.

Their prototype "LIM Research Vehicle" was powered by a LIM built by Garrett

Turbines and achieved 234 mph. Some sources claim that it reached 255 mph (410

kph). As a sidenote, the Tracked Air-Cushion Research Vehicle (TACRV) was tested

at this site at the same time. Other efforts in the United States in the mid-1970s

included models of the Magneplane, which was a repulsive EDS system based on

the 1970 patent of Henry Kolm of MIT (later the head of Electromagnetic Launch

Research, Inc.). The vehicle's superconductor was a hollow tube with coolant at

the center, resulting in a very efficient cooling system. The cylindrical vehicle was

stabilized by a magnetic keel and rolled in curves. The guideway was an aluminum

trough in which eddy currents were induced by vehicle-mounted superconducting

magnets, resulting in repulsive forces. But all these efforts came to an abrupt end

when the US-American administration under Gerald Ford stopped funding HSGT

research in the 1975.

In 1977, the German BMFT selected attractive long-stator EMS technology

as the most effective technology for high-speed public ground transportation. It

cited the comparatively low capital costs, low operating costs, low environmental

effects, and low magnetic fields of that system as factors in its decision. It awarded

Thyssen-Henschel a contract for constructing a public demonstration train for the

1979 Internationale Verkehrsausstellung (IVA, International Traffic and Transporta­

tion Exhibition) in Hamburg. The result was the Transrapid TR-05, which was the

first maglev train for passenger service. It was a two-section vehicle for 75 passengers,

with a length of 26 m (85 ft), and a weight of 40 tons (36,000 kg). The Hamburg
75

track was a 900 meter long elevated guideway. The TR-05 reached 96 kph (60 mph),

transported 50,000 visitors, and was well-received, so that the BMFT decided to fund

further research, including a larger train and a test track in the Emsland region of

Northern Germany. A consortium formed to undertake these tasks. It involved sev­

eral German companies, including AEG, BBC, Krauss-Maffei, MBB, Siemens, and

Thyssen-Henschel. The TR-05 was eventually moved to Thyssen-Henschel's plant

near Kassel for further testing.

In 1979, nine years of government-sponsored research into EDS systems culmi­

nated in the introduction of the unmanned MLU-001 test vehicle by the Japanese

Railways Group (JRG) and the Japanese National Railways (JNR). The EDS train

was also known as the MLU, ML-500, and MU 001. It achieved a speed of 517 kph

(321 mph) on its seven-kilometer test track in the Miyazaki prefecture. It utilized a

guideway-mounted LIM (long-stator propulsion). The gap space between the vehicle

and the guideway was ten centimeters (4 in). The prototype weighed ten tons and

was 44 ft long. Strong magnetic fields in the passenger cabin were a problem for the

system, as were difficulties with the supercooling system and with negotiating turns.

These problems led to a change in the design of the guideway cross section from an

inverted T-shape to a U-shape in 1979. There were tentative plans to build a line link­

ing Tokyo and Osaka by 2001. A 40-km segment of the line would cost USS 2 billion,

not least because 80% of the segment would involve tunneling. In 1987, the project

was taken over by the Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI) and

funded by federal and local governments as well as by the newly privatized railroads.

Construction of a new test track was possibly begun in the Yamanashi prefecture.

In 1980, five years of Japanese research into short-stator EMS systems resulted
76

in the introduction of the HSST (High-Speed Surface Transport) by the Development

Department of Japan Airlines (JAL). The train reached 125 mph on its test track.

The single-car HSST carried passengers around the Expo '85 in Tsukuba, Japan.

In the United States, there was no real support for maglev and LIM research in

the 1980s, so there were only numerous feasibility studies. Corridors for considera­

tion for maglev and conventional high-speed trains were the Northeast Corridor (New

York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, and possibly Pittsburgh), the

California Corridor (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas), the Texas

Triangle (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, San Antonio), the Northwest Corridor

(Seattle, Portland, Vancouver), the Florida Corridor (Miami, Orlando, Tampa), and

the Midwest Corridor (Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and possibly St. Louis,

Cleveland, Columbus, and/or Cincinnati). There was also one Canadian corridor

under consideration (Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto); it is called the Empire corridor.

Companies and institutions involved in these various studies include AEG Westing-

house, All American Magneplane Incorporated, Alcoa, Argonne National Laboratory,

Asea Brown Boveri (ABB), Battelle Memorial Institute, Bechtel Group, Bombardier.

Booz Allen and Hamilton, CSX Corporation, Carnegie-Mellon University, Dupont,

Foster-Miller, GEC Alsthom, General Atomics, General Dynamics, General Electric,

Grumman, Hughes Aircraft, Intermagnetics General, Lockheed, Parsons Brincker-

holf Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Siemens, Texas Instruments, Thyssen Industrie,

USX, Union Switch and Signal. Some of these companies formed consortia including

American MagLine Group, the Council on Superconductivity for American Compet­

itiveness, Las Vegas-Anaheim Maglev, Maglev 2000, Maglev USA, Maglev Transit

Incorporated (MTI), and Texas TGV. In terms of agencies, the feasibility studies
77

involved the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of

Energy (DOE), Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and several state governments

and Departments of Transportation.

Despite the fact that the German BMFT had decided in favor of the short-stator

EMS system, MBB had pressed on with its EDS research. In 1981 it introduced its

long-stator "EET 01" which reached 160 kph (lOOmph).

In 1984, parts of the Emsland test facility in Germany had been completed, as

had the newest long-stator EMS train, the Transrapid TR-06. The TR-06 reached

257 mph (412 kph) at the Emsland facility in December of 1987. The vehicle had

two sections accomodating 200 passengers and was built by Krauss-MafFei. Each

section had a length of 27.4 m (90 ft), a width of 3.65 m (12 ft), a height of 3.8 m

(10 ft), and a weight of 65 t (59,000 kg, or 224,000 lb). Testing of the TR-06 on

the 13-mile guideway segment began in 1984. In June of 1988 on the occasion of the

Hamburg International Traffic and Transportation Exhibition, the TR-06 made 358

public demonstration runs, carrying 16,600 passengers.

A year later, in 1985, the first short-stator EMS train entered public service in

the United Kingdom. It was a low-speed system connecting the Birmingham airport

to the Birmingham railroad station. The gap space between the 40-passenger vehicle

and its guideway was 15 mm, and S-shaped switches on a rotating disk were utilized

(see Figure 4.11).

The test facility for the Transrapid system in the Emsland region (near the river

Ems) in the German state of Lower Saxony was finished in 1987. In German it is called

the Transrapid Versuchsanlage Emsland (TVE), or Transrapid Test Facility Emsland.

It featured a length of 40 km (25 mi), two loops, two switches, a straightaway between
78

the loops, an elevated guideway consisting of segments ranging from 25 to 50 meters

in length, with an elevation of 5 m (16.5 ft) and piers every 25 m (82 ft). The

piers, or support structures, were A-shaped or H-shaped concrete columns. The

track itself was made of either welded steel or concrete spans. It was electrified

by a 110,000 Volt line. Both switches consisted of a steel track segment that was

bent and allowed for speeds of 125 mph in the branched position. For one switch,

glide bearings and hydraulic actuators were used. The design of the other switch

involved two wheels and an electromechanical actuator (see Figure 4.11). The test

facility was operated by MVP, which was a partnership of the Deutsche Bundesbahn

(DB, German Federal Railways), Lufthansa (German Airlines), and lABG (a federal

vehicle testing organization).

In 1989, the first maglev train was certified and entered revenue service (as

opposed to public demonstration service) in Japan. The short-stator EMS "HSST-05"

reached 80 kph (50 mph) on its demonstration guideway at the Yokohama Exhibition

Site. Direction of the project was now under the High-Speed Surface Transportation

(HSST) Corporation instead of Japan Airlines (JAL).

In the same year (1989), the Transrapid Consortium introduced its TR-07 "Eu-

ropa" (see Figure 4.12). The train was comprised of multiple coupled cars with nose

sections at each end. Each section had a length of 25.5 m (84.2 ft), a width of 3.7

m (ft), a weight of 45 metric tons (45.5 tons), and could accomodate a payload of

16 metric tons (16.2 tons, or about 100 passengers). The shape of the vehicle had

been optimized aerodynamically and aeroacoustically. The TR-07 was a short-stator

EMS system, implying that it had a guideway-mounted LIM and that it utilized elec­

tromagnets to achieve levitation even at zero speed. Segments of the guideway were
79

Rotating switch (top view)

Hydraulic switch (top view)

/ /
/ /
' / hydraulic
/ actuators
/

Figure 4.11: Types of Switches


80

supplied with a 26,000 Volt DC current when the train passed over them. There were

wayside power substations that converted the three-phase utility power into the alter­

nating current (AC) variable voltage, variable frequency (VVVF) current required to

control the vehicle. Propulsion and braking were controlled by varying the excitation

voltage and frequency of the linear motor. 440 Volt on-board batteries supplied the

lifting and guidance magnets while the vehicle was not moving. They also provided

levitation, guidance, and propulsion during emergencies, and were recharged by lin­

ear generators on the undercarriage during normal operation and motion. The linear

generators also supplied the air-conditioning, the electrical systems, and the cooling

fans. The control system adjusted the current supplied to the electromagnets 30,000

times per'second to ensure a precise gap space of one centimeter (3/8 in). The con­

trol system is crucial in that attractive levitation comprises an inherently unstable

system. The TR-07 reached 432 kph (271 mph) in December of 1989. Between 1989

and 1994 the Transrapid has covered 160,000 km during test runs. By 1994 it had

reached 450 kph (280 mph).

In 1991, the Transrapid TR-07 "Europa" achieved certification for revenue ap­

plication by the Deutsche Bahn (German Railways) and the Technischer Ueber-

wachungsverein (TUV, technical supervision department) of the German region of

Rheinland. This cleared the way to the possible construction of a revenue line in

Germany. However, the economic difficulties following the German reunification and

other factors prevented this from happening immediately.

In March of 1994 the German cabinet approved construction of a maglev line

connecting Berlin and Hamburg, which is a distance of 284 km (180 miles). But

an appropriate bill still needs to pass both houses of parliament in late 1994. If
81

Figure 4.12: German Transrapid TR-07


82

approved, the line will be comleted in 2004. Opponents of the plan claim that the

system would not be profitable, especially on a relatively short distance which could

be covered by Germany's ICE train in just a bit more time. A further criticism is

that the maglev train would not go to the city centers.

The plan involves an unusual financing scheme. The entire project is expected

to cost DM 8.9 billion (US$ 5.3 billion). The federal government expects to build and

own the DM 5.6 billion guideway, and to rent it to the private operations consortium

that operates the line and owns the trains. Starting with a private capital of DM

1.5 billion, the operations consortium would be able to obtain loans amounting to a

capitalization of DM 3.3 billion. That money would be used to build the trains and to

begin operations. The operations consortium is made of Thyssen-Henschel, Daimler-

Benz/AEG, Siemens, and several construction companies. These firms will furnish

DM 500 million, banks a further DM 200 million, Lufthansa and Deutsche Bahn DM

300 million, and other private investors DM 500 million. All profits from the line

would go to the private operations consortium, which would pay approximately DM

310 million per year of guideway rent to the government.

The early 1990s continued to be a poor time for high-speed ground transporta­

tion (HSGT) research in the United States. The Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was passed in 1991, promising over US$ 1 billion in support

for HSGT, including US$ 725 million for a maglev prototype. But the funding never

materialized and in 1993 only US$ 13 million were allocated.

There were at least two more maglev efforts for which the author does not know

the dates. One was the STARUM, a Franco-German EMS maglev with short-stator

LIM propulsion. The other was a low- and medium-speed maglev train that utilized
83

PMS technology. It was developed by Germany's Magnetbahn Gmbh, which is a

subsidiary of AEG and is also known as M-Bahn.

Maglev versus high-speed duorail trains

In this section some of the strengths, weaknesses, and costs of various high-speed

ground transportation systems are discussed. The cost of operating any such system

includes energy costs and environmental costs.

Opponents of maglev systems often cite the high development and construction

costs and its use of electricity as its major drawbacks. In particular, maglev trains

use between 30 and 40 percent of the total power for levitation. The energy use

and noise levels of several transportation systems are shown in Table 4.2. The data

for this table were collected from a number of sources ([18], [200], [204], [213], [233],

[236], and [237]). At all speeds, maglev trains use less energy and produce less noise

than high-speed conventional duorail trains. To give the reader an idea of noise

levels, consider the different vehicles at 160 kph. At a distance of 25 m, high-speed

duorail trains are as noisy as a truck, whereas maglev trains are only as noisy as an

automobile during city-driving. However, at a speed of 400 kph, maglev trains are

as noisy as a jetliner during takeoff at a distance of 200 m.

To give the reader an idea of the cost involved in building a maglev or conven­

tional high-speed train line, some estimates from a 1990 study [1] follow. To purchase

a 60 ft wide double track maglev corridor costs US$75,000 per mile in rural areas,

ten times that in suburban areas, and even more in urban areas. Construction of

the double-guideway would cost US$30 million per mile. If tunneling is necessary, an

additional US$30 million per mile is required. The guideway makes up 70% of the
84

Table 4.2: Energy use and noise levels of transportation systems


high-speed ground
duorail maglev auto­ effect
trains trains mobiles vehicles
number
of seats 480 200 4
average
occupancy 70% 40%
weight per
passenger 1450 lb 500 lb

payload
qrossweiqht 0.25-0.5
24 gal/mile 40-50 HP/ton
energy use orm JJCtSS TTXltl&S
75-200 HP/ton no HP
gal juel ton—km
at 100-160 kph 0.01—22' g g ton—miles
seat—mile gal
03 Wh 19 seat—km 0 1 kWh o n ton—km
seat—km seat—mile kg fuel
noise at
100-160 kph, 80-86 dB/A U-11 dB/A
25 m distance

energy use 10 Wh 30
seat—Km seat—km
at 250 kph 2000
seat—mzle
noise at
250 kph at 86-92 dB/A 82-83 dB/A
25 m distance

energy use
at 400 kph

noise at
400 kph at 92-96 dB/A
25 m distance
85

total cost of a typical line, whereas the vehicles only account for about ten percent.

A typical 80-seat vehicle costs US$3.6 million.

Aerodynamics plays a vital part in any high-speed ground transportation system

because it causes drag and noise. For conventional trains the rolling noise dominates

for speeds up to 300 kph. Beyond that, the aerodynamic noise dominates. Both the

designs of the Japanese Shinkansen and the French TGV took this fact into account,

and it became a foremost criterion in the design of the German ICE [224]. For

maglev trains, the noise from the cooling fans dominates for speeds up to 200 kph.

Aerodynamic noise dominates at speeds above that, and is mainly in the frequency

range of 250-500 Hertz. It is also called aeroacoustic noise. Aerodynamic noise is

caused by many factors, including noise from the turbulent boundary layer, from the

airflow underneath the vehicle, from gaps and joints, from appendages, from edges,

from the interaction with passing poles, and from the separation region at the rear

of the vehicle.

Turning now to aerodynamic drag, it represents between 75 and 80 % of the

total resistance to motion of conventional trains at speeds above 250 kph. The

other contributors to the resistance are mechanical rolling resistance and transmission

losses. The aerodynamic drag consists of the nose and tail pressure drag (8-13 %),

the parasite drag due to protruding parts and inter-car gaps (? %), the interference

drag due to the interaction of the underside and bogies with the ground (38-47 %),

the skin friction drag (27-40 %), the pressure drag due to the pantograph and roof

equipment (8-20 %), and the side wind drag. For maglev trains the interference drag

due to the interaction of the maglev bogie and the guideway accounts for 50-65 % of

the total drag [224]. It is clear that proper aerodynamic design is of great importance
86

for high-speed transportation systenns to reduce both drag and noise.

Trains using aerodynamic suspension

It is clear from the preceding discussion that in order to arrive at an economical

transportation system one must avoid the cost of close tolerances (such as precise

guideways or high-speed tracks), of electrification, of supercooling, and of machine

maintenance. In addition, much energy could be saved if levitation could be accom­

plished without lifting fans or magnets. It is for these reasons that an aerodynamically

suspended train seems like a plausible solution. Such a train could be suspended from

a monorail and have wings that are operating out of ground effect, as suggested by

Lehl and Zumwalt in 1974 [215]. Alternatively, it could have one or more wings

operating in aerodynamic ground effect just above the guideway, thus eliminating

mechanical contact. This aerodynamic lift would be a by-product of the vehicle's

forward motion and would not require separate lifting-fans or levitating magnets. To

allow for misalignments in the guideway, the gap between the trailing edge and the

guideway should be at least ten centimeters. The disadvantage of the system is that

its size is quite limited; the width of the guideway is constrained to a few meters,

which means that the wing area is quite limited. This in turn implies a constraint in

the lifting force generated by the wing. It is quite possible that the resulting vehicle

will be too small to be competitive.

The idea of a train flying in ground effect was apparently first proposed in con­

junction with tube-flight research at Princeton and M.I.T. in the late 1960s. Due

to high vehicle drag and the high cost of building tunnels, emphasis was shifted to

ground effect trains operating in a trench-like guideway (see the work of Widnall and
87

Barrows [199], for example). In 1970, Harris and Seemann [206] proposed the "Ter-

rawing" or "Terrafoil" which featured a wing flying just above an elevated guideway.

The single fuselage was suspended from the centers of several straight rectangular

wings. In this overhead suspension, the fuselage and each wing were connected by

vertical empennage-like structures that moved through a gap in the middle of the hor­

izontal guideway (see Figure 4). This vehicle was also studied by other researchers

([210], [216]). In 1974, Lehl and Zumwalt [215] suggested that their "Airtrain" could

also be flown in a trench, or rectangular guideway, to take advantage of the ground ef­

fect. A related idea was the "Hydrodyne", which was mentioned by Lissaman in 1968

[196]. The "Hydrodyne" was a vehicle that seemed to hover over two small tubular

rails. In reality, hydrofoils operated inside these water-filled tubes, providing enough

lift to support the train. Two drawbacks of this system were speed limitations due

to cavitation and the high loading of the tube. In this context, Williams, Davis, and

Martin [202] conducted experiments on an airfoil operating between parallel walls.

Based on the works of Lippisch and the proposed design of Piasecki's Airtrain

[228], ducted fans may be the desirable propulsion system for an aerodynamically

suspended train. Ducted fans offer quite a few advantages compared to free propellers

and jet engines. They produce more thrust per engine horsepower than an open

propeller, so that one may effectively reduce the propeller diameter. The shroud

reduces the noise level, protects the blades from foreign objects and reduces the

danger of injury.

The train should be optimized for the following: ease of construction, mechan­

ical simplicity, ease of maintenance, good fuel economy, high lift-to-drag ratio (a

measure of the aerodynamic efficiency), high payload, good range, easy access (load-
88

Figure 4.13: Terrawing train


89

ing/unloading, emergency exits) and safety (gust resistance, objects on the guideway,

engine failure, emergency stopping and unloading).


90

CHAPTER 5. A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF TECHNIQUES

USED IN GROUND EFFECT EXPERIMENTS

There are six major experimental methods for studying the effect of ground

vicinity upon the airflow about vehicles. The aim of any experiment should be to

model the actual flow as closely as possible. To properly model the ground, there

should be relative motion between the vehicle and the ground. One may also have to

consider that in reality there usually exists an atmospheric boundary-layer that is due

to the relative motion of the airstream and the ground, that is, due to wind. The test

apparatus may therefore need to allow for relative motion between the ground and the

airstream in the lateral direction. In the following subsections, the six experimental

techniques will be summarized and critiqued in turn, with special attention to the

testing of airfoils. General discussions and comparisons of the various experimental

methods can be found in the works of Pistolesi of 1935 [238], Kuchemann of 1978

[239], and Howell and Everitt of 1981 [240].

Mirror-Image Method

This method is also known as image technique, reflection principle, reflection-

model technique, or image-model method. The model and its exact mirror-image

are placed into a wind tunnel, so that a plane of symmetry is expected to exist
91

between them. This then eliminates the need for a physical representation of the

ground. The plane of symmetry acts similar to the ground for the case of large ground

clearances. However, for small ground clearances, three problems begin to surface.

First, the wakes behind the two models begin to interfere with each other, destroying

the symmetric flow. The result is an unsteady wake flow involving turbulent mixing

(see Miiller's paper of 1939 [54]). One way to largely avoid this problem is to place a

thin splitter plate at the symmetry plane near the trailing edge, thereby preventing

the wakes from interacting. The second problem is that as the two wings approach one

another, the air between them is accelerated or decelerated. At the plane of symmetry

the flow velocity is thus different from the freestream velocity. By contrast, when a

vehicle moves through still air the freestream velocity and the ground velocity both

equal zero. The third and final problem with this method is that it requires two

exactly similar models that are perfectly aligned, which is difficult to achieve (see

Figure 5.1).

Even though the theory of this reflection principle was developed in the 1910s,

it was not utilized in an experimental setting until 1920. The theory involving the

use of an image wing was an extension of Prandtl's (see [241], [242], [243], [244], [245]

and [246]) biplane theory, and it was developed by Betz at Gottingen in 1912 [42]

and 1914 [247] and, more thoroughly, by Wieselsberger at Gottingen in 1921 [45].

The image wing was first used experimentally by Cowley and Lock in the United

Kingdom in 1920 [43] and, at about the same time, by Raymond [46] at the Mas­

sachusetts Institute of Technology. These tests involved large ground clearances. Two

years later, Wieselsberger performed similar experiments on a three-dimensional wing

[45]. In 1939, Miiller [54] studied airfoils and cars in a wind tunnel. He included pho-
92

mam wing

symmetry plane optional


splitter
image wmg
plate

Figure 5.1: Mirror-image method


93

tographs in iiis publication. In the same year, Serebrisky and Biachuev used the

image-wing technique in a wind tunnel of the Hydrodynamic Institute in Moscow

[52]. Their report is very detailed and entails pressure distribution data. Similarly,

the 1961 NACA report by Fink and Lastinger [60] is rich in detail.

Not until the work of Datwyler at Gottingen and Zurich [48] in 1934 were smaller

gaps were studied. Datwyler's model wings had an aspect ratio of four and trailing

edge ground clearance ratios equaling 0.025, 0.050, 0.100 and 0.200. His first

set of experiments at Gottingen involved a ground-board and did not give satisfactory

results - he therefore selected the reflection method for his second set of experiments

at Zurich. Even though the results still did not agree very well with theory (he used

conformal transformations to map a flat plate whose trailing edge was in contact with

the ground into a simpler computational domain), they were much better than the

previous set. Miiller's work of 1939 [54] also dealt with wings with small gaps, but

he focused on the visualization of the flow around two-dimensional profiles. Some

decades later, Gallington [70] used the image method to study the channel flow

underneath his ram-wing vehicles.

In the early 1930s, there was a strong interest in automobile aerodynamics. This

included the flow in the gap formed between the ground and the car's underside. The

ground clearance ratios for cars are very small, near 0.05. Some of the significant

experimental works are those of Lay [248] in 1933, of Heald [249] in 1934, of Ono [250]

in 1935 and of Muller [54] in 1939. Most of these authors compared several experi­

mental techniques. Lay used the mirror-image method as well as a fixed ground-plate

with and without suction to control the boundary-layer. Ono used the mirror-image

method, the fixed ground-board method and the moving-model method.


94

The mirror-image method has been used for the study of train aerodynamics.

The Japanese Tokaido-line trains were tested this way by Hara, Kawaquiti, Fukuchi,

and Yamamoto in 1968 [251]. For trains, the ground clearance is extremely small

(near 0.01).

Fixed Ground Method

Tfe fixed ground method is the most popular method and is also known cis fixed

plate method, flat plate method, ground board method, reflection plate method,

reflector plate method, or fixed ground technique. In this case, only the air moves,

whereas the tunnel walls, the model, and the ground-board are stationary. This

causes inaccuracies since an actual vehicle moves with respect to the ground. The

flow over the fixed ground-board develops a boundary-layer which alters the flow field,

especially if the boundary layer separates. The errors will be particularly noticeable

for small ground clearances. In additionm, the model causes a circulation around the

ground-board, and a blockage is created (see Figure 5.2).

To reduce these error sources, the plate is kept very thin (to prevent blockage)

and as short as possible (to minimize the boundary-layer thickness). Also, a flap is

often added to the ground-plate's trailing-edge to control the flow over its leading

edge. This eliminates the circulation. One may account for the presence of the

boundary-layer by calculating its displacement thickness and by thereafter adjusting

the value of the ground clearance. Oftentimes the model is mounted at a distance

which takes into account the boundary-layer thickness.

The fixed ground-board was first used experimentally by Betz at Gottingen in

1912 ([42], [247]). His experiments involved finite, cambered plates. In 1921, Ray-
95

wing

ground plate
movable flap

Figure 5.2: Fixed ground-plate method

mond [46] tested three-dimensional wings mounted over a fixed ground-board. In

the 1930s several authors studied the aerodynamics of car models. This included

Heald [249], Lay [248], Klemin [252], Stalker [253], Ono [250] and Muller [54]. Mod­

els of entire aircraft were tested by Tani, Itokawa and Taima in 1937 [254] and by

Sears a year later [50]. Inl939, Recant [53] used the fixed ground method to examine

three-dimensional wings in ground effect.


In 1934, Datwyler sought to investigate finite wings in very close ground prox­

imity, with equaling 5,10,20 and 40 millimeters, and with c = 200 mm and b

= 800 mm. This corresponds to trailing edge clearance ratios of 0.025, 0.050,

0.100 and 0.200. Datwyler's first set of experiments at Gottingen involved a ground-

board, a flow velocity of 30 m/s, and a Reynolds number of 3.7 x 10®. He found
96

that the flow-field ceased changing very near the ground since the boundary-layer

that developed on the ground board retarded the flow near it. Datwyler improved

his results when he switched over to the reflection method.

A flow visualization study of airfoils in close ground effect was carried out by

Miiller in 1939 [54]. In 1961, Bagley [58] added a thin leading edge and a controllable

trailing-edge flap to the ground-board in order to avoid a circulation around it. He

also provided allowance for the thicknesses of the boundary-layers on the airfoil and

on the ground-board in order to arrive at a true inviscid flow geometry (also see

Bagley's related work of 1960 [57]). In 1970 Barrows and Widnall [255] investigated

a stationary model of their tube flight vehicle in a circular wind tunnel test section.

In 1934, the fixed-ground method was improved through attempts to control the

ground-board boundary-layer. Removal of the boundary-layer decreases the danger

of flow separation and the associated rise in drag. It can be controlled by local

suction (removal) and tangential blowing (energization) or by simply bleeding it

off (removal). The method is therefore also known as distributed-suction technique

or bleeding-technique. Implementation of this method is very difficult because the

normally smooth surface is interrupted by either the sources and sinks (in the case

of distributed suction) or by the protrusion/slot (in the case of bleeding/skimming).

Also, the combined action of sources and sinks results in locally circulatory flow.

These problems become worse as clearance tends to zero. Another problem is that the

boundary-layer control has to be readjusted for every model and every test geometry.

This method was first implemented by Lay in 1933 [248] and by Stalker in 1934 [253].

They were studying automobile aerodynamics.

The fixed-ground method is still used extensively because it is inexpensive and


97

provides good qualitative information. This is especially true for models of cars and

trains (see for example Turner [256], [257]and Carr [258] for automobile studies, and

Grunwald [259] for train models).

Moving-Belt Technique

The moving-belt technique is also known as the moving-ground method or the

moving-ground-board method. A conveyor-type belt is moved at the same rate as the

freestream airspeed, thus properly modeling flight near the ground in still air. The

belt's speed is often measured with a stroboscope. It is very difficult to avoid vibra­

tions, flapping and belt roughness, as well as gaps between the belt and the tunnel

wall, all of which lead to disturbances. It is also difficult to avoid belt deformations

as a result of the pressure distribution, and to match the speeds of the freestream and

belt exactly. There must always be a ground-board (fairing) near the belt's upstream

end, causing unavoidable boundary-layers and unevennesses are. Most of the time

the belt and its fairing protrude into the tunnel, disturbing the tunnel's geometry

and causing some blockage. It is easy to see how the method is cumbersome and

expensive. It is not possible to model a crosswind in a controllable fashion. A final

drawback is the virtual impossibility of measuring the pressure distribution on the

ground or the velocity profile in the gap region. By contrast, it is easy to measure

the pressures and resultants on the model, as it is stationary (see Figure 5.3).

To control some of the above problems one can use suction to hold the belt flat to

a guide plate. The boundary-layer on the fairing in front of the belt can be skimmed

off by means of a slot.

According to Stalker [253] and Klemin [252], this method was first proposed by
98

wing

wedge plate
moving belt

Figure 5.3: Moving-belt method

Eiffel in 1914, though they did not give a reference. Klemin himself used it in his

work on cars and trains in 1934 (with velocities in the range of 70 mph), as did

Butler, May and Pound in 1963 [260] and Poisson-Quinton in 1968 [261]. Other work

of the 1960s involving cars includes that of Carr and Roser [262], of Turner [257] and

of Beauvais, Tignor and Turner [263]. Train models were studied by Grunwald in

1970 [259].

Moving-Model Technique

The moving-model technique is also known as the launch-system method, tow-

technique, or tow-tank technique. It also includes the testing of the actual vehicle,

either in free flight or in tow. Only the model moves, so it is simply a scaled replica of
99

the physical (full-scale) circumstances. This technique is performed by launching the

model toward the test-section by means of a pneumatic launch-system, a catapult,

an incline (utilizing gravity), a towing-vehicle, a propelled test-rig (as in a tow-

tank), or under its own power (as in the case of actual flight-testing). Most of these

launch systems involve very high accelerations and the strain gauges must be able to

withstand these. The great advantages of this method are that it properly models

the flow, that one can easily measure the ground-pressure distribution, and that

it is comparatively inexpensive. The great disadvantage is that it is very difficult

to measure the forces and pressures on the model during flight. The measuring

equipment has to be on-board (except for the case of the tow-tank). One additional

problem with over-water tow-tanks is that the water surface may deform as a result

of the pressure fluctuations. Mathematically, the tangency condition is replaced with

a stress-equilibrium condition (see Figure 5.4).

Early aviators and aeronautical engineers were very preoccupied with the takeoff

and landing phases. This led to systematic studies of the effect of the ground on full-

size aircraft in the 1920s and 1930s. These included the work of Reid and Carrall

([89] and [90]) in the United States in 1927 and by Tonnies at Hannover, Germany,

in 1932 [91]. In 1932, Kaario flew his first ground-effect sledge inches above the ice

cover of a Finnish lake (see [98] and [99]). The aerofoil-boats of Alexander Lippisch

were all extensively tested in free-flight (see [6], [11] and [17]). Similarly, automobiles

can be tested by instrumenting them and simply driving them down the road. This

was done in 1975 by Carr [258] and by Hucho, Janssen and Schwartz [264].

A closely related method is to tow the aircraft or model behind a tow-plane,

speed-boat, tracked ground vehicle, or automobile. In 1940, Witmore and Turner


100

stationary air moving wing

stationary ground

Figure 5.4; Moving-model method

towed a glider behind a car [92]. Lippisch towed his X-112 aerofoil-boat behind a

speed-boat in 1963 [6]. The moving-model method was used by Ono in 1935 [250] to

study two-dimensional car models.

Tow tanks were used in the early 1960s by Lippisch and Colton [5] and by

Carter in 1961 [59] to test finite wings in ground effect. These researchers confined

their models by mounting them to a constant-speed tracked test carriage. Lippisch

also catapulted models into unconstrained flight just above the water surface.

The aerodynamics of ground vehicles can also be studied by accelerating models

toward the test section with a pneumatic launch system. For the case of trains

this was done by Howell and Everitt in 1981 [240], by Baker in 1986 [265], and by

Kemmerly, Paulson and Compton in 1988 [266]. Papenfuss and Kronast used the
101

same technique for automobiles in 1991 [267]. Some of these authors point out the

importance of simulating the atmospheric boundary-layer. However, the effects of

wind and wind-gusts cannot be neglected, especially if the track or road is elevated.

Another method for bringing the model to a certain speed is to accelerate and

decelerate it with the help of gravity. No references have been found for this method.

From today's standpoint an obvious method for testing models as they move over

the ground is to control them with remote-control (R/C) equipment. However, this

only became practical in the 1950s. In terms of the ground effect, remotely controlled

vehicles were tested by Lippisch in the late 1960s and by Gallington, Miller and Smith

in 1971 [69].

Rheoelectric Analog Method

The rheoelectric analog method is also known as the electric tank technique.

It was introduced in 1961 by Malavard (see [268] and [269]), who was particularly

interested in properly modeling small ground clearances. He showed how it is pos­

sible to use an electric tank for simulating the following fields: velocity potential,

streamfunction, argument-function, and logarithmic potential. The method was also

used by Chaplin and Masters in 1964 [270].

A Comparison of Experimental Results for Wings Near the Ground

Le Sueur [271] claimed that the results of all of the experimental techniques

for wings in weak ground effect agree reasonably well with the results of classical

ground effect theory. But when the trailing edge ground clearance-to-chordlength

ratio decreases to within 0.5 and 3.0 (moderate, or intermediate ground effect) the
102

various experimental methods yield different results. In 1935, Pistolesi [238] discussed

the fact that there is poor accord between the reflection and the flat-plate methods

in that case. He cited the criticisms made of both methods by Cowley and Lock in

1920 [43]. Questions were raised whether the reflection method really resulted in a

symmetric flow pattern, or whether it could admit unsteady flow in the wake region.

The criticisms of the flat-plate method were that the combination of the model and

the plate gave rise to an unrealistic circulation and that it was difficult to account

for the boundary-layer over the ground plate.

Results obtained from the reflection method indicated that the maximum lift-to-

drag ratio of a wing in moderate ground effect was increased from 10 to 13, whereas it

was from 10 to 15 by the flat-plate method (for weak ground effect). The conclusion

that the increase in the lift-to-drag ratio is about twice as high by the flat-plate

method as by the reflection-method has been drawn by numerous authors (see [43],

[46], [91] and [89]). Experimenters also found that for positive incidences the lift

increases as the ground is approached.

Miiller [54] carried out experiments on both airfoils and bluff bodies in 1939.

For airfoils in moderate to strong ground effect he observed that the fixed ground-

plate yielded poorer results than the mirror-image technique. This was because the

boundary-layer on the ground-board reached a considerable thickness ahead of the

leading edge, causing an accelerated flow and a change in the angle of incidence. This

accelerated flow was then confined between the wing and the ground and energized

the boundary-layer on the ground, thintiing it. Miiller found the image technique to

work quite well, as the wakes of the two airfoils tended not to interfere.
103

A Note on the Aerodynamics of Bluff Bodies (Cars)

Automobile and train aerodynamic testing are described here to determine the

effectiveness of the different experimental techniques, and to study the instrumenta­

tion that was used. Furthermore, the experimental findings will become important

in the design of the ram-air train fuselages.

Bluff body aerodynamics are of interest in the study of automobiles, tractor-

trailers, and buildings such as cooling towers and skyscrapers. Most of the time the

flow about bluff bodies is three-dimensional and unsteady, with extensive viscous

regions of attached and separated flow. Vortices are usually generated and shed from

the body. Freestream conditions usually involve wind-induced atmospheric boundary-

layers.

In the early 1930s, there was a strong interest in automobile aerodynamics.

Some of the significant experimental works of that period are those of Lay [248] in

1933, of Heald [249] in 1934, of Ono [250] in 1935 and of Miiller [54] in 1939. Most

of these authors compared several experimental techniques. Lay used the mirror-

image method as well as a fixed ground-plate with and without suction to control the

boundary-layer. Ono used the mirror-image method, the fixed ground-board method

and the moving-model method.

There has been a renewed interest in the aerodynamic design of automobiles

since the energy crises of the 1970s (see [262], [263], [272], [273], [274], [264], [258],

[275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [240], [280], [281] and [267]).

The salient features of cars are that they are bluff bodies whose length-to-width

ratio is near unity, that they therefore display a strong turbulent wake, and that they

are generally not designed to produce lift. The strong wake causes a large percentage
104

of the total drag. Production cars have ground clearance ratios (h/L) near 0.05, and

their underbodies are parallel to the ground (zero incidence).

In terms of geometry, the nose of the car is called the forebody, whereas the tail

is called the afterbody or base. Both of these regions include mostly surfaces that are

normal to the flow so that the drag is primarily due to pressure forces. The remainder

of the car, which consists of areas that are moderately oblique or even parallel to the

freestream, is refered to as the midbody. Here the drag is dominated by skin friction.

Interestingly, most of the external drag acting on a car is due to the forebody flow,

so that much attention is given to the design of an automobile's nose.

For non-lifting bodies, the keys to the successful testing seem to be the use of

large models and the avoidance of unrealistic unsteady wakes. It is crucial that the

experiment results in boundary layers that are of the proper scale and type. Therefore

the scaling is just as important as the experimental technique. Small models are

more sensitive to flow disturbances, to surface irregularities, and to instrumentation,

especially if it is of an invasive type. All of these perturbations may alter the size

and nature of the boundary-layers.

It is important to consider the influence of crosswinds and gusts on the aerody­

namic performance of automobiles and other ground vehicles, since normal operation

will involve such natural phenomena. The atmospheric boundary-layer turbulent

length scales are of an order of magnitude larger than the length scales of the car.

A Note on the Aerodynamics of Slender Bodies (Trains)

Beginning in the 1970s, railroad vehicle design witnessed a trend to lower mass

which would reduce the vehicle's traction energy consumption and thus overall cost.
105

The drawback was an increased risk from wind-induced accidents such as overturning

in gusts. Such concerns have given rise to much wind tunnel testing; an example was

the aerodynamic design of the Japanese Tokaido-line trains tested by means of the

mirror-image method by Hara, Kawaquiti, Fukuchi, and Yamamoto in 1968 [251]

(also see [282], [252], [259] and [240]).

Trains usually have a very large length-to-width ratio and are not designed to

produce aerodynamic lift. Their underbodies are parallel to the ground. Their great

length reduces the relative importance of the turbulent wake to the overall flow

pattern. Ground distance-to-length ratios are typically near 0.01.

Even though airfoils with a uniform freestream are the focus of this study, the

long-range goal of designing a ram-air train must include a consideration of atmo­

spheric boundary-layers due to cross winds. Crosswinds and gusts can have a pro­

found influence on the train's habitability (ride quality), fatigue life, overturning

(rolling) motions, sideward forces, and control system design. This topic was treated

in 1983 by Howell and Everitt [283] and again in 1986 by Baker [265].
106

CHAPTER 6. A SURVEY OF THEORIES ASSOCIATED WITH

THE DIFFERENT GROUND EFFECT REGIMES

In this chapter, the various theories and numerical approaches that have been

used to study the ground effect will be surveyed. Following the chronological order

of appearance, several analytical methods will be covered first; this includes the

conformal mapping technique, thin airfoil theory, and lifting-line theory. Just as in

history, this is followed by lifting surface theory and its associated numerical methods

such as the vortex-lattice method. As the focus of this dissertation is on the two-

dimensional problem, the discussion of the numerical techniques will begin with two-

dimensional panel methods. Last will be a discussion of asymptotic methods, which

are valid only in the strong and extreme ground effect, i.e., when the ground clearance

is less that ten percent of the chord length. These include the one-dimensional channel

flow theory (linear small-gap theory), the nonlinear small-gap theory, a boundary-

layer type channel theory, and lubrication theory (see Figure 6).

The goal of the chapter is to provide a brief review of the relevant theories, and

to reveal how the theory can be applied to the study of the ground effect. As always

the literature is cluttered with long names and slight variations on the same theme.
Aerodynamic Ground Effect
Tiieory

Weak/Classical Intermediate/Moderate Small-Gap Theory, Lubrication


Ground Effect Theory Ground Effect Theory Ram-Wing Theory Theory

Strong Strong Extreme


3-D 2-D or 3-D Ground Ground Ground
2-D
Inviscid Inviscid Effect: liffect; Effect:
Inviscid
Lifting Singularity Inviscid Inviscid Viscous
Mapping
-Line Distribution Linear Nonlinear Boundary
Theory
Theory Theory Small-Gap Small-Gap -I -ayer
Theory Theory Theory

Figure 6.1: Theories associated with the Ground Effect Flow Regimes
108

Two-Dimensional Mapping Techniques (Analytical)

Two-dimensional potential flow problems can be solved exactly by mapping the

actual geometry (physical plane) into a simpler geometry in the transformed plane.

The flow around the simple transformed geometry is solved and the results are trans­

formed back into the physical plane. Even though it is theoretically possible to map

complicated body shapes and effective body shapes (including boundary layers and

separated flow regions) to arrive at realistic solutions, the transformations become

prohibitively complicated and cumbersome. The conclusion is that only very spe­

cial shapes can be studied with this elegant method, such as Joukowsky airfoils in a

purely potential flow.

With regard to ground effect, the first related application of the mapping tech­

nique was the study of profiles in the vicinity of two parallel walls in 1931. Both

Rosenhead [284] and Miiller [54] were interested in the effect of wind tunnel walls;

both studies included errors.

The first successful application of the mapping technique to the ground effect

was due to Tomotika et al [47] (Reports 97, 100, 101, 120, 152, and 182) at Tokyo

University. They analyzed a flat plate operating near the ground and achieved good

agreement with experimental data (see discussion in [285]). However, the solution was

given in series form and did not converge for small ground clearances (see discussions

in [238], [285], [57] and [128]). The flat plate problem was again treated by Havelock

in the United Kingdom in 1938 [286] but the solutions were again complicated and

impractical (see discussion in [57]). The special case where the trailing edge of the

plate was in contact with the ground was successfully treated by Datwyler [48] in

Switzerland in 1934 and by De Haller [287] in France in 1936.


109

From flat plates, attention shifted to circular arc airfoils near the ground. These

were first studied by Hudimoto [288] in .Japan in 1934 and then by De Haller in 1936

[287]. The latter work may have contained errors that were corrected by Tomotika and

Imai in 1938 [289]. Green, working at Durham in the United Kingdom, also treated

this problem [55] but found that his results compared poorly with experimental data.

An approach for determining the flow around airfoils near the ground was pro­

posed by Green [285] in 1947, but he gave no results (see discussion in [290]). The

first practical solution to this problem was given by Tomotika, Hasimoto and Urano

in 1950 [291], but it was restricted to Joukowsky-type airfoils. In 1965, Strand and

Brainerd [67] at Air Vehicle Corporation in San Diego, California, mapped a thin

airfoil and its image into two adjacent circles with circulation. Since the Laplace

equation is linear, they also used superposition to model a thin airfoil in ground ef­

fect. The foil was disassembled into an isolated symmetrical airfoil at zero incidence,

a zero-lift camber line at small incidence at the design height, and a camber line due

to lift at the design height.

In conclusion, the mapping technique is really only useful for specific airfoils in

a potential flow. It is not usable in the design process involving airfoils in strong

ground effect.

Two-Dimensional Thin Airfoil Theory (Analytical)

The idea behind thin-airfoil theory is to place a singularity distribution on the

chord line or on a parallel line to the oncoming flow and to enforce the flow tangency

condition on the camber line. The airfoil is assumed to represent a small perturba­

tion to the flow, so that velocities are not altered by more than ten percent. Since
110

singularities are used, the theory is restricted to potential flow. Furthermore, since

these singularities are placed onto a line parallel to the freestream one is restricted to

small incidences (on the order of six degrees), small thicknesses and small cambers.

Lastly, the boundary conditions are linearized, meaning that they are enforced on the

camber line rather than at the actual airfoil surface. This places restrictions on the

airfoil thickness and on the amount of airfoil camber (neither dimension should be

more than ten percent of the chord length). The expression for the tangency condi­

tion involves the unknown singularity distribution, the slope of the camber line, and

the incidence. It is an integral equation known as the fundamental equation of thin

airfoil theory, and the involved integral is called the airfoil integral. This method is
also known as the Birnbaum-Ackermann theory.

When this theory is used to study the ground effect, an image wing is usually

placed symmetrically underneath the actual wing. This is the theoretical equivalent

of the image wing experimental technique. Thus there are two singularity distribu­

tions parallel to each other at zero incidence and a symmetry line is formed between

them, modelling the ground. All the same restrictions apply here and the tangency

conditions are again linearized to the two lines representing the airfoils. Note that

for this first-order thin airfoil theory to be applicable, the ground clearance must

be larger than the chord length in order for the flow to be altered by less than ten

percent. If second-order terms are included the assumptions remain the same, except

that the ground clearance ratio can now be as small as twenty percent of chord (see

the work of Bagley [57]).

Thin airfoil theory was first applied to the study of airfoils in ground effect by

Tani [292] at Tokyo University in 1932. He used standard Birnbaum distributions


Ill

of vorticity to model the profile and its image (see the discussions in [23S], [57]

and [293]). He simulated airfoil thickness by a single doublet placed at mid-chord

and the image position. In 1937, Tani extended the theory to three dimensions in

collaboration with Tomika and Simudu [294] (see discussion in [18]).

Tani's two-dimensional theory was extended by Bagley in the United Kingdom

in 1960 [57]. He included higher-order terms in order to study the moderate rather

than the weak ground effect, and verified his results using wind tunnel data. Bagley's

theory was valid for ground clearances as small as twenty percent of chord. Bagley

used the same vorticity distribution as Tani, but represented the thickness by a source

distribution on the chord line (see discussion in [128]). Unlike Tani he ignored the

effect of the image system on the longitudinal velocity.

In the 1960s, interest developed in ram-wing vehicles so that theories were needed

for studying the strong ground effect « 0.1). At the time, the usual approach

was to split the domain into two distinct regions, the internal underbody region

between the ground and the body streamline formed by the wing and its wake, and

the external flow region. Since all vertical dimensions were ten percent of chord at

most, the external flow region was like a thin-airfoil problem, with the "airfoil" being

comprised of the wing and its boundary layers and wake as well as the underbody

flow. In the case where the external flow encounters an effective body that hugs the

ground plane this is called humf flow^ mound flow^ or half-body flow. This method was

used by Strand, Royce and Fujita [111] working on Vehicle Research Corporation's

VRC-1 and "Columbia" ram-wings in 1962. It was also proposed by Lippisch in 1964

[8],

In the 1980s, the thin-airfoil method was once again utilized to study the case
112

of large ground clearances (see [295], [290] and [296]).

Since the flow under a ram-wing is changed by more than ten percent it is

necessary to abandon linear thin airfoil theory in favor of a nonlinear theory in which

the boundary conditions are enforced at the actual airfoil surface (see [57] and [293]).

Another reason for this is that more realistic body shapes and incidences may be

analyzed this way.

Three-Dimensional Finite Wing Theory: Lifting Lines And Lifting

Surfaces (Analytical)

To model a finite (three-dimensional) wing one can replace the wing with a

suitable distribution of singularities. In the simplest approach, the circulation repre­

senting the wing is concentrated on a single line (the lifting line) at the quarter-chord

position on the chord line. The vortex strength varies in the spanwise direction only.

A more sophisticated method entails placing a vortex distribution on the chord plane

that varies both in the spanwise and chordwise directions. This two-dimensional

distribution causes a lifting surface to be formed. A large part of the information

on finite wing theory contained herein is based on the discussions in the books of

Schlichting and Truckenbrodt [297] and Katz and Plotkin [298].

Three-dimensional simple (classical, linear) lifting line theory (analytical)

When dealing with a straight wing of high aspect ratio (greater than three), one

can replace the entire wing with a system of horseshoe vortices whose bound parts

are placed at the quarter-chord position. One models the airfoil shape (thickness and

camber) by using the results from thin-airfoil theory, so that the lift-curve slope is
113

27r and the aerodynamic center is at the quarter-chord. An inherent assumption is

that both the bound vortex and the traihng free vortices He on a plane parallel to the

freestream. A linear relation between lift and incidence is the necessary consequence,

so that one is dealing with a linear theory. Classical lifting line theory allows the

determination of spanwise lift distributions from which lift and induced drag, but

not pitching moment can be deduced. As in thin airfoil theory, upon which this

theory is based, one is restricted to the potential flow around thin airfoils at small

incidences. Lifting line theory was developed just after World War One by Prandtl

and his co-workers (see [241] and [242]).

In the study of ground effect, the lifting line method is utilized in the form of

Prandtl's biplane theory. Both the wing and its image are modeled as lifting lines.

According to [299] this theory will work for ground clearances as small as 90 percent

of chord, so it can not be used for the moderate or strong ground effect.

The use of biplane theory in the study of wings in ground effect was first proposed

by Betz [42] at Gottingen, Germany in 1912. Wieselsberger [45] was first to actually

carry out the work at Gottingen in 1921 and verified his results experimentally (see

discussions in [48], [238] and [18]). The method was also used by Pistolesi [238] in

Italy in 1935, and his paper includes an interesting review (for a discussion of his

work, see [60] and [18]). The decrease in induced drag is due to the upward velocity

component that is due to the presence of the image wing. This reduced downwash

causes the lift vector to rotate forward, thereby reducing the induced drag.

More recently in the 1980s, the method was once again utilized to study the case

of large ground clearances (see [300]). But once again, the method is restricted to

straight wings of moderate to high aspect ratio, with thin profiles and low incidences.
114

Three-dimensional extended (linear) lifting line theory (analytical)

The extended lifting line theory is also known as the three-quarter-point method

and applies to wings of any planform and aspect ratio. It is a second-order extension

of the classical lifting line theory to wings with taper or sweep. It allows for the

calculation of the spanwise lift distribution, but again relies on thin airfoil theory for

chordwise properties (see [297]). In this method, many narrow horseshoe vortices are

placed side-by-side on the arrow-shaped quarter-chord of the wing. The downwash is

then calculated at the three-quarter chord position. The theory is once again linear,

since the bound vortex and the trailing free vortices lie on a plane parallel to the

chord, and since the lift and the incidence are therefore linearly related. The method

is due to Weissinger, Mutterperl and Thwaites. It was first applied to arrow- and

delta-wings in ground effect by Thomas [301] at Braunschweig, Germany in 1958.

Three-dimensional double (linear) lifting line theory (analytical)

Double lifting line theory is another second-order extension of the classical lifting

line theory to planforms of arbitrary shape. Both the lift distribution and the moment

distribution can be calculated. The method is also a linear one, with all vortex

components lying in the chord plane. Ackermann and Bock [302] were first to apply

it to the study of ground effect at Darmstadt, Germany in 1961, and again in 1966

(see discussion in [299]).

Three-dimensional numerical lifting line method

Lifting line theory can be computerized, resulting in the numerical lifting line

method. To start the procedure, an elliptic spanwise distribution of circulation is


115

assumed initially. The first step is to calculate the incidence based on the circulation

distribution. The second step is to find the lift coefficient that corresponds to this

incidence from experimental data. The third step is to determine the new circulation

distribution based on the lift coefficient. This process is repeated until error toler­

ances are achieved. Since the lift coefficient is based on experimental data rather

than on thin-airfoil theory, large incidences, thicknesses and cambers can be treated.

Nevertheless, the wing must still be straight and narrow.

Computational extensions of the lifting line theory to treat the ground effect

were also used by Kohlman [303] at Boeing in the United States in 1958, and by

Binder [304] at Braunschweig (Brunswick), Germany, in 1977.

Three-dimensional lifting surface theory (analytical)

Lifting surface theory applies to wings of arbitrary planform and provides both

the spanwise and the chordwise lift distributions. Thus, reliance on thin airfoil theory

is not necessary and information about the pitching moment can be obtained. The

procedure involves the placement of a number of lifting lines parallel to the pitch axis

or the placing of individual horseshoe vortices all over the planform. This allows for

the study of tapered and swept wings, not just straight and narrow wings. Lifting

surface theory was developed by Burgers and Prandtl in the mid-1930s.

If this problem is posed analytically, the singularity distribution is continuous,

and forms the subject of 3-D lifting surface theory. If several lifting lines are arranged

in series as proposed by Wieghardt, then only rectangular wings can be treated; this

is designated as the multiple-points method. An alternative method is due to Glauert

and replaces the wing with a spanwise series of elementary wings. These elementary
116

wings are vortex ladders that consist of several narrow horseshoe vortices that are

arranged one behind the next (see [297]).

For linear lifting surface theory, the vortex distribution is placed onto a plane,

usually the chord plane. This means that both the bound and the free parts of

the vortices lie in the plane, inaplying a linear relation between lift and incidence.

Just as for thin airfoil theory this implies thin and lightly cambered profiles at small

incidence, and the tangency condition, or kinematic flow condition, is then applied

on the plane rather than on the actual surface. The Kutta condition is enforced by

requiring the vortex strength at the trailing edge to vanish; this condition makes

the solution unique. In effect, linear lifting surface theory is the three-dimensional

extension of thin airfoil theory. The entire wing is modeled as a flat plate at incidence.

The earliest procedures for treating cases in the nonlinear incidence range as­

sumed that the trailing vortex sheets were shed a t half the incidence, i.e., a t a f 2

above the plane of the wing (see [297] and the references to the the works of Bollay

and Gersten therein). This procedure is known as nonlinear lifting surface theory,

and Gersten [305] was first to use that theory in the study of the ground effect while

working at Braunschweig, Germany, in 1960.

An equation for the velocity induced by the entire lifting surface at any point

can be derived. This equation involves a kernel function. The tangency condition is

then expressed in terms of this equation for the induced velocity. The result again

involves the kernel function, which in turn involves the unknown singularity distri­

bution. The tangency condition thus produces an integral equation that relates the

singularity distribution, the incidence, and the camber surface shape. This tangency

statement involves a double integral and is called the fundamental integral equation
117

of subsonic lifting surface theory, or downwash integral. In the direct problem, the
wing geometry, profile shape, and incidence are given and the singularity distribution

is the unknown. This leads to a difficult integral equation that is normally solved

numerically. One method is the kernel function procedure, in which the singularity

distribution is approximated as a polynomial involving a number of undetermined

coefficientsand is often solved through Gauss quadrature.

The first practical lifting surface theory was developed by Multhopp [306] in 1950.

Following Birnbaum, Munk and Glauert he assumed a Birnbaum distribution in the

chordwise direction and a trigonometric interpolation polynomial for the spanwise

distribution. The method was later improved by Mangier and Spencer.

Two- and Three-Dimensional Numerical Methods for Potential Flow:

General Comments

The usual approach for numerically investigating a potential flow is the panel

method, or method of aerodynamic influence coefficients. The body is modeled by


replacing it with many discrete panels to which singularity distributions are attached.

Usually these are flat panels and they are often placed onto the chord line or chord

surface. In that case the numerical method is a linear method and the boundary

conditions are linearized to the chord surface. Also, the singularity density is often

assumed to be constant over a given panel, in which case it is a first-order method.

The advantage of the panel method is that complex geometries can be modeled

and that fewer restrictions apply to the magnitudes of the physical dimensions. For

example, in comparison to thin airfoil theory, numerical methods can be used for thick

bodies and high incidences, so long as separation is properly modeled or does not
118

occur. Also, numerical methods do not break down in the regions of strong curvature

near the leading and trailing edges of an airfoil. Another powerful aspect of panel

methods is that points are located only on the body surface, and not throughout the

domain as in finite difference methods, greatly reducing the number of equations.

The overall computational procedure consists of writing an algebraic equation

representing the boundary condition for each control point, where each algebraic

equation entails the singularity strengths as unknowns. These equations are written

in matrix form and customarily solved through an iterative Gauss-Seidel procedure.

The results are the singularity strengths, which allow computation of the surface

velocities and pressure distributions.

Two-Dimensional Panel Methods (Numerical)

Two-dimensional panel methods are used to numerically solve the Laplace equa­

tion of potential flow around a known airfoil shape (for more details, see [307], [308],

[309], [310] or [311]). The actual body is replaced by a finite number of straight-line

segments that have singularity distributions placed upon them. These segments are

called panels and their edge points are called boundary points or nodes. The flow

tangency condition is enforced at one point on each panel. This point is called the

control point or collocation point and is usually the midpoint of the panel. It is of
course most realistic to place the control points onto the actual surface, but this

location causes numerical difficulties. Boundary points are thus placed onto the air­

foil surface. This is much easier to implement and results in an acceptable error,

particularly in the case of a first-order method.

A panel method is a point singularity method or discrete method if the singularity


119

strength is lumped at one point on the panel. A panel method is said to be a first-

order method or constant-strength method if the singularity strength is constant for


a given panel. If the singularity strength varies linearly along a given panel, it is a

second-order method.
For non-lifting flows the enforcement of the tangency condition at the N control

points results in a system of N equations, with N unknown singularity strengths. The

system can be solved quite readily. For lifting flows, N equations are obtained from the

tangency boundary conditions, as well as an additional equation from the trailing edge

Kutta condition. Since there are only N unknowns, namely the singularity strengths,

the system is overdetermined in that it consists of N+1 equations. This problem can

be resolved in a variety of ways, as discussed below. A further difficult aspect of two-

dimensional panel methods is that the Kutta condition cannot be enforced directly

at the trailing edge. The reason is that the trailing edge proper coincides with a

boundary point, not a control point. Therefore the usual procedure is to express the

Kutta condition in a form that involves the two nearest control points.

Two-dimensional source panel method (numerical)

The two-dimensional source panel method has been used for the non-lifting po­

tential flow over arbitrary two-dimensional bodies since the late 1960s (see discussion

in [311]). Customarily, every panel has a constant and different source strength and

the tangency condition is enforced at the midpoint. The resulting system of equations

can be easily solved numerically.


120

Two-dimensional vortex panel method (numerical)

Lifting potential flows over two-dimensional bodies have been solved with tiie

two-dimensional vortex panel method since the early 1970s (see discussion in [311]).

The method can accomodate thick bodies at high incidences, provided that bound­

ary layers and separated flow regions are either negligible or absent or have been

accounted for. For example, one common procedure to take into account boundary

layers is to represent them by adding a displacement thickness to the actual body.

In the discrete vortex method, one uses a point vortex at the quarter-chord of the

panel and one enforces the boundary condition at the three-quarter chord position

(the method is based on the lumped-vortex element). The method is usually used

for very thin airfoils at incidence. The panels are then placed onto the camber line

of the airfoil.

In the first-order method, the surface is covered with panels of constant vorticity.

This is like wrapping a vortex sheet around the airfoil. The tangency condition is

enforced at all midpoints and the Kutta condition is enforced at the trailing edge.

Since there exists no wake for the two-dimensional case, the Kutta condition serves to

guarantee that the flow leaves the trailing edge smoothly, i.e., that there is no velocity

discontinuity there. Since the trailing edge proper is a node or boundary point of

two panels (panel 1 on the bottom and panel n at the top), the Kutta condition

cannot be enforced there. The ususal procedures are to require that the two vortex

strengths nearest the trailing edge are equal and opposite, or to introduce a fictitious

control point (the Kutta point) just downstream of the trailing edge. Some of the

problems with the method are accuracy problems, difficulties in deciding the number

and distribution of panels, and the troublesome decision of which control point to
121

choose to eliminate to reduce the number of equations to N.

Two-dimensional Douglas-Neumann panel method (numerical)

This pioneering source-based panel method was developed by Hess and Smith

[307] at Douglas Aircraft Company in the mid-1960s (see the discussion in [310],

pages 103-110). The two-dimensional Douglas-Neumann panel method is also known

as the Douglas plane-potential-flow method and as the Douglas-Neumann source-

distribution method with circulation. Part of the name stems from the fact that the

problem of solving Laplace's equation subject to homogeneous boundary conditions

is known as the Neumann problem.

Hess and Smith assigned a constant but different source strength to each straight-

line panel, as well as the same vortex strength. Source panels are used to model

the thickness whereas the uniform vortex sheet provides the circulation. Since the

Laplace equation is linear, the two solutions may be superimposed. Thus there were

N unknown source strengths and one unknown vortex strength, resulting in (N-f-l)

unknowns. The N tangency conditions and the Kutta condition resulted in (N-f 1)

equations, so the system was determinate.

The Douglas-Neumann Method does not perform very well for cases where the

airfoil is thin or where the trailing edge is either sharp or cusped.

With regard to profiles in ground effect, this method was used by Giesing in

Germany in 1964 [312] and 1968 [313] (see discussion in [295]).


122

Other two-dimensional panel methods (numerical)

It is possible to design panel methods based on doublet distributions, but dou­

blets are difficult to deal with and do not allow the Kutta condition to be expressed

explicitly. They also do not fare well for cases with sharp or cusped trailing edges.

Moran [310] also discusses potential-based panel methods, which have the advantage

of yielding the surface velocities without the need for integration. He mentions the

constant-potential method of Morino and Kuo, which is a constant doublet-strength

method that assumes a constant but different potential on each panel. It is not

useful for sharp or cusped trailing edges. This shortcoming is overcome by Moran's

linear-potential method.

Three-dimensional panel methods (numerical)

In the classical linearized surface singularity method a series of lifting lines is

placed onto the planform (chord plane) at small chordwise intervals (see page 261 of

Anderson's book [311]). This results in a grid of rectangular panels on the planform,

as well as a vortex sheet in the wake. The planform is thus covered with two planar

vortex sheets comprising a lifting surface while the wake is composed of trailing

vortices that form the planar wake sheet. The theory is linearized in the sense that the

wing and its wake are treated as a flat surface, with the tangency boundary condition

enforced on the planar lifting surface rather than at the actual wing surface. Each

discrete panel's quarter-chord coincides with the local sweep-back and the tangency

boundary condition is applied at the spanwise midpoint of the panel's three-quarter

chord (see pages 130 to 134 of Moran's book [310]). As in the two-dimensional case, it

is difficult to arrive at a realistic trailing edge condition, since the trailing edge proper
123

coincides with a boundary point and not a control point. The usual procedure is to

express the trailing edge condition in a form that involves the so-called Kutta point,

which is the first control point in the wake (see [309]). At that point, the velocity is

usually required to be tangent to the trailing edge axis, or bisector, and the wake is

initially just an extension of the camber surface.

Schlichting and Truckenbrodt [297] give a description of a general panel method,

which follows here in a slightly altered form. As discussed, one can think of a lifting

body as being comprised of anon-lifting displacement body (displacement problem, or

thickness problem) and a lifting surface (circulation problem, or lifting problem). The
displacement body can thus be modeled by replacing it with a number of discrete

panels that are covered with a source-sink distribution. Usually, the singularity

strength is assumed constant on a given panel. These surface panels are flat and lie

on the surface of the body, tangent to the circumference. A control point is placed

at the center of each panel, where the tangency condition is enforced. Thus, there

are as many tangency statements as there are surface panels.

The circulation is modeled by placing a number of vortex panels on the inner

surface, which is usually the chord plane. These inner panels and the associated
wake vortex sheet comprise a lifting surface. Usually, the lifting surface is composed

of a series of side-by-side elementary wings. Each elementary wing consists of a

vortex ladder, i.e., a chordwise series of individual horseshoe vortices. The chordwise

circulation distribution within each of the vortex ladders is assumed to be a Birnbaum

distribution, with the singularity strength on each given panel being constant. To

each vortex ladder a so-called Kutta control point is assigned at the trailing edge

where the Kutta condition is enforced. Therefore, there are as many statements of
the Kutta condition as there are vortex ladders.

A simplified panel method addressing the ground effect was presented liy Ger-

sten and von der Decken [314] in 1966. The simplification was due to the addition

of a slender-body assumption. They studied wings of low aspect ratio, moderate

thickness, and at small incidence. Singularities were distributed on the surfaces of

the wing and its mirror image. The tangency conditions were enforced at the actual

surface as well. They assumed a linear relationship between lift and incidence and

then used a correction factor to adjust the results for nonlinear effects. The nonlin-

earities were due to the ground effect and to the presence of leading edge separation

for slender wings in general.

Three-dimensional vortex lattice method (VLM, numerical)

The three-dimensional vortex lattice method consists of placing horseshoe vor­

tices that have very short bound parts all over the planform, resulting in a lattice

work composed of trapezoidal panels (see [315]). In the linear VLM the entire lattice

lies on a plane that is either parallel to the freestream or parallel to the chord line,

which makes the wake planar as well. This is analogous to thin-airfoil theory where

the tangency conditions are linearized to the plane. By contrast, the nonlinear VLM

provides for a curved wake and the panels are on the mean camber line.

This method was first applied to the study of wings in ground effect by Licher

[56] working for Douglas at Santa Monica, California, in 1956 (see discussion in [57]

and [299]). A modified version was used by Gray [316] in 1971 in his study of a

rectangular wing operating in a rectangular trough (see discussion in [317]).


125

Three-Dimensional Wings in Close Ground Effect: Early Methods

(Analytical)

There are several simpler ways of modeling the gap flow underneath the wing.

Their purpose is to provide a pragmatic solution for application to the preliminary

design process. Their common feature is that they all assume a perfect seal at the

wingtips, so that the induced drag is identically zero. The simplest method is to

neglect the gap flow altogether and to simply assume that the flat bottom of the

half-body is acted upon by the freestream pressure; this is called the solid half-body

theory. Another method is to assume that the gap flow has stagnated fully so that the
wing's underside is at stagnation pressure; this is called the vented half-body theory

and was proposed, among others, by Lippisch. It has also been proposed to treat the

problem like a ring-wing. Here, the flow around an empty engine shroud is calculated

with the bottom half discarded.

Three-Dimensional Wings In Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic Linear

1-D Channel Flow Theory (Analytical)

If a wing has end plates that greatly reduce leakage, if the ground distance is

much smaller (ten percent) than the chord length, and if all other geometric parame­

ters (incidence, camber, thickness) are much smaller than the ground distance, then

the flow within the channel formed between the wing and the ground can be approx­

imated as being one-dimensional. Asymptotic Linear 1-D Channel Flow Theory is

based on the assumption that the ground clearance is no larger than ten percent of

chord; this is known as the small-gap assumption. Indeed, the governing equation
126

for the flow is essentially just a statement of continuity; the mass flow rate under

the leading edge equals the sum of the mass flow leaking out beneath the end plates

and the mass flow exiting from underneath the trailing edge. The theory is called

linear in the sense that the tangency boundary condition is not enforced at the actual
airfoil surfaces, but on a line that is parallel to the ground. Lastly, since the wing is

thin and so close to the ground, the external flow is assumed to remain unaffected at

leading order, so that thin airfoil theory can be used to analyze it.

One variation of this theory does not include a leakage model and is known as

closed channel flow theory. It was developed by Royce and Rethorst [108] in 1961
and first utilized by Strand, Royce and Fujita [111] at Vehicle Research Corporation

in 1962 [69]. They were designing the VRC-1, which was a model of the full-scale

ram-wing craft "Columbia". The external flow was modeled as a mound flow, which

is thin airfoil theory applied to the flow over a distribution of sources on the ground

plane. The same theory was used by Ashill [128] in Japan in 1963 in the analysis of

Kawasaki's ram-wing boat, the KAG-1 [69].

The first leakage model was incorporated into the theory by Ando [127] at

Kawasaki in 1966. His model displayed infinite velocities under the sidewall, which he

graciously admitted. The first practical leakage model was developed by Gallington,

Miller and Smith (see [69] and [70]) in their design of ram-wing vehicles at the U.S.

Air Force Academy in 1971. They treated the leakage as a simple slit orifice problem.

The approach was also used by Tan [210] at the University of Massachusetts in 1972

and by Boccadoro [71] working at M.I.T. in 1973.

Gallington and his co-workers ([69] and [70]) tested ram-wings in a wind tunnel

using the image technique and reported good agreement of pressure distributions and
127

resultants with their theory. However, as Tan [210] showed, the results did not agree

well with the two-dimensional channel flow theory that will be discussed next. The

two theories diverge strongly as the ground clearance increases, but they both show

the nonlinear dependence of lift on incidence and ground clearance.

Three-Dimensional Wings in Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic Linear

2-D Channel Flow Theory

A more rigorous asymptotic development of channel flow theory was pursued by

Widnall and Barrows (see [199], [153], [255], [318] and [154]) at M.I.T. between 1969

and 1972. They were initially interested in tube flight ram-wing vehicles, but their

design eventually evolved into a vehicle that flew in an open trough. In their asymp­

totic linear 2-D channel flow theory they allowed for two-dimensional flows in the

vicinity of the leading and trailing edges, since the curvature of the streamlines is ob­

viously very strong there. These local solutions are called edge flow solutions and the

regions are called inner regions since they require inner expansions (asymptotic se­

ries) of the flow variables. Following the Method of Matched Asymptotic Expansions

(MMAE) the two-dimensional inner solutions were matched to the one-dimensional

channel flow under the wing. Barrows and Widnall verified the results of Gallington,

Miller and Smith for cases where the effects of the airfoil edges are ignored.

The inner solutions allowed the treatment of typical airfoil shapes, but since the

channel flow was assumed to be one-dimensional, the theory was still restricted to

thin wings that were nearly parallel to the ground. Indeed, the theory was again

linear since the tangency boundary condition was enforced on a line parallel to the
ground. Also, the rear stagnation streamline was assumed to proceed parallel to
the ground. A criticism offered by Boccadoro [71] was that the method was too

complicated for design applications. Nevertheless, it was used by other researchers

in the 1970s (for example, Kida and Miyai in Osaka, Japan [319], Miller at Brown

University, U.S.A. [160] and Curtiss and Putman at Princeton University [72]).

Three-Dimensional Wings In Close Ground Effect: Asymptotic

Nonlinear 2-D Channel Flow Theory

The linear theory of Widnall and Barrows discussed above was extended by

Tuck at the University of Adelaide in Australia in 1979 (see [320], [321] and [322]) to

accomodate cases where the geometric parameters are of the same order of magnitude

as the trailing edge ground clearance. In this case, the theory is nonlinear because

the tangency boundary condition is enforced at the actual airfoil surfaces instead of

being linearized. The resulting asymptotic nonlinear 2-D channel flow theory can be

used to analyze more realistic problems, for which the incidence is near six degrees

and the thickness and camber are near ten percent of chord. However, the flow is still

assumed to be inviscid, irrotational and steady. The nonlinear theory was extended

to three dimensions by Newman [323] in 1982, with the assumption of zero leakage
at the wing tips.

Three-Dimensional Wings in Extreme Ground Effect: The Growing

Influence of Viscosity

It is not exactly clear at what ground clearance the viscosity becomes a significant

factor. No flow visualization experiments have been carried out to determine how

the ground effect changes the nature of turbulent boundary layers on an airfoil in
129

comparison with the isolated case. Also, it is not clear whether there are recirculating

flow regions underneath the airfoil, or whether friction choking occurs as the boundary

layers grow to effectively seal off the trailing edge gap.

Bagley [57] claims that boundary layer calculations are needed when ground

clearances become smaller than twenty percent of chord. This is particularly true

when pressure distributions are desired and especially near the trailing edge. If this

is really the case, then the inviscid channel-flow theories cannot be correct, nor can

the numerical panel methods when applied to the strong ground effect.

It is certain that the viscous terms and inertia terms come into play together once

the ground clearance approaches the thickness of the boundary layers cis calculated

for an isolated wing. In that case, the entire underbody flow is governed by boundary

layer equations. The corresponding boundary layer theory was presented in a 1983

paper by Tuck and Bentwich [324]. One can also resort to Euler calculations with

boundary layer models (see [325] and the discussion in [326]) or even to full Navier-

Stokes solvers as Hashiguchi, Ohta and Kuwahara did for automotive aerodynamics

(see [327] and the discussions in [290] and [326]).

In the unlikely event that the ground clearance becomes smaller still, the inertia

forces become negligible in comparison with the viscous forces. In that case, the

underbody flow is governed by lubrication theory.


130

CHAPTER 7. THE STUDY OF WING SECTIONS IN GROUND

EFFECT

In this chapter an approach to designing a wing for use in ground effect is laid

out. The review of the theoretical literature in the preceding chapter has shown that

very little experimental data exist to verify those theories. This indicates the need

for an experimental investigation of the flow phenomena occurring in ground effect.

The aim of this work is to determine the feasibility of a train that uses the

aerodynamic ground effect for levitation. The first question that needs to be answered

is whether the wing can produce sufficient lift to suspend the train. It is therefore

crucial to properly predict the performance of a wing in ground proximity. The

logical first step would seem to be an experimental study of a wing section near the

ground. Studying a two-dimensional wing section is useful because three-dimensional

effects are avoided and the relevant flow phenomena may be more readily identified.

In order to witness such flow phenomena, flow separation needs to be avoided. Since

flow separation is related to the severity of the pressure minimum on the upper

surface near the leading edge, extreme pressures in that region need to be avoided.

As it is expensive and laborious to construct a series of wings for the wind tunnel,

it is more practical to develop a preliminary theoretical method for estimating the

presssure distribution on the wing section. It is for these reasons that a preliminary
131

inviscid panel method is developed in Chapter 8. The panel method was used to

design a wing section that showed a mild pressure minimum, in the hope that flow

separation would be avoided. That wing section was then tested in a wind tunnel

to provide insight into the flow phenomena and to produce a set of experimental

data (Chapters 9 and 10). A comparison of the theoretical and experimental data

point the way to an appropriate theory for wing sections in ground effect (Chapter

11). The comparison will clarify whether it is necessary to include boundary layer

calculations in the theoretical model to account for viscous effects. The resulting

theoretical model can be used to optimize the wing section. In the case of the ram-

air train, the wing geometry is severely limited to minimize the cost and unsightliness

of the guideway. The most pressing goal of the design is therefore to maximize the

lift.
132

CHAPTER 8. A PANEL METHOD FOR PRELIMINARY WING

SECTION DESIGN

Motivation for an Analysis Using an Inviscid 2-D Panel Method

Before setting out to test a profile in the wind tunnel, it is necessary to develop

an analysis tool for the design of a section that avoids flow separation on the top

surface near the leading edge. In this way the underbody flow can develop without

being influenced by the separated flow region of the top surface. Also, in terms of an

actual terrafoil train, flow separation would lead to high drag levels.

The wind tunnel test is expected to yield results that will point the way to the

proper analytical approach. But for now the goal is to obtain preliminary insight, so

the choice is a two-dimensional panel method.

A number of vortex panels will be distributed on the actual surfaces of the profile

and of its mirror image. Each surface will be described by prescribing a standard

ten to twelve percent thick symmetric profile and by allowing the designer to vary

the shape of the camber line. Both the thickness distribution and the shape of the

camber line correspond to NACA's four-digit series of profiles. The goal is to design

the camber line such that the steep pressure drop and rise at the top surface just

downstream of the leading edge is minimized. Other fixed parameters of the analysis

are a trailing edge ground clearance ratio of 0.1 and an incidence of 0.1 radians.
133

Figure 8.1: Dimensional geometry of a profile in ground effect

Nondimensionalization

The advantage of nondimensionalizing the problem parameters is that the re­

sults can be easily scaled to any actual geometry that is dynamically similar. The

physical geometry of a profile near the ground is shown in Figure 8.1, with all of the

dimensional parameters identified by a * superscript.

Following established procedures set fourth in the literature, the coordinates and

lengths are nondimensionalized with respect to the physical chord length c*, so that
134

X 2^
c*
Z 7^
c*
.*
X — (8.1)

zl
" ~ c*
h - ^
" ~ c*
Also, the velocities are nondimensionalized with respect to the magnitude of the

freestream velocity, Uoo*5 and the pressures with respect to the freestream dynamic

pressure, f/oo*, which is equal to poo*{voo*)^'

*
V =
Voo
POO = ^ (8-2)

^P = -^
qoo
It is customary (see [311]) to define a pressure coefficient as follows,

Cp = -2 (8.3)
^ O.Spoon^'oo*)^
or as

Cp — p — Poo — 1 — (S-'J:)

according to the Bernoulli equation for potential flow. The velocity potential, which

is defined as
135

needs to be nondimensionalized as well. If the nondimensional velocity potential is

defined as

$= ^ (8.6)
Uoo C*
then Equation 8.5 can be written as

^ (8.7)

Equation 8.7 may be divided by Uoo* and simplified to yield

5$ « 5$ -
^= (8-8>

Since point vortices and vortex sheets will be used in the present panel methods,

the vortex strength and the sheet strength must be nondimensionalized:

i — —T
r* T
(8.9)
^

Coordinate Systems

Let the origin of the global coordinate system be located halfway between the

leading edges of the profile and its mirror image, with the X-axis pointing downstream

along the symmetry plane and the Z-axis pointing upwards (see Figure 8.2). The Y-

axis points along the span of the wings to complete the Cartesian system.

Let the origin of the local coordinate system coincide with the leading edge of

the profile, with the x-axis pointing downstream along the chord hne and the z-axis

pointing upward.
136

mam wmg

5-
flow
direction

image wmg

Figure 8.2: Coordinate systems

The incidence, a, is defined as the angle between the horizontal and the chord

line, which implies that the local coordinate system is inclined with respect to the

global coordinate system by an angle a. The local coordinate system can be ex­

pressed in terms of the global coordinate system. This is most easily accomplished

by a translation and a rotation. In the translation, the temporary (a;', 2') system

is displaced from the global (X,Z) system through a distance described by {dx,dz)-

Thus,

X ' x' ' dx


> =z i
' +- (8.10)
z z' dz
K .
or
137

XJ X —dx
> = •( • + < (8.11)
z' z -dz
Next a clockwise rotation from the temporary (x',z') system to the local airfoil

system (x,z) is performed, as shown in Figure 8.3.

From Figure 8.3 the following two matrix equations can be written:

X cos a — sin Q J
X
* < (8.12)
sin a cos a J
or

J
X cos a sino X
> =
* ' (8.13)
z' — sino cos a z
. . . .

To achieve an overall coordinate transformation between the global (X,Z) system

and the local (x,z) system, Equations 8.10, 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13 are combined, resulting

in:

X cos a sin a X dx
^ _
* < - + < (8.14)
Z — sin a cos a z dz
or

x cos a — sin a X —dx cos a + dz sin a


' —
* < • + < (8.15)
z sin a cos a Z —dx sin a — dz cos a
< ,
138

j zsina xcosa I

xsina

zcosa <

X cos a
z sina

X sina

cos a

Figure 8.3: Rotation of the coordinate system


139

Derivation of a 2-D Vortex Panel Method

In this section a two-dimensional vortex panel method will be derived. It is based

on the assumption of potential flow. The implied assumptions are that the flow is

steady, inviscid, irrotational, and incompressible. As a first approach, separated

flow regions or boundary layers are not modeled, so the flow is also assumed to

be unseparated and to generate boundary layers of negligible thickness. For two-

dimensional irrotational flow a velocity potential in global coordinates is defined as

(8.16)

The flow is governed by Laplace's equation.

= 0. (8.17)

The solution for $ of Laplace's equation is not unique (single-valued) until the

value or its normal derivative is specified at every point on the boundary. The

streamfunction can be defined as:

(8.18)

The geometric parameters of one of the profile's surface segments will be con­

sidered. As is the custom, local panel inclination angles were used initially. But

this procedure led to much confusion regarding the appropriate quadrants and signs

especially when the image airfoil was introduced. A more reliable procedure is to use

vectors at all times.


140

Consider two panels i and j as shown in Figure 8.4. The vector defines

the position of panel i with respect to panel j. The following equations express

relationships between the various parameters of the wing profile. They relate the

midpoints of panels i and j, which are at •^z+1/2^ ('^j+1/2'

respectively:

(8.19)

Here was derived from the fact that ej,j and are orthogonal vectors, so

• eQ^ = 0. The unit vector is found in a similar fashion by using = 0.

Panels i and j are shown in the context of the entire airfoil in Figure 8.5. A

surface coordinate s is defined having its origin at the leading edge. Furthermore,

the length of panel j is and its boundary points are j on the left and j+1 on the

right, with surface coordinates Sj and Indeed, boundary point 1 is at the

trailing edge, with boundary point 2 on the undersurface just upstream. Therefore,

the boundary points and control point are numbered in a counter-clockwise sense,

beginning at the trailing edge (following [310]).

Since the profile will be replaced by many surface vortex panels, the behavior
141

panel j

^i+1/2-
^j+i

I + 1/2 ;
trailing
panel i
edge

wing
bottom

—h
-Y.j 'X-
^ j +1 / 2 -X;
^ i +, 11 .Y:
^"^^+1/2

Figure 8.4: Geometry of panels i and j on the profile


142

N-

> X

Figure 8.5: Airfoil surface coordinates and panel numbering system

of a single point vortex needs to be discussed. The effect of a two-dimensional point

vortex is the same as that of an infinite three-dimensional rectilinear vortex filament

(see [311], for example):

r r r .
^vpj = ; ^ v p j e = 2?!^'

where F is the vortex strength and where the subscript v stands for vortex. Re­

turning to the panel representation of the wing profile, panel j is assumed to have a

distribution of vortices 7(3) upon it. Therefore, the panel's entire strength is:

jj = f j{s)ds. (8.21)

The sum of the strengths of the panels representing the profile is just the circu­
143

lation r. Panel j induces the following potential, streamfunction and velocity at a

generic point P with coordinates {Xp,Zp):

where the subscript 9 indicates that the induced velocity has no radial component

(component along dpj).

To find the effect of all N panels at the point { X p , Z p ) , one simply adds each

panel's contribution according to the principle of superposition, which holds for linear

partial differential equations such as the Laplace equation of potential flow. The result

is a summation, such as ^v{Xp, Zp) = ^vpj- Therefore,

Since the tangency condition needs to be satisfied at the control points, the

preceding equations are rewritten for the ith control point instead of the arbitrary

point {Xp, Zp). Let the distance between points i and j be denoted by d^j, and let

the corresponding angular position be Thus,

'^vi = - lis) Hdij{s))ds^ (8.24)


144

The derivation to this point is general, with no restrictions on the shape of the

panel or the distribution of vorticity. To simplify the problem, the strength of the

vortex distribution is assumed constant on a given panel, so that

7(s) = 7j = constant (8.25)

on panel j. The vortex strength can be factored out of the integral operation of

Equation 8.24 to yield:

The key to the panel method approach is to write expressions for the boundary

conditions at the control points. The flow tangency condition states that the flow

cannot penetrate the airfoil surface. Therefore, the normal component of the velocity

must be zero, i.e., Vn = 0, at the airfoil surface. The velocity at any point on or near

the airfoil has contributions from the oncoming freestream and from all N panels.

Let the freestream component be identified by a subscript oo so that:

Voo = VooL + OK = li, (8.27)

where the number one indicates that all velocities are nondimensionalized with re­

spect to the freestream speed.

At this point the tangency condition for panel i may be written as:
145

vn —0

(8.28)

where is the velocity induced at panel i by the vortex distribution, and Vqq is the

freestream velocity vector.

This expression of the tangency condition at control point i is the key to the

panel method. It is applied at all control points to obtain a system of N equations

in terms of the unknown N vortex strengths, 7j. To make the system unique, the

Kutta condition needs to be applied at the trailing edge. To this end, an additional

panel is defined. This new panel (N + 1) is placed downstream of and adjacent to

the trailing edge. Panel (N+1) has the same length as panel One (£]^) and is oriented

such that it lies on the trailing edge bisector, i.e., its surface angle is given by

% + (gi - 180^
^iV+1 ^bisector (8.29)
2
where

= arctan

arctan

(see Figure 8.6). Therefore, the coordinates (^yv+l/2''^iV+l/2^ control point

N+1/2 are (X]^ + 0.5£]^ ^bisectori^l ""0-5^1 bisector)- control point is


also called the Kutta point.
146

trailing
edge

-i^V+1
iV+I
Kutta point

li

Figure 8.6: Definition of a wake panel

The Kutta condition is approximated by enforcing the tangency condition at the

Kutta point. This provides an extra equation, so there are now (N+1) equations.

Since there are only N unknown panel strengths the system of (N+1) equations is now

overspecified. It needs to be reduced to N independent equations. This is achieved by

simply dropping one of the tangency conditions on the profile and replacing it with

the Kutta condition. The problem is finally fully defined and the solution consists of

solving a system of N tangency conditions of the form of Equation 8.28 above.

Once the N vortex strengths, 7j, are determined the total circulation is computed

according to

N
r = E ij^j- (8.30)
i=i
The lift per unit span is according to the Kutta-Joukovsky Law,
147

t = L'* = poo*voo*V*. (8.31)

where F* = c*Uoo*r from Equation 8.9. The two-dimensional lift coefficient is

obtained by dividing Equation 8.31 by q%Q = 0.5poo*voo*^c*:

By convention the nondimensionalized lift coefficient is designated as C£, and less

commonly as i or L'. The symbol L' is used in many plots in this dissertation.

To understand the flow around an airfoil it is very important to know the pressure

distribution on the surface of the airfoil. That surface pressure distribution is related

to the tangential surface velocity distribution, which is in turn related to the panel

vortex strengths. The tangential (surface) velocity, at a given control point i is

the sum of contributions from the freestream velocity, from the velocity induced at

point i by all other panels, and from the velocity induced at the ith panel by itself:

( ^ \
^si ~ ^oo,st (8.33)
i=i

Each of the three terms in Equation 8.33 is analyzed in turn. An expression for

was derived in Equation 8.19, and will be needed to find the tangential components

of the three contributions to the velocity at a given point. The tangential component

of the freestream velocity is:

^oo,sz ~ V.OO ' tti — 0-D ' Hi /ooi\

- •
148

Again referring to Equation 8.19 as well as to Equation 8.26, the tangential

velocity induced by all N panels (except panel i) at panel i is:

yN _ yN • • e+-
(8 35)
1 (^N f^i+1 1 ^ ^ ^ ^
Ssf'J^f-Diisyki-
... --12^
Next, the tangential velocity induced by the ith panel at its own control point

needs to be found. By using panel-fixed local coordinates (which will be designated

as (^, r/) here) and a careful limit process, Katz and Plotkin [298] (pages 84-86) show

that the tangential velocity at any point on the panel is

= = (8.36)

where the plus and minus signs refer to the top and bottom side of the panel, respec­

tively. In a similar manner Katz and Plotkin [298] show that the normal velocity is

zero. These limit processes are discussed at a later point in this dissertation. They

are not included at this point in order not to interrupt the flow of the derivation. For

the case of a constant singularity strength 7j on the ith panel, the tangential velocity

at the top surface is therefore given by:

= f• (8-37)

It is now possible to find the surface pressure coefficient according to Equation

8.4:

(8.38)
149

*
oo
m'le

Figure 8.7: Leading edge moment due to panel i

Armed with the pressure distribution, the moment around the leading edge can

be found. Referring to Figure 8.7, the ith panel contributes to the moment about the

leading edge as follows:

M'lEi = -L'i (A'f+i/a - *1). (8-39)

where is the lift per unit span due to the ith panel, i.e., = /5oo*i^oo*r*.

Replacing L'^ with poo*Voo*T* yields:

M'LEi = - 4)- (8-«)


0
By dividing Equation 8.40 by = 0.5/9oo*Voo* c* , the leading edge moment

(per unit span) is nondimensionalized:


150

, ft M '*I p^j
M = — i-2 *•)
0.5/)oo*^^C3O* c*- (8.41)
= -2ri(^,+l/2-A^l).
Since the circulation Fj = 7^- * for a given panel i, the moment equation,

Equation 8.41, becomes;

LEi = ~ ^l)- (^•'^2)

To find the two-dimensional moment coefficient, the contributions from all panels

are summed, giving

N
^mLE = LE = LEi- (8-43)
i=\

Extension of the Panel Method to Ground Effect

The ground is modeled by the symmetry plane that is formed by the actual

wing and its mirror image. This is not exactly correct since in the actual flow the

velocity at the ground plane is that of the freestream; here the velocity at the ground

is allowed to take on the same value as the underbody flow.

The equations for the image wing will be developed in this section. A local right-

handed coordinate system {x^z) is defined for the image wing as shown in Figure 8.8.

This local system is rotated through an angle a = —a with respect to the global

(X,Z) coordinate system. It is also displaced through a distance {dx,—clz) from the

global origin.
151

a = —a

Figure 8.8: Coordinate system for the image profile


152

If one replaces the a in Equations 8.14 and 8.15 with d = —a and the dr with

- dz, one obtains the coordinate transformations for the image wing,

X cos Q — sin a X dx
^
X < • + ^ (8.44)
z a z

ih
sin Q cos

1
»•
X COS a sin a —dx COS a + dz sin a
• =
X - - + < (8.45)
z — sin a COS a Z dx sin Oi + dz cos a

where cos(—q) = cos a and sin(—a) = —sin a. One sets up the panel geometry

just like before and obtains the same expressions for the associated position and unit

vectors (see Figure 8.4 and Equation 8.19).

Again by analogy to the actual profile, a Kutta point is established for the image

profile as shown in Figure 8.9. Also note the node numbering on the image wing.

The {N + l)th panel lies on the trailing edge bisector so that its inclination is

jV+l bisector 2 (8.46)

where

0^ = atan (8.47)

0^ = atan (8.48)
\X7-XrJ'

Just as for all other control points, the tangency condition is applied at the

Kutta point.

The solution of the system consisting of the actual and the image profile consists

of writing the tangency condition for 2N of the 2N+2 control points. Assuming each
153

;V + 3 +1
2iV+2

N + NCHORD •IN - I
iV- 1

Figure 8.9: Kutta point and numbering system for the image profile

panel to have a unique and constant vortex strength one expresses the influence of

all 2N panels upon the ith panel as

^vi = - ^ (8-49)

which is based on Equation 8.26. One then apphes the tangency condition as before

(see Equation 8.28) to obtain

=0

— ILi §Lni

+ ^^oo)-im (8-50)

-vi ' ^ni • ^ni


- ^vi ^ni• + '

The resulting system will consist of 2N equations of the form given in Equation
154

8.50. As explained before, two of these equations will be replaced by the two Kutta

conditions. The system of 2N equations can be inverted using the Gauss Reduction

method and provides the 2N unknown vortex strengths. These strengths include the

effect of the image profile upon the actual profile.

One then focuses on the actual profile to compute the lift and moment coefficients

as discussed in the previous section. From Equations 8.30. 8.32, 8.38, 8.42, and 8.43

one may compute the resultants and the surface pressure:

CI = =

^pi ~
(8.51)
M'lEi = -^•fAiXn.i/2-Xl)
CraLE = ^iLl^'lEi-

At this point the equations for the two-dimensional constant-strength vortex

panel method have been developed. They can be used to solve the flow around a

wing and its image.

Discrete Vortex Code

The simplest way of implementing the preceding 2-D vortex panel method is to

lump a given panel's singularity distribution at its midpoint. This eliminates the

need for all integration since all geometric parameters refer to the midpoints of the

two panels and do not depend on the surface coordinate s. Indeed, Equations 8.19

may be used directly. Since d^j{s) = the expression for the transverse velocity

induced at panel i by all panels, Equation 8.26, simplifies to


155

(8.52)

The tangency condition, Equation 8.50, can be rewritten with the help of Equa­

tions 8.52 and 8.19:

/ . - , . ^ • f •\ / 7 • _ 7 • , .\

(^i+1/2 - *i+l/2) (^i+1 -

There are 2N + 2 of these tangency conditions, one for each of the 2N control

points, and one for each of the two Kutta points. A pair of the tangency equations on

the airfoil are eliminated to make room for the two Kutta conditions. Once the 2N

vortex strengths are found, Equation 8.51 can be used to solve for the lift coefficient,

surface pressures, and leading edge moment coefficient:

CI = 2r = Eyi7j<j
Cpi =
(8.54)
M'lEi =

CmLE = Eill'W'ifir
156

where is found from Equations 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, and 8.36:

^si ~

The dot product of the two unit vectors can be carried out using Equation 8.19,

and Equation 8.55 becomes

(8.56)

+hi-

The solution of the discrete vortex code consists of Equations 8.54 in conjunction

with Equation 8.56.

Vortex Panel Method

In the preceding sections the discrete vortex method was discussed. This method

is the simplest of the methods. In the next section, the constant-strength vortex

panel method will be described. This method is the next level of difficulty above

the discrete vortex method. In order to develop the constant-strength vortex panel

method, some very general expressions for vortex panel methods will be the focus

of the present section. These general expressions will then be simplified to treat the

constant-strength vortex panel method in the next section.


157

Following the procedure developed by Katz and Plotkin [298], the following

derivations are carried out using a panel-fixed coordinate system. Refering to Figure

8.10, the a:p-axis coincides with the panel surface, while the zp-axis is perpendicular

to it. The goal is to determine the induced effect of the panel on some point Q

{xpQ,ZpQ) on or exterior to the airfoil. The panel extends from 0) to 0)

and features some distribution l j { 0 vortices. Similar to x p , the variable is a

surface coordinate, and it is used to describe a generic location along the panel.

Consider a differential length of the panel. Its differential vortex strength is

(ITj — The radial position vector and its magnitude together with

the unit position vector are:

(8.57)

Since the transverse (circumferential) unit vector is perpendicular to the radial

unit vector, it can be written as:

(8.58)

The differential velocity induced at Q due to the differential vortex element is

(refer to Equation 8.20):


^0 /

;Ul
xet®'

wte
159

dTj
- ^-6QI^^^^
2irrQj

= '^^xQl^h^^^zQIih-
Also, the differential velocity potential induced at Q due to the differential vortex

element is:

= '' 27r

It is now a simple matter of integration to determine the induced effect at Q due

to the entire jth panel (using Equations 8.57, 8.59 and 8.60). Integrating over the

panel's length, i.e., from Xpj to yields:

For the purpose of determining the surface pressure distribution, the tangential

velocity at the actual panel surface must be found. For now let ZpQ —> 0, with

(XpQ — ^) remaining finite in the expression for v^pQ jj in Equation 8.61. The ZpQ

in front of the integral dominates the limit behavior, so

t:pQlj^^pQ'^pQ 0) - (8.62)
160

which says that the tangential velocity at the panel surface is zero so long as x^q is

not very near However, if one chooses a limit in which both ZpQ and {xpQ — 0

are approaching zero at the same rate, then

(8.63)

From Equation 8.63 above, the integral goes to zero for all values of except

when ^ ~ ^pQ' ~ pulled out of the integral, resulting

in

V .^pj+1 ^pQ

(XpQ-O->0
^ '^j^yo) lim r^pi+1 1 dj
-TT- JXpj /X 'pQ-
(^pg-O-^0 ( 2pQ j +
(8.64)

Now substitute the following variables (following [298], pages 84-86 and 272-273),

A= = finite 7 ^ 0 ; dX = — ( 8 . 6 5 )
"pQ ^pQ
so that the integral simplifies to

( ^pQ ^PJ+1 1 d\
Vg/i( ) - 2K ^pj P+1
pQ-"^ (8.66)

•f •
161

In conclusion, given any distribution of vortices on a flat panel, the tangential

velocity induced by that panel at a point x^q on its own surface is simply one-half

of the vortex strength at that point:

In this section, very general expressions for vortex panel methods were derived.

In the next section, the constant-strength vortex panel method will be described.

Constant-Strength Vortex Panel Method

In the constant-strength vortex panel method, the vortex strength is taken as a

constant on a given panel, so that

IjiO — Ij — constant. (8.68)

Substituting Equation 8.68 into the integrals in Equation 8.61 yields:

It is possible to simplify Equations 8.69 (see [298], pages 272-273 and 573-574)

by first integrating the expression for the velocity potential The velocity compo­

nents can then be obtained through differentiation of the resulting velocity potential

equation with respect to x ^ q and respectively.


162

The integral

/= r^j'+lardanf (8.70)
Jxr.^
-PJ \x„n-U
^
can be evaluated by making the substitution

X = _1pQ_ (8.71)

so that

2
dX = —^9—^di = -—di (8.72)
( ^ - ^ p Q) ^p Q

from which

= -^pQ^~^dX. (8.73)

~nO
The limits of integration become A,- = ;;;—^ ^vO
and A.-i i = -r:—.—, , so
J Xpj XpQ J-ri Xpj^l XpQ
that

I =—ZpQ X '^arctanXdX. (S.74)

Equation 8.74 can be integrated by parts. Let the variables u and v be defined

as follows:

u = arctanX
dv — x-'^dx
(8.75)
du _ 1
1+A'^
V = -A-1.
163

After integrating by parts and some simplification, the integral in Equation 8.74

becomes:

I = z arctanX ^i+1 _ , ^ /i+i dx


PQ ^ Xj -pQhj rjlA^A^
(8.76)
arctanX ^j+l f
'pQ Xj ^pQ^-
The new integral / is evaluated by defining the following variable. Let

u = 14-A2
du _9
(8.77)
a3-
-du dX

Then

i+1 Uu = _i I n u ^i+i
= _i /^i+1 (8.78)
2 JXj u 2
or

A..i+1
'=-2 (8.79)
A;

so that Equation 8.76 becomes

\arctanX'
1=
yQ[—
, ^pQ
[K^)] -^i+i (8.80)

If A is replaced by — in accordance with Equation 8.71, and if the resulting


? ^pQ
expression is simplified (combining Equations 8.69 and 8.80), one obtains:
164

(8.81)

(a:pj-.Tpg)-'+2pg^

Returning to Figure 8.10, geometric relationships can be written that will sim­

plify the preceding equation:

tanO' • I 1 = — — ^vQ
^"pQ~^'pj+l ^pi+l~^pQ
~^pQ _ pQ
tanOj = X n~x •
J -^pQ -^pj ^pj ^pQ (8.82)

''j+I ~ i ^ p j + l ~ ^pQ)^ + ^pQ'

Substituting Equations 8.82 into 8.81 yields:

^ Q l j ^ ^ p Q ' ^ p Q ^ ~ 5ffK^pi+i ^PQ)^J+I


, r? (8.83)
{Xpj - XpQ )Oj +

The velocity components can now be obtained by taking the partial derivative

of the velocity potential:

Oil
^xpQIj d x pQ
5$ (8.84)
Oil
^zpQIj ~cFi pQ
The differentiations of Equation 8.81 are tedious but relatively simple, and result

in:
165

Oj
Q
j+ 1 top side
— * '
— -
bottom side
'VjT 7TT7J
0; + i

Figure 8.11: Approaching the midpoint from the top

i ^pj+l ^pQ/1
= S K - 'i+1

(^pj ^PQ) +^p(5'

(8.85)

At this point it is relatively easy to determine the effect of the jth panel upon

itself. To show this, the self-induced effect is evaluated at a slight positive distance

from the midpoint of the panel. The geometry of Figure 8.11 reveals that 6j ~ 27r,
U . .
~ 1", and rj_^i = rj ~ By inserting these findings into Equations 8.83 and

8.85 the following is obtained:


166

^ top side
J Kr T ~ I j" —r,~
-^ .. - \ / bottom side
0; ^

Figure 8.12: Approaching the midpoint from the bottom

JJ J
xpjj
XVI7 ^

•• = 0.
zpjj
By analyzing Figure 8.12 in a similar manner, one finds 0.j ~ 0, ~ and
L
rj-^1 = rj ~ and Equations 8.83 and 8.85 become:

*5 = W ,
Ij
= —^ (8.87)
"xpjj
V • • = 0.
zpjj
Comparing Equations 8.86 and 8.87 observe that there are jump discontinuities

in the velocity potential and in the tangential velocities between the top and the

bottom sides of the panel. Also note that the self-induced normal velocity is zero at

the panel's midpoint.

The next step is to recast the Expressions 8.85 for the velocity components into
167

global variables. The geometric relationship between the local (panel-centered) and

global coordinate systems is depicted in Figure 8.13. From the Figure it can be seen

that:

, 'j+1 = +

,a.a8,

(j = ^J^X,+i-XJf + {ZJ^l-ZJf

Using the definition of the dot product, relationships for angles 6 j and &j-^i can

be obtained,

cosOj — ip • Eyj

cosOjj^Y — ip'krj-\-\

and can be rewritten as;

(8.90)
168

k.p
Z

panel j
- Z,- length

- ZJ+l-

- z,Q

K
-rj+l

global •^J +1 4
X
origin

Figure 8.13: Global and local coordinates


169

The problem with these expressions is the uncertainty of what quadrant the

angle is in. To resolve this problem the cross product is used to compute the sine of

the angle:

sinOj = ip X ij - j

/ (M)
\ -J J _\ / (^)li
\ •]
sinOjj^Y — ip ^ ^rj+l
L-\ /Xr^-X: , 1 \ /X, , 1 -X:\ /Zn-Z;_,_i N-
J-
(S.91)

Using the signs of the sine and cosine expressions of Equations 8.89 and 8.91 the

quadrant in which the angle lies can be determined.

Internal Boundary Conditions and Other Difficulties

When the vortex panel method was first programmed (in FORTRAN 77) and

executed, the resulting pressure distribution had an incorrect and oscillatory shape.

Mistakes in the scalar descriptions of the geometry were suspected and the problem

was recast entirely in terms of vector relations. The incorrect results persisted, how­

ever. In efforts to remedy the situation the panel strengths of the top and image

airfoils were forced to be antisymmetric (of opposing signs) and the Kutta condition

described previously was at one time abandoned in favor of the classical Kutta con­

dition (7j = —7/v)- Since the trailing edge Kutta condition was suspected of causing

these problems, the Kutta panel inclination was made adjustable by the user. From

a physical point of view, the wake is expected to be displaced upward by the pres­

ence of the ground. Thus, instead of aligning the Kutta panel with the trailing edge
170

bisector (at an angle ^hisector)'' panel was oriented so that it was closer to being

parallel to the ground (at an angle This should have had the effect of moving

the location of the front stagnation point, resulting in a different circulation. Despite

all of the above efforts the incorrect solutions remained.

The author then came across a remark in the book of Katz and Plotkin [298] that

indicated that the constant-strength vortex panel method only works if the physical,

external tangency boundary condition is replaced with an indirect, internal no-slip


boundary condition. Once this internal boundary condition was implemented for
each panel the code performed as expected. The inclination of the Kutta panel and

the type of Kutta condition were found to have no effect on the solution. Furthermore

the panel vortex strengths were antisymmetric and the code provided results for a

wide range of cambers, incidences, thicknesses, and ground clearances.

The following discussion of the internal boundary condition is based on informa­

tion taken from Katz and Plotkin's book [298], pages 240 and 327-332.

In order to understand why the Neumann tangency boundary condition gives

rise to problems with this method, recall Equations 8.86 and 8.87. These equations

show that the normal velocity induced by a given panel on itself at its own midpoint

is zero. The tangency condition for the jth panel can be written in matrix form:
171

71

72

[aij a2j . . . C'jj • ••^2N+2j\ ' = bj = 0 (8.92)

72iV+2 .
Based on the above comments ajj = 0, which implies that the matrix of influence

coefficients [A] has a zero diagonal. This will cause difficulties with the inversion of

that matrix, even if pivoting is used.

To eliminate this zero self-induced effect, an internal no-slip condition can be

used. This Dirichlet boundary condition follows from the fact that one may specify

the internal velocity potential so that the physical tangency condition will be

met indirectly. For a proof of this fact Katz and Plotkin [298] refer to page 41 of

Lamb's book [328], and an explanation follows.

It is obvious that no fluid should penetrate the physical body. Another inter­

pretation is that no streamlines can enter or leave the region occupied by the airfoil,

i.e., no streamlines may traverse the boundaries. This applies to both the region

exterior and the region interior to the airfoil. Provided there are no singularities in

the interior, no streamlines may begin or end within the airfoil's interior. Therefore

there are no streamlines within the airfoil's interior, and there is no flow at all. The

only possible conclusion is that ^ = constant throughout the interior. The constant

is equal to the value of the stagnation streamline, or body streamline, which is cus­

tomarily chosen to be zero. By the same token the velocity potential is constant
172

throughout the interior,

^int ~ (constant. (8.93)

This then implies that any derivative of equals zero:

^^int - y • . -0
dn ~ IT- ~ (8.94)
^= n i n t = ^-
These are internal tangency and no-slip conditions, respectively. Here the focus

will be on the internal no-slip condition, which can be written as;

0 = "Z int = + ^^oo) • k- (8-95)

To rewrite this condition for the ith panel, Equations 8.19, 8.27, and 8.49 are

used. They are restated here:

, 1 lo-Z, , 1 /ON . /X- , 1 lO-X;

iti =
I J \ h J (8.96)
Uoo ~

These expressions pertain to panels with constant distributions of vorticity. Also

recall expressions 8.85 for the local components of the velocity vector induced at point

Q by the jth panel:


173

^pQH = "^xpQIjk + '^zpQIji^V


= SK'-^i+i]

^zpQIj^^pQ'^pQ^ '

where the radii and angles and their quadrants are known from Equations 8.88,

8.90 and 8.91. The local velocity components need to be transformed to the global

coordinate system. Refering to Figure 8.13 one writes

ip — *i±i_ii'i2 + ( 2i±j_^'i K
Ti T"
(8.98)
hp —

which one can insert into Equation 8.97. Then

(8.99)

where

^XQ/i - ''xpQ/j{-^^'%-^)+"zpQlj[-^
J. (8.100)
/^j.1 -X,;
"ZQ/j = "xpQIiC'i^
"J ^ -J
To find the velocity v ^ q induced at Q by all 2N panels simply use a summation,

2N
^vQ=T.^QIj- (8.101)
i=i
To use this expression in the internal no-slip boundary condition, Equation 8.95,

replace point Q with the midpoint of the ith panel. Then


174

0= + Uoo) -Ih"' (8.102)

where

2N
^vi = L ^i/j^ (8-103)
i=i
and since the tangential unit vector is known from Equation 8.96, rewrite the internal

boundary condition as:

0 =
(8.104)
(^)
where, from Equations 8.100 and 8.97,

'Xi/j = ^[^-''j+l]( ')+^'


1 (8.105)
' Z.,' _L 1 1
"zi/i =
¥
Again, the angles 0 and their quadrants, as well as the distances rj and

are known from Equations 8.88, 8.90 and 8.91:

''j xq - Xj)' + (ZQ - Z j y


r;J+1 - + {Zq -
= -1
~z, ' Z n - Z :
COS [(^^)( ^ ) + ( ^ )(^)]
J
r/X,, 1-Xn /Xn-X;4.n /Z.,-,,-Z.A / Z n - Z ,
= cos
^i+l TJ W J\
(8.106)
175

From the previous derivations (Equation 8.87) recall that the tangential velocity

induced by the jth panel just at the interior of its own midpoint is

= V j ; = -i-

The internal no-slip conditions, Equations 8.104 and 8.107, can be expressed in

matrix form (see 8.92). Note that

ajj = -i (8.108)

in this case, implying that the troublesome zero diagonal has been successfully re­

moved.

Constant Strength Vortex Panel Code - Initial Results

The preceding constant strength vortex panel method with internal boundary

conditions was coded in FORTRAN77 and executed on a DEC 5000/200 workstation

at Iowa State University. That computer has a TurboChannel architecture with a

100 MB/sec bus, 24 Megabytes of RAM memory, 25 Megahertz clockspeed, and a

SPECmark of 19.1. The computer is part of Iowa State University's distributed

computing client-server system called "Vincent". To gauge the effectiveness of the

code it was executed for a NACA 4412 standard profile. The trailing edge ground

clearance ratio was fixed at 200 to approximate an isolated profile. The results

were compared to those from a code by Lockheed Corporation and to experimental

results from page 89 of [297] (for a 4412 airfoil at 16 degrees incidence). Comparative

graphs are depicted in Figures 8.14 and 8.15. The present code was executed using 50

chordwise stations (98 control points on the top airfoil, 198 control points in total).
176

and with the Kutta condition replacing the tangency condition at the midpoint of

the lower surfaces of the two airfoils.

The two panel codes agree quite well, except near the trailing edge and near

the midchord. The disagreement near the midpoint is due to the present method of

replacing the tangency condition there with the Kutta condition. The behavior of

the present code near the trailing edge probably has to do with the close proximity of

other vortices to a given control point near the trailing edge. Such proximity results

in the strong local influence of nearby vortices, causing irregularities near the trailing

edge. The difference between Figures 8.14 and 8.15 is in the incidence used in the

present code, which is 14.73 degrees in the first case, and 16 degrees in the second.

The goal of the first case was to reproduce the lift coefficient of the Lockheed code,

which was 2.188. In the second case, the incidences were equal at 16 degrees, and

the present code returned a lift coefficient of 2.291.

The poor agreement between the panel codes and the experimental results must

be due to viscous effects, especially in light of the large incidence of 16 degrees.

Grid studies were inconclusive but showed irregular solutions for fewer than

25 chordwise stations. In addition, solutions near the trailing edge became irregular

when 150 chordwise stations were used; this may be due to the small size of the panels

and to the resulting close proximity of control points. In conclusion, it appears best

to use between 50 and 100 chordwise stations.

The only effect of choosing a different point at which to replace the tangency

condition with a Kutta condition was that the spike moved from the midchord to

that new point.

To test the validity of the Kutta condition the code was altered to accomodate
12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0
A • Present Code
4.0 •\
• liOckheed Code
X
2.0 A '"~*-
• Exp. Results,
i from [ ]
0.0

-2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.14; Pressure distribution for a NACA 4412


12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0
• Present Code
4.0
Lockheed Code

2.0 A Exp. Results,


from ['2!)71
0.0

-2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.15: Pressure distribution for a NACA 4412


179

the conventional Kutta condition, which is 7^ = —'JJV- The results were identical,

so that the present method of using a Kutta point at the midpoint of a panel just

downstream of the trailing edge is regarded as valid.

The panel vortex strengths were antisymmetric and the code provided results

for a wide range of cambers, incidences, thicknesses, and ground clearances.

Preliminary Design of an Airfoil in Ground Effect

The constant strength vortex panel code was extended to provide an interactive

user interface so that it could be used for airfoil design. The HOOPS graphics library

was used to create a screen on which the user could change the geometric parameters

of the problem. Buttons (rectangles in which the user could click the mouse) were

added to allow the user to initiate the computation and display of the new airfoil

shape and the corresponding pressure distribution. Figure 8.16 depicts a typical

screen.

Once the code appeared to be performing satisfactorily, the author set out to

systematically study the effect of varying certain airfoil parameters, given a ground

clearance ratio of 0.1 and a lift coefficient of 1.5. Standard NACA airfoils were used

for this purpose. The effect of varying the location of maximum camber, the amount

of camber, and the thickness can be seen in Figures 8.17, 8.18 and 8.19, respectively.

Certain trends can be identified based on these three figures. As the goal of the

wind tunnel tests is to study airfoils in ground effect in the absense of flow separation,

sharp pressure gradients must be avoided. As the trends are analyzed, one should

therefore look for airfoils that display small pressure peaks near the leading edge.

Turning first to the effect of varying xcmaxi the chordwise location of the point
180

TraMng Mg* a«trtrc«


O.tZ

1 69477

DIf. Dftttnca (o v-vtcbf

AOO

REOftAW GAAPH COMPUTE PRESSURE

CAPTURE T>HIS SCREEN

Figure 8.16: Design code user interface


2.00

-p
c
0)
1.50
•H
O
•rl • ^'
1.00 '

«W •
0) •$
O
o 0.50 1 • NACA 5212
0) ''««A
M
3 '6^ - NACA 5312
m 0.00
m
0)
M
P4
-0.50
22i22ii
\ * NACA 5412

iiJ
-1.00 1
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.17: Effect of varying the niaxinuun camber location


1.50

+)

S 1.00 * Aa
•H •o A n
o • OA L'n,i
•H
^ 0.50 f *5f
1
o
0 I • NACA 3312

1
(1)
'u,. ' NACA 4312
g 0.00
01
CQ A NACA 5312
a>
S -0.50 • NACA 6312
• • • ^

-1.00
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.18: EfTect of varying the camber


1.50

•p
c:
(U 1.00 1
•H i AA
• O•
o O
•H
IH
0) 0.50
O
O
, • NACA 5310
0)
U 0.00
P
(0 ' NACA 5312
0]
OO
CO
(U A NACA 5314
M
fU - 0 . 5 0 )
k

-1.00
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.19: Effect of varying the thickness


184

of maximum camber (Figure 8.17), note that the leading edge pressure peak grows as

Xcmax is increased. On the other hand, if xcmax becomes too small, a steep pressure

gradient develops near xcmax- It thus appears that a good chordwise location of the

maximum camber might be thirty percent.

Figure 8.18 shows that increasing the camber has the combined advantages of

generating a given lift at a smaller incidence and of reducing the pressure peak near

the leading edge. A good choice for the amount of camber might therefore be five

percent.

Turning last to the pressure distributions for airfoils of differing thicknesses (Fig­

ure 8.19), note that thicker airfoils generate a given lift at lower incidences and display

a less severe pressure peak than do thinner airfoils. It is for these reasons that a thick

airfoil may be best for preventing flow separation. The penalty for thick airfoils is

that the form drag (pressure drag) increases, so that a twelve percent thickness was

chosen.

When the desirable airfoil parameters are brought together, a NACA 5312 (five

percent camber, xcmax = 0.30, twelve percent thickness, see Figure 8) results. The

pressure distribution for that airfoil operating at a ground clearance ratio of 0.1 and

at a lift coefficient of 1.5 is shown in Figure 8.21. The corresponding incidence is 4.8

degrees, and the curve is smooth and displays no severe leading edge pressure peak.

It was therefore chosen as a good candidate for wind tunnel testing.


0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30
o
N
0.20

0.10

0.00

-0.10
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1. 00
x/c

Figure 8.20: NACA 5312 airfoil sliape


2.00

4J ^ •• •• •• •
• • •• •
4
c
u)
1.50 •

•.

• •

•3 ' •

1.00 —--T-:
<w * • •
Q) * i,
O • •
0 0.50 *-r-r
d) * >^
3 I ' - *•
- . ,
m
CO
0.00 ^—
•.

^ -0.50 • •
1 •

.•

-1.00 -k
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 8.21: Pressure distribution for NACA 5312, C£ = 1.5, — 0.1


187

CHAPTER 9. CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL WIND

TUNNEL MODEL

Introduction and Initial Ideas

As discussed in previous chapters, each experimental approach has its advantages

and disadvantages. The three methods holding most promise for testing a wing near

the ground are the moving-belt technique, the image method, and testing of a free-

flying model or water-tunnel model. Initially, the author's plan was to build a self-

propelled rig that would operate on abandoned or low-usage railroads (see Figure

9.1). A wing would be mounted at some distance ahead of the front wheels. It would

pass over the gravel, sand, grass, or snow between the steel rails, and be equipped

with pressure taps for pressure measurements. Smoke injectors would be used to

visualize the flow. The trouble with the method is that it is difficult to find railroad

segments that have a sufficiently smooth bed. Given the relatively small span of the

wing (the inside edges of standard gauge rails are 56.5 inches, or 1435 millimeters,

apart), the unevenness created by the railroad ties and gravel would be significant.

A further disadvantage would be that the wing tips could not be fitted with effective

winglets to suppress three-dimensional flow effects. Based on insufficient funding and

on the difficulty of finding appropriate railroads nearby, the author and his Major

Professor decided against this method. For the record, we did find some nice railroad
188

segments west of the city of Boone, Iowa, in the Spring of 1992. The segments belong

to the Boone & Scenic Valley Railroad, which operates a steam locomotive on the

tracks. Their chief mechanical officer, Mike Weddell, was most helpful.

Another of the author's plans (January, 1993) was to build a wheeled test rig that

would be pushed over a level surface by an automobile or van (see Figure 9.2). The

rig was to consist of a four-wheeled chassis whose U-shape would be open toward the

front to minimize interference with the oncoming flow. Mounted to the parallel sides

of the chassis would be seven-foot tall solid walls. These would form a wind-tunnel­

like channel and would be interrupted by plexiglass observation windows. Mounted

between the two parallel walls would be a prismatic wing, smoke injectors, and Pitot

rakes for pressure measurements. The wing would feature pressure taps for further

data acquisition. Video cameras would be pointed at the plexiglass windows to

capture the smoke filaments. The great advantage of this method would be that the

ground effect is properly modeled, with the wing moving with respect to both the

ground and the air. The author did not build the rig because of insufficient funding

for experimental work. Hopefully it will be possible to carry out these experiments

in the future.

In order to perform at least some experimental work it was decided (February,

1993) to build a wind tunnel model consisting of two symmetrically mounted pris­

matic wings. As mentioned before, this is called the image method and produces a

symmetry plane between the two wings. The symmetry plane models the presence of

the ground. The design and construction of the wind tunnel model will be discussed

in the following sections.


189

motor

wing

Figure 9.1: Self-propelled tracked test rig


190

Figure 9.2: Test rig pushed by an automobile


191

Description of the Two Prismatic Wings

The wind tunnel test section was 15 3/16 inches wide, which defined the span of

the wing and its image. The wings were prismatic, meaning that their cross sections

had the same external shape at all spanwise locations. Each wing had a chordlength

of nineteen inches and consisted of eleven spanwise pieces (see Figure 9.3). Eight of

these were made of hardwood poplar and had a width of about two inches. Two of the

pieces were made of aluminum 6061T6 and comprised the endpieces. They were 0.5

inches thick. The eleventh and key part of every wing was a two-inch wide aluminum

(6061T6) center section. It featured a very smooth exterior and tiny pressure taps.

All eleven sections had four reference holes at distances of 2.5, 4.5, 12.5, and 14.5

inches from the leading edge, respectively. Their diameter was 3/8 inch and they

were located 0.5629 inches above the chordline. The reason for this odd dimension

was that the holes needed to be colinear and parallel to the chordline to fit onto an

existing fixture used for milling; the hole closest to the trailing edge was centered

between the upper and lower airfoil surface. The four holes were used to align the

pieces on the CNC (computer numerically controlled) mill and to fasten the pieces

to each other during assembly. During assembly, 3/8 inch diameter drill rods with

threaded ends were pushed through three of the holes in the eleven sections. The

fourth hole nearest the trailing edge was not used during assembly because the other

three were sufficient to hold the wing sections together.


192

spaghetti pressure tap tubing

wooden sections

aluminum center

secondary spar
aluminum end piece

Figure 9.3: Top (main) wing during assembly


193

Fabrication of the Two Wings

The work began with two rectangular pieces (20 x 3.25 x 2 inches) of 6061T6

aluminum at S30 each, a rectangular piece of aluminum (40 x 3.25 x 0.5 inches) at

$15, and sixteen rectangular pieces (20 x 3 x 2.25 inches) of hardwood poplar that cost

$60. The 20 x 2.25 sides of the wooden pieces were evened on a planer to ensure two

parallel sides for later alignment on the mill. Four holes were drilled into all wooden

and metal pieces to create reference points for precision alignment. The four holes

formed a line parallel to the chordline, which was here defined as the x-axis. The

line was 0.5629 inches in the positive y-direction, where the y-axis originated at the

leading edge and pointed upwards. Several sets of coordinate pairs were calculated to

govern the numerous exterior and interior paths of the mill. All points were referenced

to the origin at the leading edge. These data files were stored on a personal computer

and downloaded to the mill when they were needed. The airfoil was a NACA 5312

section, and the location of the axis system is defined accordingly.

The half-inch thick aluminum block was cut in half and then to within one-

quarter inch of the final exterior airfoil shape with a handsaw. The CNC mill was

used to perform the exterior cuts on this material to create the two endpieces. The

CNC mill was a Bridgeport Series 1 machine. Bridgeport is a division of Textron

Incorporated. The mill was a three-axis movement machine with spindle speeds

variable between 0 and 3,500 rpm. It used so-called G-codes that were part of the

automatic programming tool (APT) language. The mill could operate manually or

via data fed to it from a personal computer. A typical milling session consisted

of attaching a metal fixture to the moving mill table (see Figure 9). That fixture

had four holes and was carefully aligned at the center of the mill table. A spacer
194

plate of aluminum was laid on top of the fixture, followed by the piece that was to

be milled. The pieces were aligned and fastened by inserting at least two 3/8 inch

diameter steel bolts into the four holes common to all pieces. The tip of the tool was

brought above the leading edge, and that point served as the origin of the coordinate

system. The milling code was then downloaded from the personal computer. The

code's correctness was verified by executing it with the tool barely scratching the

metal. The tool then made a number of paths at increasing depths to produce the

desired piece.

The endpieces served as templates both during the cutting and sanding of the

wooden pieces. The wooden pieces and the two center aluminum pieces were also cut

to within 1/4 inch of their final shape using the bandsaw, and the rest of the material

was removed with a 3/4 inch side-cutting endmill on the CNC mill.

The wooden pieces were sanded, stained, sanded once again, covered with sand­

ing sealer, and finally smoothened with steel wool. A series of three large holes was

drilled at approximately the center of half of the wooden sections to accomodate the

circular aluminum spars and the pressure tap tubing.

The next step was to mill out the interior of the top airfoil such that a 1/8

inch thick exterior wall remained around the 1/2 inch deep depression (see Figure

9.5). These cuts consisted of rough passes with a 3/4 inch diameter endmill and fine

passes with a 1/8 inch endmill. Due to the thinness of the trailing edge, the exterior

wall thickness there was further reduced there to make more space for pressure taps.

Pressure tap locations were chosen to achieve the best resolution on the top side

downstream of the leading edge, since the strongest pressure variations occur there.

For each pressure tap, a 0.4 inch diameter bit was used to drill a 0.2 inch to 0.25
195

Figure 9.4: CNC mill with wooden wing section


196

channels for the pressure tap tubing

aluminum section for the image wing

plastic pressure tap tube

•f^steel tube connected to pressure tap

aluminum section for the top wing

Figure 9.5: The two aluminum center sections during construction


197

inch deep hole in the spanwise direction. The resulting hole was 1/4 inch beneath its

corresponding tap. A 0.2 inch diameter bit (drill number 75) was used to drill a hole

through the pressure tap location into the airfoil, to connect to the previously drilled

spanwise hole. A 0.35 inch long steel tube was then prepared for each pressure tap.

The tube had an external diameter of 0.042 inch and an internal diameter of 0.025

inch. Each tube Wcis tapped into a spanwise hole to a depth of 0.1 inch, with friction

holding it in place.

The reason for locating pressure taps in the image airfoil was to guarantee the

symmetric alignment of the two wings during the experiment. Nine tap locations

were chosen for this purpose. To minimize effort, the interior was not milled out as

was done for the main airfoil. Instead, a 1/2 inch deep and 1/4 inch wide channel was

milled from a point 1/4 inch beneath each tap to a common point near the middle of

the airfoil. That point was 6.5 inches downstream of the leading edge and featured

a 5/8 inch hole. The purpose of the channels and the center hole was to house the

pressure tap tubing. The nine pressure taps were drilled in the same way as described

previously.

A two-foot clear piece of plastic pressure tap tubing (0.065 inch external diam­

eter) was attached to the steel tube belonging to each pressure tap. It was then

threaded through the hollow center of the respective circular main spar and labeled.

Both spars were 12-inch long pieces of 1000-series aluminum conduit with internal

and external diameters of 1.0 and 1.25 inches, respectively. The two center aluminum

wing sections received a 1.25 inch hole at 6.5 inches from the leading edge and 0.9

inches from the x-axis. Both spars were then welded to their respective center alu­

minum wing section at Iowa State University's Metals Development Shop (at a cost
198

of $30). Holes were drilled into the spars at the end furthest from the airfoils. Tliese

holes could later accomodate a steel rod that was exactly parallel to the chordline.

Each rod served to both measure and adjust the incidence of the corresponding wing.

The stresses at the root of the circular main spars (near the wing suspension mech­

anism) were calculated assuming a lift coefficient of 1.5, a factor of safety of 1.5, a

cantilevered Euler-Bernoulli beam, standard atmospheric conditions, a freestream ve­

locity of 200 ft/s, and a uniform lift distribution. The predicted lift was 217 pounds,

resulting in a spanwise wing loading of 170 lb/ft. The predicted stress at the root

was just under 11,000 psi, which is safe assuming a tensile elastic strength of 24,000

psi for 1000-series aluminum.

Just prior to final assembly, three of the wooden sections had to be narrowed

using a bandsaw and a planer. The reason was that the pressure taps had to be at

the exact center of the wind tunnel, and that the wings had to exactly fit the tunnel's

width. All pieces were finally bolted together using three 3/8-inch diameter drill rods

for each wing. One end of each of these drill rods had been turned down and threaded

on the lathe beforehand (a 5/16-inch tap with a pitch of 24 was used). Also, a 1/8

inch hole had been drilled at the other end of each drill rod to accommodate a 1.0

inch long steel roll pin. These roll pins fit into slots milled into the two aluminum

endpiece sections. After assembly, the entire wood surface of both wings was painted

twice with a clear polyurethane lacquer to achieve a smooth surface finish. Last, four

pieces of felt were cut in the shape of the NACA 5312 section and glued to the tips of

the wings. These served to seal the flow and to prevent scratching of the plexiglass

wind tunnel wall.


199

Fabrication of the Wing Mounting Plug and Traversing Mechanism

To be mounted in the wind tunnel, models are attached to a circular plug that

fits into a hole in the tunnel wall. In this case, a wing and its mirror image needed

to be attached to the disk such that they could be moved toward or away from each

other in a symmetric manner. In the final design, the circular main spar of each

wing was bolted into a slider block. This slider block was guided by a linear slider

bearing running along a sturdy shaft. Toward the front of the block was a 3/4 inch

hole that housed a 3/4 inch nut at the bottom side. The nut was kept in place by a

machine tap screw in the slider block. A threaded rod ran through the 3/4-inch hole

and was constrained by the 3/4-inch nut. Turning the threaded rod by means of a

crank resulted in vertical motion of the two slider blocks (see Figures 9.6 and 9.7).

The two halves of the turning rod were oppositely threaded so that the motion

of the slider blocks was always opposite. The top half had left-hand threads, while

the bottom half had right-hand threads, so that a clockwise turn of the crank caused

the two wings to move further apart. The two halves were joined by first drilling a

hole with a 0.75 inch depth and a 0.3 inch diameter in the longitudinal direction of

each. Two nuts were brought flush with the ends, and a metal pin was inserted into

the holes to align the two halves. They were then welded together. The threaded

rod had a 3/4 inch diameter and a fine thread with a pitch of 16. Each of the halves

was originally 3.0 feet long and cost $10.

The two-piece threaded rod was supported by ball bearings on both ends. These

had an interior diameter of 0.5 inches, so that the rod had to be turned down to that

diameter on the lathe. The bottom end of the rod also had to accomodate one of

the miter gears, which also had a half-inch bore (internal diameter). The two miter
200

fastener for holding


the mounting plug^^:
to the wind tunnel|i|
wall

mitre gears

crank

Figure 9.6: Outside of the model mounting plug


201

rubber sheets
(seals) covering
slot

threaded rod slider block holding


main spar of the image wing the main wing

slider block holding the


image wing

rectangular plug

spaghetti tubing slider bearing rod

Figure 9.7: Traversing mechanism with slider blocks


202

gears had a twenty degree pressure angle, a hub (exterior) diameter of 1.0 inch, and

cost $13 each. Each had 24 teeth, resulting in a pitch of 16 teeth per inch.

The linear bearing shaft was made of induction-hardened alloy steel, had a di­

ameter of 0.75 inch, and cost $31. The linear bearing consisted of recirculating linear

ball bearings with a friction coefficient of 0.007, and the circular pillow block that

was housed in the slider block.

The circular wind tunnel plug was made of 3/8 inch and 3/4 inch plywood sheets

costing $37. The plug consisted of two circular disks. The smaller disk had a diameter

of 30 inches and a thickness of 1.6 inches and fit into the hole in the wind tunnel

wall. The larger disk was only 0.3 inches thick and had a diameter of 34.0 inches, thus

producing an overlap on the outside of the tunnel wall. The plug featured a 1 3/4

inch wide and 25 inch long slot through which the main spar traveled. That slot was

air-sealed and streamlined by means of two pairs of rubber strips and a pair of nylon

brushes, respectively ($27 for the brushes). The assembled tunnel plug was painted

with sanding sealer, sanded, and painted with a clear lacquer on the exterior. The

side facing the wind tunnel was painted dull black, with a grid of yellow reference

lines at six-inch intervals.

Once the plug was painted, the wing suspension system consisting of the two

movable slider blocks, the threaded rod, the linear bearing shaft, and the two end

pieces, was bolted to the disk using two steel angle irons. The 3.5 inch-long angle

irons had 1.0 inch long flanges and kept the slider blocks at a distance of 0.5 inches

from the disk surface.

The crank was fabricated from a 15 inch long piece of 0.5 inch diameter steel

rod. The rod was heated using an acetylene torch (Civil Engineering Department)
203

and bent into the shape of a crank. A four-inch piece of aluminum tubing was slid

over one end of the crank to serve as a handle. One of the miter gears was slid onto

the other end and fastened with a set screw. The crank was supported by two pieces

of aluminum (2.0 x 3.5 x 0.25 inches). These each had a hole to accomodate the 1/2

inch crank and were fastened to the bottom of the wing support mechanism such

that the miter gears made proper contact.

Just prior to final assembly, two handles were fastened to the outside of the

circular wing support structure to facilitate handling of the structure. At this point

the wings and the wing support were weighed. The weights of the top wing, bottom

wing, and support structure were approximately 15, 18, and 55 pounds, respectively,

bringing the total weight to 88 pounds.

Finally the top wing was attached to the wing support. Its circular main spar

was pushed through the two rubber seals ajid the set of brushes covering the slot in

the wing support. It was then inserted into the 1.25-inch diameter hole in the slider

block and tightened by two set screws in the slider block. A one-foot long 3/8-inch

diameter steel rod was pushed into the holes in the circular wing spar. This rod

served both as an indicator of the wing incidence and to facilitate adjustment of the

wing incidence. This procedure was repeated for the bottom wing.

Fabrication of the Pitot Rake

One desired result from this experiment was the velocity distribution near the

airfoils, and especially between them. Furthermore, the existence of the symmetry

plane between the airfoils had to be verified during the experiment. Thus, the need

arose to design an unobtrusive Pitot rake that could fit between the wings and that
204

could also serve as a wake rake.

The first design had the rake fixture penetrating the tunnel from the top wall.

But since this requires a long support structure and great lengths of plastic tubing,

it was decided to enter the tunnel from the side. Fortunately there was already

a rectangular opening about one chordlength downstream of the two airfoils. Its

height was 43 1/8 inches and its width 20 3/4 inches. A suitable rectangular plug

was built. Its 0.65 inch thick plywood frame had outside dimensions of 47.0 by

25.0 inches. Its main part consisted of a 0.35 inch thick piece of acrylic and a 0.55

inch thick piece of high-density particle board. A rectangular 14 1/4 inch by 19

1/4 inch (height) opening was cut into the lower half of the particle board. This

created a window behind which a manometer board was installed. The Pitot rake

was connected to this water manometer board via plastic tubing. It was possible to

monitor the manometer board from the side of the tunnel that has the transparent

wall. This was the side from which the tunnel and the data acquisition equipment

was operated. Flow visualization experiments were also videotaped and photographed

from there.

The Pitot rake itself consisted of thirteen stainless steel tubes (0.04-inch external

diameter) arranged as shown in Figure 9.8. These Pitot tubes were aligned using scrap

pieces of steel tubing and glued together with two-component epoxy. An attachment

structure was sawed out of a piece of 6061 aluminum and glued to the rake. This

support piece had two parallel rectangular appendages that pointed downward from

the rake. The two appendages were later sandwiched between two parts of the rake

support structure that were fastened to each other with two setscrews. Plastic tubing

(0.065-inch external diameter) was attached to each Pitot tube and the body of the
205

rake was covered with fiberglass matts soaked in structural adhesive. The dried

assembly was sanded, filled, and painted to achieve a smooth surface. The main

objective of this design was to present the oncoming flow with the least possible

frontal area. The geometry of the rake is such that it fits under a wing inclined at

14 degrees.

As mentioned above, the rake was attached to its support structure by sandwich­

ing its two appendages between two pieces of that structure. The support structure

consisted of three metal tubes. The streamwise one to which the rake was attached

was a 0.75 inch diameter hollow aluminum tube. A solid 5.0-inch long aluminum

nose cone was machined and friction-mounted to it. The tube had twenty-seven 0.2-

inch diameter holes drilled at one-inch intervals. The holes were perpendicular to

the tunnel walls. A second aluminum tube was only 4.4 inches long and had 0.2

inch threaded holes at the center of both of its ends. Its ends were also milled such

that it fit snugly against the side of the first tube. One-inch bolts were used to bolt

the short tube to the first tube. The third tube was a 0.75-inch diameter solid steel

tube. Twenty-eight 0.2-inch diameter holes were drilled at one-inch intervals and the

39-inch long tube was bent by 90 degrees 10 inches from its end. The short side pen­

etrated the rectangular wind tunnel plug and was fastened by means of a set screw

when the long side was in a vertical position. The assembly consisting of the rake,

the streamwise tube, and the short connector piece was next bolted to the vertical

solid steel tube. The holes in the streamwise tube and in the solid steel tube allowed

the connector to be moved, thus allowing movement of the rake itself. The plastic

tubes from the Pitot wake rake were passed through the streamwise tube and taped

to the outside of the other tubes. They exited the tunnel through a small hole in the
206

Pitot rake

'' ^ f i

Figure 9.8; Model and Pitot rake in the wind tunnel test section
207

rectangular wind tunnel plug.

Construction of the two wings, the raising mechanism, the tunnel plug, and the

Pitot rake required 56 hours of technician time and 223 hours of the author's time.

The author spent countless additional hours searching for materials, tools, funding,

people, and equipment. But perhaps that is the nature of experimental work.
208

CHAPTER 10. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Description of the Wind Tunnel

After the wings were mounted to the mounting disli, the entire assembly was

inserted into a hole in the sidewall of the test section of the wind tunnel. The

wind tunnel used for this experiment was the Iowa State University Department of

Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics' Low-Turbulence Research Wind

Tunnel. At the time of this experiment, that tunnel was housed in room 130 of

the George R. Town Engineering Building.- The tunnel's name derives from the fact

that most experiments are carried out by faculty and graduate student researchers.

The tunnel was designed by Professor William James of ISU's Aerospace Engineering

Department.

The wind tunnel was open-ended, meaning that it did not recirculate air. A

propeller driven by an electric motor was located downstream of the test section and

causes air to be sucked in at the upstream end. The air moved through several layers

of filters located in the settling chamber (reservoir), accelerated as it traversed the

nozzle, flowed through the test section at a constant velocity, decelerated as it passed

through the diffuser, encountered the propeller, and was finally exhausted through

the downstream end of the wind tunnel (see Figure 10.1).

The tunnel was capable of a maximum velocity of approximately 200 fps, which
•209

smoke supply hose smoke injection tube

test section

model

computer
scanivalve controllers &
amplifiers .
displays

Figure 10.1: Wind tunnel, smoke injector, and data acquisition system
•210

corresponded to Reynolds numbers on the order of two milHon. The tunnel speed

was controlled by varying the blade pitch angle of the sixteen-bladed propeller.

The movable center section of the wind tunnel consisted of a steel frame, with

steel walls toward the upstream and downstream ends, and with acrylic or wooden

walls near the center. The section was 24 feet 2 inches long. The compressor was ten

feet long and its upstream end measured 36 inches in width and 30 inches in height.

The difFusor was 6 feet long and its downstream end was 38 inches wide and 32 inches

high. The test section was 8 feet 2 inches long and its internal cross section at the

center was 74 inches high and 15 3/8 inches wide. The test section's width actually

varied linearly with the length, presumably to compensate for boundary layer growth.

As one looked in a downstream direction at the test section, the right side con­

sisted of an uninterrupted two-inch thick acrylic plate in a steel frame. The top

and bottom walls were acrylic as well, but Ihey featured several access holes. There

was also a Pilot static probe penetrating the bottom wall 13.0 inches from the test

section's upstream end. The probe penetrated 5.0 inches into the tunnel and its

streamwise dimension was 1.0 inch. The left tunnel wall was made of wood, with

steel structural members. This solid wall had several rectangular access holes and a

30.0 inch diameter circular opening into which model mounts were inserted. When

a wing with a 19.0 inch chord was mounted in this circular opening, its leading edge

was 29.0 inches from the upstream end of the test section, while the trailing edge was

50.0 inches from the downstream end (see Figure 10.2).


211

top (main) wing

wind tunnel fan clear acrylic wall

image (bottom) wing

mounting plug

Figure 10.2: Front view of model mounted inside the wind tunnel
212

Data Acquisition Equipment and Instrumentation

The plastic pressure tap tubes were connected to two Scanivalve pressure trans­

ducers (Scanivalve SS2 48). One of the two scanivaives is shown in Figure 10.3,

as is the calibration transducer mentioned before. Each transducer had 48 chan­

nels and was connected to a controller (Scanivalve Corporation, Solenoid Controller

CTLR10P/S2-S6) and to a channel display (Fx Scanner Position Display, Odd-Even

Decoder). The controllers were in turn connected to a data acquisition board in the

personal computer (Hewlett-Packard Vectra 386/25, Model DT-A02, serial number

3115A06896). The output cables of each transducer were connected to an amplifier

(Vishay Instruments, 2310 Signal Conditioning Amplifier), which was in turn plugged

into the computer's data acquisition board (MetraByte DAS-8 board with eight ana­

log inputs, three digital inputs, and four digital outputs). For Scanivalve I, the serial

numbers for the scanivalve, controller, display, and amplifier were 48S9-3011, 717,

857BINY, and 027207, respectively. For Scanivalve II, the serial numbers were 48S2-

153, 797, 997BINY, and 028221. For a diagram of the data acquisition equipment,

see Figure 10.4.

During the experiment, 44 pressure tap tubes were connected to each transducer.

The other four channels were occupied by freestream static and stagnation pressure

lines from the Pitot static tube at the bottom front of the test section. The reason

that the Pitot static tube was connected twice to each transducer was for verification

purposes. The readings indicated whether the transducer was stepping properly and

whether the results remained consistent in the course of the experiment.


213

Figure 10.3: Scanivalve and calibration transducer

Calibration Procedure

The Pitot static tube at the bottom front of the wind tunnel test section was

connected to a differential pressure transducer (Statham 13739, PM5T+/-0.3-350,

accuracy of 0.3 psid, where'd' stands for differential) that served as the calibration

transducer. This transducer's output was amplified and fed into the computer's data

acquisition board. The lines from the static probe were also attached to a crank-type

water manometer.

The system was zeroed with the wind tunnel switched off. The amplifier (2310

Vishay, serial number 029517) was set at a gain of 100 and an excitation of 7, and

the filter was set at 10. The wind tunnel speed was then increased in increments.

At every speed, the change in the water level of the manometer and the number of
214
Poo
^ ' calibration differential pressure
JL transducer, Statham 13739 display II
Ploo PM5T ± 0.3 - 350
SN 997BINY

; controller II : SN
D S H
! Scanivalve II
0P4 OP3
4852 - 153

drive cable II

j Scanivalve I display I
' 4859 - 3011 ••
silver
SN 857BINY
cable:

controller I SN 717

drive cable I

iin'inii)!

calibration
amplifier amplifier amplifier slot 1 computer CPU
SN 029517 II I DAQ ; HP Vectra 386/25
gain = 100 sN 028221 SN 027207 ModelDT - A02
board J
SN 3115A06896
excitation = TV oils filter = 10

Figure 10.4: Diagram of the data acquisition system


215

counts displayed on the computer screen were recorded. The change in water level

Ah was converted to a pressure change Apco using the hydrostatic equation, and the

counts from the calibration transducer were divided by the amplifier gain,

which had been set at 100. A least square fit was performed on the 14 resulting data

pairs to obtain a calibration equation. That equation was:

Apoo = 3.30336Ac^^^ + 0.12745 (10.1)

where the pressure change Apoo is given in pounds per square foot and where the

counts are normalized. At any point, given a number of counts from the

calibration transducer, the corresponding pressure differential is readily obtained.

On completion of the calibration procedure, the crank-type water manometer

was disconnected.

Experimental Procedure

The experiments were carried out between April 8th and May 4th, 1994, and

required 13.0 hours of wind tunnel operation.

Before each run, the barometric pressure was recorded from a mercury manome­

ter and the temperature near the wind tunnel inlet was measured. The data ac­

quisition system was powered up and the two scanivalves were returned to the first

(home) channel. A computer program called "GR0UND2" had been written by the

technician, Mr. William Jensen, to serve as the interface between the experimenter

and the data acquisition system. It was written in the Basic language and prompted

the user for the atmospheric pressure, inlet temperature, length of the model (1.5833

ft), geometric location of the pressure taps, number of scanivalve channels, sampling
216

rate (200 was entered for all cases), and name of the output file. Following that, it

prompted the user to zero the two scanivalve outputs using the two respective Vishay

amplifiers while the wind tunnel was still stopped and the garage doors shielding the

inlet and outlet were still closed. The program then prompted the user to open

the garage doors and to start the wind tunnel. As the propeller blade pitch of the

tunnel was changed, the program computed the viscosity, density, flow velocity, and

Reynolds number. The flow velocity was based on the counts produced by the cali­

bration transducer, which was measuring the pressure difference sensed by the Pitot

static tube. Equation 10.1 allowed the counts to be interpreted as a pressure differ­

ential. Bernoulli's equation could then be used to relate the pressure differential to

the flow velocity:

(10.2)

If one assumes that the density is constant everywhere, then poo =

ambient density q can be found with the help of the perfect gas law:

PAMB = PAMB^'^AMB (10.3)


ft-lbc
where R is the universal gas ^AMB ambient

temperature in degrees Rankine. To arrive at the temperature in degrees Rankine,

one simply adds 460 degrees to the temperature measured in degrees Fahrenheit. The

ambient pressure g was found with the help of a mercury barometer. If h is

the height of the mercury column in inches and B ambient pressure in


lb
application of the hydrostatic equation vields:
217

PAMB = PHg9^ = 70.515/i. (10.4)

Once the velocity was determined, the Reynolds number was computed according

to


tie —
poovoo^
(10.5)
Moo

Here the density, velocity, and model length have already been found, and the

air viscosity was computed based on the ambient temperature.

Once the proper Reynolds number had been attained (1.8 million in most cases),

the program instructed the data acquisition board of the computer to step through the

scanivalves' channels and to record the data. After every step of the transducers the

corresponding count was plotted at its streamwise location on the computer screen.

The resulting plot was proportional to the pressure distribution. The plot allowed a

first check of the data and also showed the nine points from the pressure taps on the

image wing. Symmetry of the flow was assumed whenever the nine points fit in with

the data from the top wing. The maximum magnitude of the count axis was 2048,

and it was sometimes necessary to adjust the gain of the amplifier in order to generate

maximum counts whose magnitude did not exceed 2048 and whose magnitude did

not fall below 1000. Whenever the gain was changed, the system had to be rezeroed

and the run had to be repeated.

For each run, the gain settings, Reynolds number, and trailing edge ground

clearance ratio were recorded on paper. Also, the computer stored the barometric

pressure, the temperature, the count from the calibration transducer (Ac in Equation

10.1), the velocity, the incidence, and of course the counts that corresponded to each
218

of the pressure taps, together with their streamwise locations.

The author wrote a Fortran computer program to convert the experimental

data into pressure coefficients. The first step for each scanivalve was to average

the two counts for the static freestream pressure and the two counts for the stagna­

tion freestream pressure. The reason that the two scanivalves were distinguished was

that a given pressure differential did not result in the same count from both trans­

ducers. For both cases, the average static pressure count was subtracted from the

average stagnation pressure count to obtain an average pressure count differential,

Acoo- At this point it was already known from the calibration Equation 10.1 that

the calibration transducer count corresponded to the pressure differential

Apoo sensed by the Pitot static tube. Based on the assumption that the count rises

linearly with increasing pressure one could thus write

^Pi = (10-6)
^Coo

to process the count Ac^ for a given scanivalve channel i. The data acquisition system

was zeroed before the tunnel was started, so that Acj = Cj. The pressure differential,

Apj = PI — Poo 5 also appears in the definition of the pressure coefficient:

Cpi = ^-^ = ^. (10.7)


^ Qoo Qoo

But Ap^ is known from Equation 10.6, so that

Api _ Apoo Acj


c .= = (10.8)
qoo Acoo qoo

The above equation allowed the count from a given scanivalve channel to be

converted to the corresponding pressure coefficient.


219

voon

^mLEi

Figure 10.5: Aerodynamic resultants acting on panel i


220

Once the pressure coefficients were known, the aerodynamic resultants could be

computed. A typical panel i of length /j is shown in Figure 10.5. The nondimensional

resultant force is due to the nondimensional pressure acting on the panel, so

it is normal and pushes down onto the panel. The magnitude of the resultant force

is cjij = The lift acting on the panel is the negative of the component of c^^-

along the perpendicular to the freestream velocity vector:

~ (10.9)

where a is the incidence and 9^ is the surface orientation angle of panel i, that is, the

angle between the x-axis and the tangent to the panel.

In a similar manner, the nondimensional drag acting on panel i is the component

of along the freestream velocity vector:

= —c^j5m(a + (10.10)

The moment about the leading edge due to the pressure force is the trans­

verse component of times the moment arm r^:

^mLEi = +360-7,-))
= - 7,-)i

where is defined as positive clockwise, according to the right-hand rule.

To find the lift, drag, and moment coefficients for the entire airfoil, simply sum

the contributions from all n panels, for example:

= E C„. (10.12)
i=l
221

Problems with the Experimental Procedure

The biggest problem with the model was that it rotated and translated as the

aerodynamic load increased during the start-up. This behavior was not consistent

and the model's alignment had to be checked during each run. Upon inspection it

was found that both slider blocks had play, particularly in a pitching sense. Also,

the setscrews that fixed the wing's main spar to the sliding block of the traversing

mechanism slipped on occasion. Finally, there may have been some torsional and

bending displacement due to the elastic nature of the wing materials. During one

of the first runs, the top wing twisted by 1.4 degrees and bent by 0.3 inches. This

caused the author to take great care to monitor the model alignment thereafter.

The model's incidence and height were accurate to within about 0.2 degrees and 0.1

inches, respectively. This had some influence on the results and may explain why the

top surface pressures near the front of the main and image wings differed slightly in

some cases. It should be mentioned that the digital water level used to measure the

incidence was accurate to within 0.1 degrees, and that the optical characteristics of

the acrylic wind tunnel wall made it difficult to make accurate measurements.

Another source of error was the presence of the top and bottom walls of the

wind tunnel test section. The author began writing a panel code to account for the

presence of those walls, but did not complete that work at the time of the writing

of this dissertation. Nevertheless, those walls may have a significant impact on the

pressure distributions, particularly on the top surfaces of the wings.

Even though the wind tunnel was designed for low-turbulence operation, there

were several sources of perturbances. The test section featured many grooves between

adjacent wall segments and many patched holes from previous experiments. There
222

was also a slight gap between the wing mounting disk and the wind tunnel wall, and

air leaked into the tunnel through the brushes and double rubber seals covering the

slot that allowed the wings to move up and down.

Wind gusts near the entrance and outlet of the wind tunnel were responsible for

some error, particularly when lower Reynolds numbers were investigated.

It is difficult to assess the reliability of the data acquisition equipment. Par­

ticularly on humid days, the readings from the transducers seemed to drift and the

system often had to be rezeroed. On one occasion, the computer output was checked

against simultaneous readings from a water manometer. As will be discussed later,

the two results were very close.

Smoke Visualization

It was known before the experiment that smoke flow visualization in this wind

tunnel was difficult given its relatively high speed and the simple equipment that was

available. However, since a primary aim of this dissertation was a full explanation of

the ground effect flow phenomenon, any smoke visualization was a welcome addition

to the experimental methods.

The smoke injection equipment consisted of a theatrical smoke generator (Rosco

Laboratories, Inc., Fog Machine 1500) that heated theatrical smoke (Selig Chemical

Industries, Fog Juice fogging compound) and sent it through a four-inch diameter

clothes dryer duct to a 0.6-inch diameter copper tube. The diameter of the tube cre­

ated a considerable obstacle to the flow, but it was needed in order to supply enough

smoke for a meaningful visualization. The 7.5-foot long copper tube penetrated the

wind tunnel through the top wall of the test section, 22 inches upstream of the model.
223

It could be moved vertically and was bent 90 degrees near its bottom end. In this

way, the final eight-inch piece of the tube was ahgned with the freestream and acted

as an injector. The smoke thus entered the flow 14 inches upstream of the model.

The smoke was sucked into the test section since the pressure there was lower than

the ambient pressure. The path of the smoke was recorded with a Hi-8 camcorder

borrowed from the ISU Courseware Development Studio, which is where the author

was employed throughout his doctoral program.

The smoke provided some very rough visualization of the events occurring in the

flow. The problem was that once the smoke filament left the injector, it immediately

cooled and grew in diameter and thus became less visible. A further problem was

that the injection tube comprised a vibrating obstacle to the freestream. This was

probably due to vortices that were shed off the tube. The author rotated the tube

slightly to minimize the effect of the vibrating vertical tube on the smoke filament.

Finally, it was difficult to see the smoke flow between the wings because that region

was not well lit.

Since the upstream injection of smoke did not allow for a good visualization of

the underbody flow and of any separated flow regions, the injector was moved to two

other locations just above and below the main wing. These locations were achieved

by pushing the injector through the rubber and brush seals of the wing mounting

disk. The problems with this method were that if the injector was flush with the

tunnel wall, then part of the smoke was carried away by the wall boundary layer,

thus making visualization difficult. If on the other hand the injector penetrated into

the test section, then it exerted an influence upon the flow.

A final method of smoke injection was to drill holes through the wing mounting
224

disk just above the trailing edge of the top wing. It was still difficult to keep the

injector from influencing the flow, and to avoid smoke being carried away in the wall

boundary layer. But it was somewhat easier to see separated flow regions.

Despite all of the shortcomings of the above smoke injection methods, they did

provide some insights into the ground effect phenomenon. Above all, they showed

that there was no recirculating air underneath the front portion of a wing in ground

effect. Instead, the air behaved as if it were in a converging duct.

Pitot Rake Experiments

The disadvantage of pressure taps at the airfoil surface is that they only yield

surface pressures and velocities, but no information about the rest of the flow field.

Both laser-Doppler flow velocimetry and hot-wire anemometry were considered to

obtain such data, but they were deemed too expensive and time-consuming. As an

inexpensive alternative, a Pitot rake was built as described earlier. The hope was

that in addition to yielding wake data, it would provide velocity profiles at other

locations throughout the flow field.

The rake seemed to function well particularly when used for the wake survey.

It was easy to align and did not appear to exert an excessive influence on the flow

around the two wings. The pressure distributions were virtually identical whether or

not the rake wais inserted, and whether or not the vertical steel tube was streamlined.

More specifically, the cases of single wing without rake, single wing with rake, and

single wing with rake and with streamlined cowling for the vertical steel tube were

investigated. The Hft coefficients for the three cases were 1.180, 1.185, and 1.187,

respectively. In all three cases, the single wing was inclined at six degree with respect
225

to the freestream. Also, the water levels stayed well within the range of the water

manometer board.

When the flow field near the top wing was investigated some time after the

wake survey, leaks became evident from at least one of the manometers. In addition,

alignment of the Pitot rake became increasingly difficult and it tended to vibrate

more as it >;netrated further upstream. A final problem occurred in the vicinity of

the wing; only a few of the 13 parallel probes of the rake lined up with the direction

of the flow. It is for these reasons that the information from the rake was treated in

a qualitative rather than quantitative manner.


226

CHAPTER 11. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

Both computational and experimental findings for the NACA 5312 airfoil in

ground effect are presented in this chapter. After the presentation of the results,

the ground effect flow phenomenon is discussed based on the experimental results.

Emphasis is on the design case, which occurs when the ground clearance below the

wing's trailing edge is ten percent of the chord and when the incidence is 0.1 radians

(about 5.7 degrees). Emphasis is further placed on the generation of lift, since an

aerodynamic-levitation train can only function if sufficient lift is available at design

speeds. Information on lifting forces is also crucial in predicting the height stability

of the vehicle. Less emphasis is placed on pitching moment and drag data for now.

These will become important when the pitch stability and thrust requirements are

analyzed.

Presentation of Nunierical Results

Results from the inviscid panel code discussed in Chapter 8 are presented in this

section. Unless otherwise noted, 75 chordwise stations (150 panels) were used and the

tangency condition at the chordwise midpoint on the airfoil's underside was replaced

with the Kutta Condition. As a note on nomenclature, the plots show Z/', D', and M'
227

instead of c^, c^, and cm for the lift coefficient, drag coefficient, and pitching moment

coefficient about the leading edge, respectievly. Also note that, following convention,

the graphs showing pressure distributions have vertical axes that are turned upside

down. This is so that the negative pressure coefficients of the wing's upper surface

appear at the top of the figure.

To describe the ground effect in the most general terms, the variation of the

lift coefficient with trailing edge ground clearance is plotted in Figure 11.1. The

figure represents the design case, with a = 0.1 radians. The influence of the ground

does not become significant unless the wing is within one chordlength of the ground

(ftJ-= 1). Once the wing descends below one chordlength, the lift rises significantly.

Also note that the panel code overpredicts the lift coefficient at all ground clearances.

Continuing the description of the ground effect in the most general terms, Fig­

ure 11.2 depicts the variation of the lift coefficient with incidence. The solid line

represents an isolated airfoil and is a straight line. The squares represent a wing at a

ground clearance ratio of 0.1 and show a distinctly nonlinear behavior. Given equal

increments in inclination, the lift rises more slowly at higher inclinations.

To understand the exact fluid mechanical mechanism by which the lift increases

as the ground is approached, one must turn to the variation of the wing's surface

pressure distribution with ground clearance. Figure 11.3 shows that variation for a

NACA 5312 airfoil at 0.1 radians (5.7 degrees) incidence. As might be suspected

intuitively, the flow underneath the wing becomes increasingly choked as the wing

descends. But the behavior of the flow over the top surface may come as a surprise.

As the wing approaches the ground, the surface pressures become less negative, and

hence the tangential velocities decrease. These results were confirmed by experiment.
228

This means that the flow slows down all around the airfoil, both between the wing and

the ground and above the wing. This demonstrates that as the wing approaches the

ground, the lift generated by the top surface decreases while the lift generated by the

bottom surface increases. The lift from the bottom surface becomes proportionately

stronger as the ground is approached; this is known as the ram-efFect since it involves

the choking of the flow between the wing and the ground. In Figure 11.3 note the

irregularity near the midpoint of the wing underside. This is the point where the

tangency condition was replaced by the Kutta condition.

Figure 11.4 shows the variation of the wing surface pressure distribution with

incidence at a constant design trailing edge ground clearance ratio {hrpj^ — 0.1).

As the incidence, a, increases, more fluid needs to move over the top surface, so the

velocities there rise and the pressure coefficient becomes more negative. As the wing's

nose rises, the wing attempts to scoop up jnore fluid and to pass the fluid between

itself and the ground. But since the trailing edge gap is quite small, the flow soon

begins to choke and the pressure rises.

To appreciate the influence of the ground, the preceding figure (Figure 11.4) is

repeated, but for an isolated airfoil. Figure 11.5 shows the variation of the pressure

distribution with incidence for an isolated airfoil. Compared to the case with ground

effect, the velocities on the top surface are faster, resulting in stronger suction and

more lift there. The velocities on the bottom surface are also faster for the isolated

airfoil, resulting in less pressurization and less lift there. Since the phenomenon is

more pronounced on the bottom surface, the net result is that the wing in ground

effect produces a higher lift.

To study the effect of varying the number of panels, the code was repeatedly
229

executed for the design case (5.7 degrees and 0.1 ground clearance ratio). Figure

11.6 shows results for 50, 75, and 100 chordwise stations, which corresponds to 100,

150, and 200 panels. Experimental results are also included for reference. Whereas

the results for 150 and 200 panels are virtually identical, those for 100 panels differ

slightly over the front third of the wing, and particularly at the top near the leading

edge. On the top surface the velocities for the 100-panel Ccise are slightly slower than

for the 150- and 200-panel cases. By contrast, they are faster on the bottom surface.

These differences are reflected in the lift coefficients, which differ by 1.9 %. The

discrepancy between the computational and experimental results will be discussed

later.
5

• Panel Code Results

Experinnental Results

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000


Trailing Edge Ground Clearance, h/c

Figure 11.1: NACA 5312, a = lift versus ground clearance


2.5

4J
c
(D
•rl 1.5
O
•H
With Ground Effect
tH
0)
o No Ground Effect
O
+J 0.5
•ri

-0.5
-5 0 5 10 15
Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.2: NACA 5312, panel code results, lift curve with and without ground
effect
2.00

4i
c
0)
•H =
O • h/c 0.0
•H
=
h/c 0.05
(1)
O =
O • h/c 0.1
0.50
(1) =
U h/c 0.2
3 mmit
m 0.00 =
m h/c 0.5
Q) to
CO
u =
to
P4 I•Da ^ h/c 1.0
-0.50
o •> e i' 1•«•••••'
••
» • • • • • • # • • • • • ••• •• A A-- =
••••• - h/c 2.0
AAA AA 4 A A—A_A_A_ALA A A A A» A ^ A A A A A A .
-1.00 au =
• h/c 100.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.3; NACA 5312, panel code results, a = G'', pressure distributions for
various ground clearances
4.00
3.50

o
to
• Alpha

II
1
=

o
o

11
•» Alpha
=
• Alpha 2, L' = 1.1
=
Alpha 4, L' = 1.4
=
0.50 " Alpha 6, L' = 1.7
««ij =
0.00 ^ Alpha a, L' = 1.9
'^'AAAA A
. A AAAAAAA.'V
-0.50 ^ Alpha =
10, L' = 2.1

-1.00 • Alpha =
12, L' = 2.3
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.4: NACA 5312, ^ = 0.1, panel code results, pressure distributions for
various incidences
5.0 I I I I ~l

i O Minimum data for 16 degrees are left out


4.0
A
A.

3.0 ^ • Alpha =
-4 , L = 0.13
o
o
=
Alpha 0, L' = 0.59
2.0 l^^nna-
• Alpha =
4, L' = 1.04
=
Alpha 6, L' = 1.27
1<J
g;!!!!! , 'llgggR- n Alpha =
8, L" = 1.50 CO
=
A Alpha 12, L = 1.94

V ' Alpha =
16, L = 2.37
-2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.5: NACA 5312, isolated airfoil, panel code, pressure distributions for var­
ious incidences
1.5

+i
v
a 1.0
Q)
•H {
o
0.5 1
•H

0)
O
1 ^-^.A

U A • Code, 100 panels t


0.0 L'=1.664
0)
U %*
3
CQ - 0 . 5 - L
to 1 A A A A
t AAA* * 1 ' Code, 150 or 200 panels,
L'=1.695 Ci
O MAA AAA
•< 1 -l » ! '• f
M r.*
CU A Experiment, L'=1.24
-1.0

-1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.6: NACA 5312, a = ^ = 0.1, effect of the iiuinlxn* of panels on paii<!l
code results
236

Presentation of Experimental Results

The test procedure for obtaining experimental results was described in Chapter

10. Unless otherwise noted, the test Reynolds number was 1.8 x 10®. This was

the highest Reynolds number that could be achieved and maintained on a consistent

basis. The highest possible Reynolds number was desired to most closely model the

conditions a high-speed train would encounter. Another benefit of a high Reynolds

number is that a comparison with inviscid theory becomes more meaningful. The

reason is that inviscid theory represents a limit with the Reynolds number tending

to infinity {Re —>• CXJ).

There were several reasons to begin the experimental investigation with an iso­

lated NACA 5312 airfoil, i.e., without the image wing nearby. First, most aerody-

namicists are familiar with the flow around an isolated airfoil and have a feel for it.

Second, data for the isolated airfoil can be used to assess the reliability of the wind

tunnel and the data acquisistion equipment. Third, isolated airfoil data is useful for

comparison with data obtained from airfoils in ground effect.

The most traditional method of depicting an airfoil's lifting performance is the

lift curve, a plot of lift coefficient versus incidence. The lift curve for the NACA 5312

airfoil is shown in Figure 11.7. The lift curve slope (c^q, = is 0.11 per degree

and the incidence at zero lift (a©) is —4.31''. The curve is linear up to twelve degrees

of incidence. After that the buffeting region is entered and a full stall occurs just

after 14 degrees. This means that the flow separates from the top surface, leaving

a "deadwater" region of slowly moving or circulating air toward the trailing edge

of the wing's top surface. The panel code results are also shown and consistently

overpredict the lift coefficient. Since panel methods are based on the assumption of
237

inviscid and attached flow, they cannot treat separated flow cases, and the lift curve

just continues in a straight line.

The lift curve for the isolated airfoil is repeated in Figure 11.8, but this time

results are included for wings in ground effect. Both ground effect cases display a

nonlinear behavior. The lift curve becomes more nonlinear as the wing descends.

For the case of a trailing edge ground clearance ratio of 0.1 the curve is close to

that for the isolated wing. Lift coefficients are slightly higher between zero and 7.5

degrees, and the wing in ground effect shows a less pronounced separation at higher

incidences. The wing at ground clearance 0.02 produces considerably more lift for

incidences between 1.0 and 11.0 degrees. In addition, the flow does not appear to

separate by 16 degrees incidence.

The next question of interest was what effect the flow velocity had on the results.

Two questions in particular needed to be answered. First, would the tendency of the

data be toward the inviscid theory as the velocity was increased? Would the corre­

lation between the inviscid theory and the highest possible experimental Reynolds

number be sufficiently close? Second, would there be any indication of a transition

from laminar to turbulent flow, and what effect that would have on the results? To

attempt to answer these questions, the variation of wing surface pressure distribu­

tions with Reynolds number was plotted (see Figure 11.9). The NACA 5312 airfoil

was inclined at six degrees with respect to the oncoming flow. The data from the

inviscid theory are shown for reference, and the discrepancy will be discussed below.

Beginning with the lowest Reynolds number (Re = 0.2 million), the data look

quite scattered and irregular. The reason is that flow velocities were very low, so that

any disturbances such as wind gusts strongly impacted results. Maximum amplifier
•238

settings had to be used to elevate voltages to useful levels. Nevertheless, the data

for Reynolds numbers of 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 million show a trend toward higher lift

coefficients. The main reason appears to be the growth in magnitude of the pressures

on the wing's top surface.

Assuming laminar boundary layers and attached flow, any increase in speed leads

to a decrease of the boundary layer thickness. This statement is based on Prandtl's

boundary layer theory, which shows the laminar boundary layer displacement thick­

ness to be proportional to This implies that if the velocity (or the Reynolds

number) were to be increased fourfold, then the boundary layer would only be half as

thick as before. A decrease in the boundary layer thickness leads to a thinner effective

body, which is the sum of the physical body and its boundary layer thicknesses.

If one raises the Reynolds number, the flow encounters a thinner and more

cambered effective body. The reason is that thick boundary layers tend to fill in

subtle variations in the body geometry, in addition to increasing the volume of the

effective body. An increase in camber results in flow accelerations over the top surface

and in flow decelerations near the underside. Both effects cause increases in the

lift. These observations are based on the results of the preliminary design of the

present ground effect wing (see Chapter 8). A decrease in body thickness has a more

complicated effect. On the underside, velocities tend to fall very slightly as the body

is thinned. Over the rear half of the top surface, velocities rise very slightly as the

body is thinned. Over the front half of the top surface there is a pronounced drop

in velocities as the body is thinned. This pronounced drop dominates the lifting

characteristics of the wing, so that a thinner wing results in a somewhat lower lifting

force.
239

Returning to Figure 11.9, the undersurface velocities decrease slightly as the

speed is increased, resulting in more lift from the bottom. On the top surface,

velocities increase everywhere as the speed is increased, especially over the front

third of the wing. Both the top and the bottom surfaces contribute to a larger lift

coefficient as the speed is increased.

But how can one explain the drop in the lift coefficient and in the magnitude

of the top surface pressure distribution as the Reynold number is further increased

from 1.0 to 1.8 million? Perhaps the answer has to do with the nature of turbulent

flow as opposed to laminar flow. There is no clearcut Reynolds number at which the

transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs. That transition depends on diverse

factors, such as the surface roughness and the level of turbulence in the freestream.

Nevertheless, transition for an airfoil is expected at Reynolds numbers anywhere

between 0.5 million and 3 million.

One difference between laminar and turbulent flows is that the turbulent bound­

ary layer is much thicker. Therefore the effective body tends to be thicker and less

cambered for turbulent flow than for laminar flow. As a body experiences transition

from laminar to turbulent flow one thus expects a drop in the lift coefficient.

If one would increase the Reynolds number beyond 1.8 million, the turbulent

boundary layer would become thinner. One turbulent boundary layer model claims
An
that the turbulent boundary layer thickness is proportional to Re and hence
A
to Vqo . This implies that the reduction of the boundary layer thickness with

increasing speed is quite subtle. The upshot of this is that the experimental results

for a Reynolds number of 1.8 million should not differ significantly from those at

higher numbers, or indeed from the inviscid theory.


240

Figure 11.9 shows a good match between experimental results at i?e = 1.8 x 10®

and inviscid theory on the top surface. However, the agreement between results for

the underside are poor. Since the effective body should be thicker and less cambered

than the physical airfoil, the expectation is that the experimental results show higher

velocities (lower pressures) there. This is indeed the case, but the magnitude of the

difference still seems disturbing. One further cause of the discrepancy is the Kutta

condition used for the inviscid calculations. The Kutta condition forces the tangential

components of the trailing edge velocity vectors from the top and bottom surfaces

to be equal. The tendency of the trailing edge velocity for panel methods is toward

stagnation {cp —> 1). This trend causes the bottom pressure distribution to be pulled

down towards stagnation, so perhaps this is part of the problem. The author tried

to remedy this situation by making the orientation of the Kutta panel adjustable,

but the results remained nearly unchanged. This may have been because the length

of the Kutta panel was the same as the panel nearest the trailing edge. Perhaps a

longer Kutta panel would have had a more profound impact on the location of the

front stagnation point, and hence on the circulation.

Following the analysis of the isolated NACA 5312 wing, the image wing was

added to the wind tunnel configuration to begin the study of the ground effect. The

idea behind using a wing and its mirror image is that the symmetry line formed

between them models the presence of the ground plane. To verify that the symmetry

really exists, nine pressure taps were located on the image wing. Figure 11.10 shows

how the readings from those nine taps match those from the main wing. The slight

discrepancy on the top surface near the leading edge may be due to a difference in

the incidences of the top and bottom wings. Alignment of the wings before each test
241

was accurate to within 0.2 degrees. The geometry of the model was carefully checked

before and during each test, and it was noted that the forces acting on the wings

typically rotated them from zero to 0.2 degrees, and deflected them apart from each

other from zero to 0.1 inches. There were some cases where the top wing rotated

by 1.6 degrees and deflected upward 0.3 inches. The case shown in Figure 11.10 was

one of the worst ones, and represents the design condition (6 degrees, 0.1 ground

clearance ratio). The top wing was observed to have twisted considerably (by about

1.1 degrees).

Some very crude smoke visualization was carried out to verify the presence of

the symmetry plane. Smoke entered the tunnel 14 inches upstream of the model.

The injector could be moved vertically. Figure 11.11 shows a typical frame from one

of these tests. The smoke does not penetrate the symmetry plane, thus verifying

the validity of the testing method. This visualization test was carried out at several

incidences and ground clearances. It was determined that at large incidences involving

flow separation, smoke did cross the symmetry axis if the wings were sufficiently

close. Also, whenever the trailing edge ground clearance ratio was smaller than

approximately 0.05, the flow was essentially choked and the smoke moved randomly

within the space between the two wings. Figure 11.12 shows how the ram-air cushion

prevents the smoke from entering the space between the wings. Since the air between

the wings is choked, the pressure there is at stagnation value, and symmetry is thus

effectively assured. The conclusion is that the symmetry assumption of the image

method is valid for all ground clearances, and for all incidences for which the flow is

attached.

With confidence in the experimental method, pressure distributions were recorded


for incidences ranging from minus four to sixteen degrees, and for trailing edge ground

clearances ranging from zero to one-half. Figures 11.13 through 11.19 each show pres­

sure distributions for different ground clearances at a given incidence.

Considering the design case (a = 6®) first (Figure 11.16), the effect of approach­

ing the ground is a decrease in the velocities over both the top surface and the bottom

surface. Since this deceleration is more pronounced on the bottom, the result is a net

lift increase. Indeed, the dramatic increase in lift for very small ground clearances

is due mainly to the deceleration and eventual stagnation of the air underneath the

wing. This is appropriately called the ram-effect, since the air is rammed under the

wing and forced to come to a halt. Results for the isolated wing are also included

for reference, and verify the trend of the data. From each pressure distribution, the

lift coefficient was computed. It was plotted against trailing edge ground clearance

in Figure 11.1 of the preceding section. The figure shows how the lift coefficient rises

as the wing approaches the ground. The exception to this trend is the isolated wing.

At large ground distances, the lift actually rises. To complete the study of the design

case, pressure distributions for various incidences are shown in Figure 11.20. Refer­

ring again to the pressure distribution in Figure 11.16, note the very high velocities

over the top surface and the comparatively high velocities along the bottom. The

high velocities at the top cause strong low pressures and generate much positive lift.

The higher velocities at the bottom cause a decrease in the positive bottom pres­

sures, resulting in lift losses. For the case of six degrees incidence the lift gains due

to the top surface flow outweigh the losses at the bottom. As a result the isolated

wing generates more lift than the same wing at a ground clearance of 0.4 and 0.2

chordlengths.
243

The above comments on the design case apply to Figures 11.15 through 11.18.

which pertain to positive incidences and attached flow. The case of separated flow

is somewhat different. Figure 11.19 shows pressure distributions for the wings at 16

degrees. There is a definite pressure plateau, or region of constant pressure, beginning

at the quarter-chord position on the upper surface. Such a plateau is typical for

separated flow, and corresponds to the deadwater region underneath the separated

flow. Air is slowly recirculating within this region, resulting in a very even and small

pressure coefficient. The underbody flow is as before, with the air decelerating as

the ground approaches. The flow behavior upstream of the separation point on the

top surface also remains as before, with the fluid decelerating as the wing descends.

But within the separated flow region, there seems to be no trend as the ground

distance decreases. Both the isolated case and the zero ground distance case show

higher velocities than the intermediate cases. The differences in pressure distributions

within the separation region are quite small. The trend of the lift coefficient is the

same as for the unseparated cases. As the wing descends, the flow slows everywhere,

and particularly on the bottom surface. This results in a net lift increase as the

ground is approached.

The wing in ground effect at 12 degrees also involves separation (see Figure

11.18), but only for ground clearance ratios below 0.4. The implication is that the

presence of the ground encourages flow separation. This is not surprising since the

ground causes the flow to slow everywhere, thus reducing its kinetic energy and

making it more vulnerable to flow disturbances.

Finally the cases of zero and negative four degrees incidence are discussed. Fig­

ures 11.14 and 11.13 show pressure distributions that differ considerably from the
244

cases with positive incidences. The case of minus four degrees is discussed since the

flow behavior is more obvious for that case (see Figure 11.13). The flow over the top

surface begins near the leading edge with a pressure coefficient of one. which indicates

that the stagnation point is located on the top surface. The top flow slowly acceler­

ates at it streams over the gently curving upper surface. Once it reaches the crest

of the body curve near the one-third chord streamwise location, it begins to slowly

decelerate until it reaches the trailing edge. The top surface flow tends to be faster

everywhere when the wing flies closer to the ground, but these velocity differences

are quite subtle. This implies that the top surface produces slightly less lift as the

wing descends. Turning now to the bottom side of the wing, observe the very fast

velocities near the leading edge, particularly for small ground clearances. But the

air quickly decelerates to near-freestream levels by the time it reaches the one-third

chord streamwise location. Beyond that the flow decelerates very gently all the way

down to the trailing edge. The trend of the underbody flow beyond the one-third

chord point of the wing is to accelerate as the wing descends. The exception to this

trend is the case of the smallest ground clearance, for which the flow is slower than

for the larger clearances up to the 60% chord position. Beyond that point, the flow is

faster than for the other cases. Judging from the shapes of the curves in Figure 11.13

it might be suspected that the powerful low pressure near the leading edge of the

wing bottom surface generates negative lift as the wing descends. In an overall sense,

it might be concluded that ground proximity implies less lift. The lift coefficients in

Figures 11.14 and 11.13 verify this, except for the case of closest approach.

Several additional experimental results involving the design case are presented

to complete the study. Figure 11.21 shows how the pressure coefficient distribution
245

changes as the Reynolds number is reduced from 1.8 to 0.2 million. Trends are

difficult to discern, and the results for the slowest case are very scattered.

The reliability of the data acquisition equipment was tested by conducting one

experiment with the additional help of a water manometer board. Figure 11.22

shows the water manometer data superimposed on the data from the data acquisition

system. The agreement is convincing.

To delve deeper into the comparison of results from the experiment and the panel

code, comparative data from three extreme cases were plotted in Figure 11.23.

In an effort to achieve a better match between experimental and computational

data for the design case, the lift coefficients were matched. Figure 11.24 shows the

experimental result [C^ = L' = 1.24) and the panel code result for the same lift

coefficient. The agreement is very poor. Panel code results are also shown for a

six degree incidence, which corresponds to_a theoretical lift coefficient of 1.664. The

agreement between this theoretical curve and the experimental data is reasonably

good on the top surface but again poor on the bottom surface. The author feels

that this figure shows that it may be better to match the incidences than the lift

coefficients.
Experimental Results

Panel Code Results

Oi

-5 0 5 10 15 20
Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.7: NACA 5312, isolated airfoil, lift curve



11 n
1.5 - •• • .. — — -— — — - -- --

e; !!


• Isolated Airfoil

h/c = 0.1

0.5 • h/c = 0.02
'

• '


A

-5 0 5 10 15 20
Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.8: NACA 5312, experimental results, lift curve with and without ground
effect
• Re =
1.8E+6
-p L' =
1.11
a
(D
•H •
o Re 1. O E + 6
•H =
L' 1.18
IH
(1)
O A Re 0 .5E+6
O
W
L' == 0.98
U
3
CO • Re 0 .2E+6
(0 =
(U L' 0 .87
M
CM
Inviscid Panel
Code, L' = 1.27

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0


Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.9: NACA 5:}r2, isolated airfoil, a = 6^, elTecl of Reynolds iunnl)er on
pressure distribution
1.5
fivr^
+» "j •
c 1 ••
(1)
•H i '

0 4
•H
(M 0.5 •.

«W
(U ••
O •
O 0 •
••
(1) • Main (top) wing data
u
0
m -0.5 • 11 '' Image (bottom) wing data tsi
CO • •••^ 1
Q) CO
U
^ -1
I

-1.5
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Cho r d w i s e L o c a t i o n , x / c

Figure 11.10: NACA 5312, a = G'', ^ = 0.1, match of experimental data from top
and bottom wings
•250

ss^iiiilil^ii^SllS

Figure 11.11: Smoke visualization image showing flow symmetry


251

Figure 11.12: Smoke visualization showing stagnated underbody flow


3 50
A
3 00
A
» ® h/c = large
2 50
X '
L' = 0.050
2 00
*•
• h/c = 0.5
1 50 L' = -0.036
A
1 ,00
01 • h/c = 0.2

H«•.
0 ,50 L' = -0.117


i M


3
(0

ff
D) 0 ,00 • ••11
0) a\
t ^ h/c =0.1 to
A ,50
ft -0 L' = -0.070
I
-1 ,00

-1 ,50 \
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.13: NACA 5312, a = —4", experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
2 .50
O
• h/c =0.5

o
o
4J
f* 2 L' = 0.50


0)
o
•H
0 1. 5 0 • h/c = 0.2
•rl
((-i
o L' = 0.44
o
1


(V
0 ^ h/c =0.1
CJ 0 .50 i ft * A.
° flfl L' = 0.39
0)
r 0 0
H •haa' mm1
o
o

3 0 5 " 1 5 ^p unoQQd


m • h/c =0.05
m it L' = 0.34
<u - 0 . 5 0
P4
h/c =0.02
o
o

1 -1 y
L' = 0.38
- 1. 5 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
ChordwisG L o c a t i o n , x / c

Figure 11.14: NACA 5312, a = 0®, experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
1.50 • h/c = large
*
• L' = 0.88
4J • h/c =0.5
Ci
(U 1.00 •

W • L' = 0.84
•H
O j! ! ! _ • •
•H A h/c =0.2
0.50 5 fln
L' = 0.95

0)
O f
S 8'
0

U • h/c =0.1
0.00 • ••• L' = 1.06
***
0) • • • • < )a•••••
U A A A A' i m
3 c- .-i< h/c =0.05
CO -0.50 •
• ••- • ' ' .. L' = 1.19
0)
0) o 4:-
U
f>—6-6-6-1 K>OOC>C-:;J ...J'"
' h/c = 0.02
-1.00 L- = 1.40

h/c =0.01
-1.50 L' = 1.48
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
i- h/c = 0.0
Chordwise Location, x/c L' =1.52

Figure 11.15: NACA 5312, q = -l'*, experimental pressure distributions for various
ground cU^arances
2.00

-p
c 1.50
(1) • h/c=large, L'=l.ll
•H •
o 1.00 ^ ^Qni •
•H *CS , e h/G =0.4, L'=1.07
U-l
W
o 11
i
' ® 9 8W8
S ..
i S B .* •
A h/G =0.2, L'=1.10
o y y • ^
• h/G =0.1, L'=1.24
0) 0.00
• ••• . • • • • • • • • • © 5
P3 «••• *** h/G =0.05, L'=1.36
m • !•»!
m XSaX ***
f ! 1 « i j " "
(1) 1 • • • • - ,O - h/G =0.03, L'=1.48
u ••• a • • • ' o
P4
* ^VMvV«Vl|rl
cc-o-o
tij ioi iiSSSSSs .•• h/G =0.02, L'=1.52

Ll h/c=0.01, L'=1.57
-1.50
• h/c=0.0, L'=1.59
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.16: NACA 5.312, a = 6^, experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
2.50

4J 2 . 0 0 T;.i'i >
a •
(1) •
•H 1.50 B

• • h/c=large, L'=1.37
o
•H
(M 11 • •
A • h/c=0.4, L'=1.19
1.00 rie« '
0)
0 A h/c=0.2, L'=1.23
^ 0.50 ° 00
0) 58s D • h/c=0.1, L'=1.35
r a g
3 0.00 + ,•••••" to
m « • • • •
m 1 llpn h/c=0.05, L'=1.47 cn

• !X ' • ?c .
g -0.50 ! • •, • •O? '
••• • • • • • - h/c=0.02, L'=1.58
• r- o O o V V
1 -1.00 ri—i'.HcH'n'Vi'j-.fnM'Vth'.i
rfiit'HV-t-r'ri-
h/c=0.01, L'=1.65

-1.50 ;1 h/c=0.0, L'=1.63


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.17: NACA 5312, a = 8®, experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
5.00

-p 1
a 4.00
0)
•H • h/c=large, L'=1.79
0 3.00
•H
m s» • h/G =0.4, L'=1.44
tw •
01 2.00 -I
o n
4
• A h/c=0.2, L'=1.50
o
: ^ >

0) 1.00 • •
u
3
So§ \•
1 *•
*** • •
U h/c=0.1, L'=1.54
lO
(Q cP I! • B 8g y y •
e,
• ••
h/c=0.05, L'=1.66
0)
Q) 0.00
U * • • • ;
h/c=0.02, L'=1.66
ifi* C)

-1.00 iilil i—l-B-l-l —n—Ln-^ i—


h/G =0.01, L'=1.68

-2.00 iJ h/c=0.00, L'=1.77


0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.18: NACA 5312, a = 12^^, experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
7.00
1
•p 6 . 0 0 fi
c:
0)
•rl 5.00
o • h/c=large, L'=1.56
•H 4.00 1 • h/c=0.3, L'=1.40
0)
0 3.00 A h/c=0.2, L'=1.44
O
0) 2.00 • h/c=0.1,
U L'=1.56
3 ii

1
ca 1.00 V In:-
Or
0) j ^ 5 h/c=0.05, L'=1.78
m i 8
0)
u 0.00
• * * It I iu V} h/c=0.02, L'=1.83
CO

1 _ 1.00 W i-mjlillLi h/c=0.01, L'=l.a5

2.00 1 i h/G =0.00, L'=1.93


00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.19: NACA 5312, a = 16", experimental pressure distributions for various
ground clearances
5.0

=
• Alpha -4, L' = -0.07
Bottom Pressures
=
-• Alpha 0, L' = 0.39
2.0
=
• Alpha 4, L- = 1.06
=
Alpha 6, L' = 1.24
to
=
i A| A Li Alpha 8, L' = 1.35
• Ct
Q * =
A Alpha 12, L = 1.54

=
Alpha 16, L = 1.56

-2.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.20; NACA 5312, ^ = 0.1, experimental pressure distributions for various
incidences
2.00 •a
•n,_, an
+J I
C
d)
•H
o
-H 1.00 ^' 1
• Re
L' =
1.8E+6
1.24

g 0.50 zs
o
! Li

U u
A
Re
L' =
l.OE+6
1.26

3 Re 0.5E+6
0) (i L' =
1.27 t1
11
S -0-50 i , /£, n n ^0 D O
M ,^2 ^ a U Re 0.2E+6
04 L'
=
1.34
, -1.00
Panel Code
-1.50 L' = 1.66

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00


Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.21: NACA 5312, a — 6", ^ = 0.1, efTect of Reynolds nuinber on the
pressure distribatioii
1.50

1.00 ••



0.50 I
• .

0.00 " ••

• Scanivalve Results
0.50 • p"" Manometer Results
• • ^•

••

1.00

1.50
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.22; NACA 5312, a = 6®, ^ = 0.1, comparison of scanivalve and manome­
ter results
o
o
4


-p 3. 5 0
a

o o o
o ni o
(U 3 Q •


Experiment, 0 deg,
•H iTi L'=0.39
U 2
•r|
«H 2 Panel code, 0 deg,


0) L'=0.62
0 1. 5 0 m£i-I
O
A Experiment, 6 deg,
o ni o
o o o

(1) 1


L'=1.24
P
0) 0


CO A Panel code, 6 deg,
0) 0 L'=1.66 to


OS
U to
Pi - 0 . 5 0
AAAA^^mi
•••ncoiroj • Experiment, 12 deg.
o
o

' -1 L'=1.54


- 1. 5 0 Ij Panel code, 12 deg.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 L'=2.27

ChordwisG L o c a t i o n , x / c

Figure 11.23; NACA 5312, — ~ 0.1, comparison of experimental and numerical


results for three inclinations
1.5
N*
-p
a 1.0
01 »

•H 'O
o t *
•H
0.5
•W Panel code,
0) 6 degrees,
O L'=1.664
O 0.0
Q)
U Panel code,
3
(Q - 0 . 5 3.05 degrees,
m L'=1.24 lO
en
(U 00
u
(U Experiment,
-1.0 6 degrees,
L'=1.24

-1.5
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Chordwise Location, x/c

Figure 11.24: NACA 5312, a = 6^^, ^ = 0.1, matdiing experimental and numerical
results

T
264

Experimental pitching moment and pressure drag results

The experimental pressure distributions were not only used to calculate the

lift coefficients, but also the leading edge pitching moment coefficients, and

the pressure drag coefficients, c^p. The pitching moment is important in that it

provides information on the pitch stability of the train. The pressure drag is only

one component of the total drag acting on the wing. It is due to the streamwise

component of the surface pressure distribution. At any given point, the pressure acts

normal to the surface, which means that the pressure force is inclined with respect

to the freestream. For a wing profile at subsonic velocities, the other component of

drag is the skin friction drag. It is due to the friction between the viscous air and

the uneven wing surface. Subsonic speeds avoid the wave drag associated with shock

waves, and the absence of three-dimensionality avoids both the lift-induced drag and

the interference drag due to the flow near the junction of the wing and the fuselages.

Figure 11.26 shows the variation of the leading edge moment coefficient with the

incidence. Results are shown for an isolated wing and for a wing in ground effect.

The two sets of data are quite similar and show no obvious trends. Nearness of

the ground does not appear to significantly impact the variation of pitching moment

with incidence. This implies that ground proximity has little effect on the pitch

stability of the wing, since both the slope ( and the y-intersect ( c ^ q )

curve are the two crucial stability criteria. The same cannot be said for the variation

of the pitching moment with ground clearance. Figure 11.27 shows how the pitching

moment becomes more negative as the wing descends. This means that the wing

has a nose-down tendency as it approaches the ground; alternatively, the center of

pressure is moving aft. The reason is that as the wing descends, the region of high-
265

Table 11.1: NACA 5312, a = 6", experimental data


Experiment ^mLE xcp OQ ^mO Xac

isolated profile -0.391 1.18 0.33 -4.3 -0.09 0.08


h/c = 0.1 -0.438 1.24 0.35 -3.0 -0.15 0.12

pressure air beneath it expands toward the trailing edge, causing more lift toward

the rear.

To study the effect of the ground on pitch stability in more detail, the aerody­

namic center needs to be found. The aerodynamic center is the location at which the

pitching moment does not vary with incidence ( = 0, or cm = constant). It can

be found since it equals the moment (c^q) at any point when the lift is zero. From

Figure 11.25 one can write the following relationships:

"^mLE = ^CPH
^mO = ^acc(^- (11-1)

These relations were used in conjunction with data from Figures 11.8, 11.26, and

11.27 to produce Table 11.1. That Table reveals that the aerodynamic center [xac]

moves aft as the wings approaches the ground. For static longitudinal stability, the

aerodynamic center must lie behind the center of gravity. The conclusion is that the

ground has a stabilizing effect since it moves the aerodynamic center aft. It remains

to be seen whether it actually moves aft of the center of gravity to provide stability,

or whether a horizontal tail or second (tandem) wing will have to be added to the

design.

Turning next to the pressure drag, Figure 11.28 depicts the variation of the
266

Figure 11.25: Three equivalent loadings

pressure drag coefficient with incidence. The wing shows nearly the same behavior

whether or not it is near the ground; the more the wing pitches, the higher the

pressure drag is. Once again there are no obvious trends as the wing descends toward

the ground. When the pressure drag coefficient is plotted against trailing edge ground

clearance, Figure 11.29 results. Though the data are quite scattered, the pressure

drag seems to rise as the wing approaches the ground. One traditional depiction of

the drag characteristics of an airfoil is the drag polar. Such a plot of the (pressure)

drag coefficient versus the lift coefficient is shown in Figure 11.30 and looks quite

normal.

The lift-to-drag ratio can be used to assess the efficiency of a wing. In Figure

11.31 the lift-to-pressure drag ratio is plotted against the wing incidence. Small

positive incidences display both irregularities and the highest lift-to-drag ratios. The

irregularities may be due to the division by the very small pressure drag coefficients

for those cases. The overall trend is that the ground effect reduces the lift-to-drag
267

ratio of a given airfoil. This simply means that even though the wing in ground

effect produces more lift than the isolated wing, that gain is accompanied by a drag

penalty that reduces its overall efficiency. These comments are verified in Figure

11.32, which shows how the efficiency (lift-to-pressure drag ratio) varies with ground

clearance. Even though the data are again quite scattered, they do reveal a near-

50% decrease in efficiency as the wing approaches the ground. A likely explanation

is that the strong upward pressure on the bottom surface of the wing dominates the

pressure drag. That ram-pressure is directed nearly normal to the chordline, which

is turn inclined at six degrees with respect to the freestream. Therefore the pressure

vectors all have about a ten-percent downstream component, resulting in a rise in

the pressure drag.


-5 10 15 20

c -0.1 -A -
(V
•rl •
O
-0-2
iM
0) •
• No Ground Effect
o -0.3 •

l -o„ •


A
1
With Ground Effect, h/c = 0.1

to
05
OO
a -0-5 11

A
-0.6 •

Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.26: NACA 5312, experimental leading edge j)it<liing moment versus inci­
dence
0.001 0.01 0.1 10
0

•P - 0 . 1
a
(D
d -0.2
•H
•h _ _
Q) -0.3
o
0
-0.4
a
C75
CO
1

S -0.6

-0.7

Trailing Edge Ground Clearance, h/c

Figure 11.27: NACA 5312, a = 6", experimental leading edge pitching moment
versus ground clearance
0.2
4J
a 0.18
d)
•H 0.16
o
•H
0.14
0)
O 0.12
O No Ground Effect
0.1
(U With Ground Effect, h/c = 0.1
Q 0.08
0) 0.06
M to
3 —J
0)
0) 0.04 o
0)
M 0.02
f:ii
0
-5 0 5 10 15 20
Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.28: NACA 5312, experimental pressure drag curve


0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025

en 0.02
n)
U
Q 0.015

0.01

2 0.005

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10


Trailing Edge Ground Clearance, h/c

Figure 11.29; NACA 5312, a = 6^, experiiiKMilal resulls


0.2
C 0.18 Separated Flow
0)
Ej 0.16
s 0.14
(1)
o 0.12
• No Ground Effect
0> 0.1
(d • With Ground Effect, h/c = 0.1
Q 0.08
g 0.06 lO
lO
S 0.04
Q)
M 0.02
04
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Lift Coefficient

Figure 11.30: NACA 5312, experimental drag polar


- - - • •


• No Ground Effect
11 - With Ground Effect, h/c =0.1
A

•_ ic
A
i

"S •—

•5 0 5 10 15 20
Inclination, Alpha (degrees)

Figure 11.31: NACA 5312, experimental efficiency results


100
o
•rl
•P 90
& 80
(0 70
O
(1)
60
U
0 50
m
m
Q) 40
u to
PI
30
0
+) 20
1
+J
10
•H
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 10
Trailing Edge Ground Clearance, h/c

Figure 11.32: NACA 5312, a = 6^, experimental efficiency results


Discussion of the Ground Effect Phenomenon

One of the primary aims of this dissertation is to shed more light on the ground

effect phenomenon. Based on the preceding discussions of computational and exper­

imental findings, some general comments can be made about the flow phenomenon

in two dimensions. Most wings in ground effect operate at positive incidences, so the

focus will be on the case of six degrees incidence. The focus will further be on the

ten percent trailing edge ground clearance ratio, since that is the design condition

for the proposed aerodynamic levitation train.

Compared to the isolated wing at six degrees, the velocities all around the same

wing in ground effect are lower. For larger ground clearances the deceleration is small

and affects both the top and the bottom surfaces to a similar extent. As a result, the

lift remains nearly the same as for the isolated wing. By contrast, for small ground

clearances the deceleration is particularly pronounced beneath the wing, resulting in

a strong lift increase. The strong deceleration under the wing is called ram-effect

because the wing acts like a scoop and rams the air beneath it. The air then moves

with the wing, resulting in high pressures and the associated ram lift.

To illustrate the growing importance of the lift from the bottom surface compared

to that from the top surface, their ratio was plotted against ground clearance ratio

in Figure 11.33.
lO
a>

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10


Trailing Edge Ground Clearance, h/c

Figure 11.33: NACA 5312, a = 6®, lift contributions from the top and bottom wing
surfaces
277

Suggested Improvements for Experimental Work

The present wind tunnel method has fulfilled its goal of deepening the under­

standing of the ground effect phenomenon. Its most important function for the author

was to clarify that the wing underbody flow is similar to a one-dimensional nozzle.

Even the crude smoke flow visualization showed that there are no recirculating bub­

bles beneath the front of the wing. The only time fluid comes to rest or reverses

direction is when the wing nearly touches the ground plane. The second most impor­

tant function of the wind tunnel tests for the author was that they furnished pressure

distributions for comparison to the computational results.

If the author were to repeat the construction and testing of this wind tunnel

model, several changes would be made. A tilting mechanism would be developed for

easier adjustment and strict maintenance of the incidence of both wings. The wing

raising mechanism and the two slider blocks would be reinforced to further eliminate

play, thus reducing the rotational and translational displacements of the wings during

testing. Last, lighting units would be embedded in the wing surfaces that face each

other to facilitate smoke flow visualization between the wings.

In general, the author does not feel that the ground effect has been fully modeled.

The reason is that for the physical ground effect the ground moves past the wing with

the same speed as the freestream. The present image method allows for the "ground"

to move at speeds different from the freestream. For the physical ground effect, there

might be a boundary layer near the ground plane. The effect of that boundary layer

is probably not significant, so its consideration would be an intellectual exercise. For

purposes of designing a train that utilizes the ground effect the present experimental

method probably suffices.


278

Suggested Improvements for Computational Work

For the purposes of understanding the ground effect phenomenon and for design­

ing an optimal wing to utilize it, panel methods suffice. They show the proper trends,

even if the magnitudes are erroneous. This is not just true for the lift, but also for

the moment data, allowing for a stability analysis. The present panel method could

be improved by reintroducing the adjustable Kutta panel. Not only the orientation,

but also the length of the panel should be adjustable. Changing the geometry of the

Kutta panel should result in a shift of the front stagnation point. The panel code

could then be "tuned" to the experimental results.

If a thorough analysis of the two-dimensional ground effect is desired, several

steps could be taken. First, the new method should yield results not just on the

airfoil surface but also in the flow field. An Euler method on an appropriate grid

might be useful for this purpose. It would also enforce a physical tangency condition

on the ground plane.

Second, the new method could include a model for the turbulent boundary layers

on the airfoil and on the ground. The ground boundary layer was not considered

at all in the panel method used in this dissertation. The absense of a boundary

layer model accounted for at least part of the discrepancy between numerical and

experimental results. Even though inclusion of viscous effects makes the solution

much more complex, it does allow enforcement of no-slip and tangency conditions on

all surfaces. Rather than solving the entire viscous flow field, it would be possible to

couple the inviscid solver to a boundary layer model near the physical surfaces. In

this way the boundary layer displacement thickness would be added to the physical

body to arrive at the realistic effective body shape. This would make an optimization
279

of the wing more meaningful.

Third, the new method could treat the entire domain a^ a viscous flow. This

implies a numerical solution of the steady, two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations.

To make an assessment of whether one should really invest time and effort into the

writing of such complex codes, it is useful to know the displacement thickness of

the boundary layers. Assuming a wing with a chordlength of 16.4 ft (6 meters) flies

1.64 feet (60 cm) above the ground at 200 mph (293 fps, or 320 kph), the Reynolds

number is:.

Re = = (0-002377.W/^^)(293^/^)(16-4/0 ^ ^^ ^i ^)
3.72 X slug/ft-s

The Reynolds number is most certainly in the turbulent flow regime. The flow

will also be turbulent during takeoff and landing, so any experimental results should

be applicable to the entire flight envelope. The turbulent boundary layer will be

thickest at the trailing edge and will threaten to choke the flow there. Its thickness

is calculated according to the procedure given by Anderson [311]:

0.2
0> ~
0.37x(^)0-2
~~
(o.37)(6 m)(1.7894 x lO-^kg/m-s)
{pvoox)^'^ ((1.225 kg/m^){l02 m/s){Q
= 0.0664 meters. (11-3)

The boundary layer thickness is nondimensionalized with respect to the chord

length (c = 6 meters), so at the trailing edge = 0.011. This represents just more

than ten percent of the nondimensionalized trailing edge ground clearance of 0.1. It

also represents about ten percent of the profile thickness. The conclusion is that it
280

is significant in the context of selecting a profile that will achieve maximum lift in

ground effect. A detailed optimization will need to incorporate a turbulent boundary

layer model. On the other hand, the turbulent boundary layer is not thick enough to

choke the flow underneath the wing.

The thickness of the boundary layer on the ground was calculated in the same

manner as the boundary layer on the profile. Based on the experimental results,

the average underbody flow velocity at the design condition is assumed to be about

75% of the freestream velocity. Since the ground moves at the freestream velocity,

the relative velocity between the ground and the underbody flow is O.Suoo- Further

assuming the ground boundary layer to start under the leading edge, the ground

boundary layer has a nondimensional thickness of 0.016 by the time it reaches the

trailing edge. Its thickness is of the same order as that of the profile boundary layer,

so it will not choke the flow.

Inclusion of the effect of the boundary layers makes a profile shape optimization

meaningful. The profile can then be carefully designed to maximize lift, provide

stability, and minimize the pressure drag. The negative leading edge pressure peak

can be molded to limit the pressure drag while still avoiding separation.
281

CHAPTER 12. A RAM-AIR TRAIN PROTOTYPE: FEASIBILITY

STUDY

The foci of the present chapter are the justification of the concept of the ram-air

train and the establishment of the basic dimensions of the ram-air train, taking into

account constraints that are due to environmental, aesthetic, human factor, financial

and safety considerations.

Origins of the Ram-Air Train

As mentioned in the introduction (Chapter 1), the author became interested in

the aerodynamic ground effect while working on the Alexander Lippisch Collection

at the Iowa State University Library. In the early 1960s, Lippisch was asked by

his employer, Arthur Collins, to build a fast speedboat that could be used to test

avionics equipment. When Collins and Lippisch tried out one of those speedboats,

the bow lifted out of the water and the boat nearly flipped over backwards. At that

point Lippisch decided that "the boat wanted to fly, so let it fly". He began work on

vehicles that flew just above the water surface, some powered with air propellers, and

some with water propellers. He envisioned "Riverboats" that would carry medication,

mail, and people along rivers. He also envisioned large ocean-going aerofoil-boats that

would compete with ocean liners and jetliners. When the civilian sector showed no
282

interest in his proposals, he turned to the military and proposed using aerofoil-boats

as patrol boats, reconnaissance vehicles, transports, and submarine hunters.

The author first sought to extend the idea of the "Riverboat" by adding a hov­

ering capability to it. The aircraft was to have an engine mount and propeller above

its fuselage. Hovering vfa.s to be achieved by using a system of flaps with or without

a rearward tilting engine mount. In this way, the airstream behind the propeller was

to be captured beneath the vehicle (see Figure 12, from August, 1990). In another

design, lifting fans were to be embedded in the wings to provide the hovering ability.

But the applications of such a vehicle to military and criminal activities convinced the

author to pursue a different project beginning in January of 1992. That project was

the aerodynamically levitated mass transportation system called "Ram-Air Train",

or "AeroLev Train".

The earliest versions of the train were envisioned as operating in a trough, but it

was considered important for the passengers to have good visibility. The versions that

followed operated on an inverted U-shaped guideway and did not wrap completely

around the guideway (see Figure 12). They could thus derail vertically, which was

considered a safety hazard. In addition, aerodynamic interference between the wing

and the fuselages would reduce the efficiency of the wing. Lastly, it would be difficult

for passengers to access the fuselages. The author thus arrived at the wrap-around

design with twin fuselages, as discussed in the next section.

The Concept of the Ram-Air Train

Once again, the proposed concept is a self-propelled train that utilizes the aero­

dynamic ground effect, which means that it achieves levitation above a flat track
283

Figure 12.1: Hovering aerofoil-boat


I/?/32,

Figure 12.2: Early ram-air train


285

without the use of lifting fans or magnetic fields. As a consequence, only a small

fraction of its power is used for levitation resulting in a high fuel economy in compar­

ison to trains using magnetic or air-cushion levitation. Further fuel savings should be

due to the fact that there are no moving parts, i.e., there is no rolling friction since

the train is flying. It has been shown that both the friction due to sliding and rolling

members and the roughness of the ride become serious problems for high-speed trains

operating at speeds above 200 km/h.

The prominent features of the train are the twin fuselages that are suspended

from the single or tandem wing and the ducted propellers that are attached to the

stern of each fuselage (see Figures 1 and 12; the author built the wooden model

in 1992). The guideway has a T-shaped cross-section consisting of a vertical web

and a horizontal flange. The train hugs the horizontal flange, making derailment

virtually impossible. The train's wings are flown in the ground effect of the flange.

The surfaces connecting the wings and the fuselages serve to prevent high-pressure air

leakage around the edges of the flange, thereby making the flow over the wings nearly

two-dimensional. They may also create enough air cushion between themselves and

the edges of the flange to prevent lateral collisions with the guideway - such collisions

could be due to windgusts and curves.

The ducted propeller was chosen for several reasons. The shroud has the effect

of reducing noise and of increasing the thrust in comparison with an unshrouded

propeller of the same diameter. Conversely, one might interpret the advantage of

the shroud as a reduction in propeller diameter. It also serves as a safety shield,

preventing people and objects from entering the propeller's path from the sides.

Furthermore, off-the-shelf reciprocating engines can be used to drive the propellers.


286

Figure 12.3: Wooden model of the AeroLev train

This is a great advantage especially in poorer and remote regions of the world because

the engines do not cost much in terms of original purchase and maintenance, and

require only an existing level of expertise. Conventional reciprocating engines are also

becoming increasingly environmentally friendly, both in terms of noise and pollution.

Perhaps hydrogen engines will be available soon, and hopefully at a reasonable price.

There is a speed limitation with ducted propeller propulsion systems. The speed of

the propeller tips may not approach the speed of sound because shock waves would

form that would greatly reduce the efficiency of the propeller and cause high loads

on the blades.

There are a number of drawbacks associated with the ram-air train. Obstacles

on the guideway will be quite dangerous, especially when visibility is restricted by


287

weather or at night. Another disadvantage is the difficulty of switching - how can

one connect two sets of guideways? One possibility is to use the switch designed at

Birmingham in the United Kingdom, which is a large circular concrete plate with two

guideway segments on it - one of these segements is straight, the other has the shape

of a S-curve. If the train is to continue on a straight line, the disk is rotated to that

the straight guideway segments lines up the train with the in-line track. Otherwise,

the S-shaped segment connects the guideway on which the train is approaching to

the track parallel to the in-line track.

Of great concern is the stability of the vehicle, both from the standpoint of

passenger comfort and ride quality and of pitch and heave stability of the vehicle.

The train's stability must be such that collisions with the guideway will be avoided

as much as possible.

Expected performance and possible uses of the ram-air train

As pointed out by Lippisch there is a great gap in efficient vehicles in the 160 to

400 km/h (100 to 280 mph) speed range. In terms of range, it will be quite difficult to

compete with today's highly efficient jetliners on routes exceeding 500 statute miles.

The ram-air train should be useful for distances between twenty and 500 statute

miles, thus competing with cars, trains, buses, and aircraft.

Prototype design: sizing, mission

The width of the train's guideway is limited by several factors. One is the high

cost involved in building a continuous solid structure. Another is that the guideway

should blend smoothly into the existing infraistructure, without requiring the reloca­
288

tion of buildings and other structures. The width of a typical single-lane, two-way

city street was used as a gauge for an aesthetically and dimensionally acceptable size.

Thus the wing span was fixed at six meters (19.7 ft). For this small prototype the

chord length of the wing was expected to be similar to its span, so it was set at six

meters (19.7 ft) as well. The wing planform is rectangular to make its construction

as simple and economical as possible.

The design incidence of six degrees was chosen for several reasons. It is positive

enough to result in sufficient lift and small enough to definitely avoid separation.

It also represents a very efficient incidence in that it corresponds to the maximum

lift-to-drag ratio. The choice of incidence is also of theoretical interest since it is a

case to which nonlinear channel theory would have to be applied.

The design trailing edge ground clearance ratio of 0.1 was also chosen for several

reasons. Given the six-meter chord length the trailing edge would be 60 centimeters

(2 ft) above the guideway. Such a large clearance is desirable for safety reasons,

allowing both for obstacles on the guideway and for heaving motions of the train.

The design speed of the train should lie above that of automobiles and conven­

tional trains, i.e., above 100 mph (160 kph). In the interest of safety and of minimizing

noise and drag, it should not rise far above the compressibility limit, which is at a

Mach number of 0.3 and corresponds to about 230 mph (370 kph). Therefore the

design speed was chosen to be 200 mph (320 kph). The maximum speed of the train

would be around 250 mph (400 kph).

Based on the preceding numerical and experimental studies of the NACA 5312

airfoil, the prototype's wing is assumed to have that profile. At the design inci­

dence and ground clearance, that profile generated a lift coefficient of 1.24 during the
•289

experiment. From the definition of the lift coefiicient,

T 1 2 c

= (1.24)i(1.225-^)u^(^^)(6m)(6m) (12.1)
^ s"
= 27.342i;^ Newtons.
Given the wingspan and chord length the prototype is expected to carry approx­

imately 12 people, including the crew. Its size, construction, and weight are assumed

to be similar to a twin-engine turboprop commuter aircraft, such as the Beechcraft

King Air (see [329]). The King Air has a takeoff weight (gross weight) of nearly

10,000 pounds. If one assumes the same gross weight for the ram-air train, then the

lift required to lift the train must equal 10,000 pounds, or 44,482 Newtons. From

Equation 12.1 the takeoff velocity is 40.34 m/s (145 kph, 90.8 mph, or 132 fps). This

is a very reasonable takeoff speed, particularly when compared to the takeoff speed

of a small sports aircraft (70 mph for a Cessna 172 Skyhawk). The takeoff roll will

therefore also be reasonably short, making the train useful on shorter lines.

Returning once again to the Beechcraft King Air, that aircraft is powered by

two engines weighing 700 pounds each and rated at 550 horsepower each. If one

assumes the same engine configuration for the ram-air train one arrives at a fixed

weight (passengers, crew, cargo, food) of 2,700 pounds for twelve people, an empty

weight of 6,500 pounds (based on the King Air's all-metal construction and engines)

and a fuel weight of 800 pounds. The fuel weight corresponds to about 120 U.S.

gallons of fuel - two engines of this size will consume about 30 gallons per hour at

sea level, resulting in four hours of operation. This translates into a range of about

800 kilometers (497 statute miles) without refueling. As desired, the ram-air train
290

could thus compete with other transportation systems on all routes with a length of

up to 500 miles.

The elevated guideway

The ram-air train is expected to operate at cruising speeds between 150 and 400

km/h (93 and 250 mph) so that obstacles must be avoided at all cost. An elevated

guideway greatly reduces the possibility of obstructions in the form of humans, an­

imals, water, branches and rocks. Since the guideway will be made of concrete or

of a similar material it should be relatively easy to clear the surfaces of dirt, snow

and ice. The guideway can also serve for other purposes - perhaps one could embed

solar panels or solar cells in its surfaces to generate hot water or even electricity.

One could embed easily accessible cables and pipes, thereby providing connections to

water, electricity, sewage, communication and natural gas to people living near the

track. The great advantage of the aerodynamic cushion is that it features no concen­

trated loads, but rather presents a mild distributed load on both the track and the

vehicle. This allows for light-weight construction and thus for very low inertia; one

may expect excellent acceleration and breaking performance. Another advantage of

a concrete guideway in comparison with conventional and high-speed railroad tracks

is that track imperfections and misalignments are quite tolerable since the train is

not in contact with the surface. The absense of direct contact also decreases track

vibrations and the associated noise and fatigue. The distributed loading prevents

much wear and tear and the associated maintenance costs.

Drawbacks of the elevated guideway include that it is unsightly and that it is

subject to damage by storms, by the weight of snow and ice, by corrosion and by
291

earthquakes. But this is true for most civil engineering structures - certainly for roads

and railroad tracks. Guideways are generally quite expensive to build but they may

be cheap in comparison to high-speed rail stock, especially in terms of maintenance.

Takeoff, braking and landing

The train will have conventional rubber tires on the surfaces facing the guideway.

These will suspend and guide the vehicle at low speeds, including in the case of an

engine failure. As long as the tires are in contact with the guideway they can also

be used for conventional braking. At cruising speeds the wheels serve to protect the

vehicle from impacts with the guideway - such impacts may be caused by windgusts

and by curves. Braking at high speeds will be achieved by changing the pitch of the

propellers.

The Future of the Ram-Air Train

The preceding analysis has shown that the prototype's wing generates sufficient

lift to support the vehicle at speeds above 90 mph. Furthermore, the train achieves a

range of 500 miles. The conclusion is that the ram-air train is a feasible transportation

system provided its flying height and pitch attitude can be controlled in a comfortable

manner, and provided lateral collisions with the guideway can be avoided or at least

dampened.

The next steps in the analysis of the train would involve both the pitch and

height stability. Trailing edge flaps may need to be used to control the flying height

of the train. The flaps would also allow for a higher takeoff weight, or for lower

speeds during takeoff and landing. A second wing might be added to increase the
292

pitch stability while at the same time increasing the lift capacity of the train. The

pitch and heave characteristics of the wing(s) should be studied with regard to safety

and with regard to human factors. The human factors involve the ride comfort, so

the wing needs to be analyzed to reveal accelerations in the vertical, forward, and

lateral directions, vibrations, and noise.

The airfoil shape could be further optimized using the present panel method.

The optimization function might be to maximize the lift while flying at the design

incidence and height above the guideway.

After that, the full three-dimensional train and its guideway should be modeled,

perhaps by means of a panel method. It should be determined whether the train

has sufficient lift capacity and stability. The possibility of lateral collisions with the

guideway should be investigated. A preliminary numerical design should result in

the construction and testing of a physical model and its model track.
293

CHAPTER 13. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The aims of this dissertation were threefold. The first were historical surveys of

the application and theoretical and experimental study of the ground effect, and of

the development of unconventional trains. The second aim was to design and test

a wind tunnel wing in order to better explain the aerodynamic ground effect. The

third was to study the feasibility of an aerodynamic levitation train based on the lift

data from the wind tunnel tests.

The first six chapters provided a thorough review of ground effect research and of

vehicles that utilize it. Unconventional trains were also discussed, including magnetic

levitation trains.

The two-dimensional panel method used for the preliminary design of an airfoil

in ground effect was presented in Chapters 7 and 8. This was followed by a descrip­

tion of the construction and testing of the experimental model in Chapters 9 and 10.

Numerical and Experimental results were presented and compared in Chapter 11. It

was found that the panel method correctly predicted the trends of the flow charac­

teristics as the wing descended toward the ground. However, panel method results

were not useful for quantitative purposes. The panel method overestimated the lift

mainly because the velocities all along the bottom wing surface were underpredicted

compared to experimental results. The method could be improved by reintroducing


294

a Kutta panel whose orientation and length can be adjusted. A further reason for the

differences between numerical and experimental results was that the top and bottom

walls of the wind tunnel test section may have had a significant influence on the flow

around the two airfoils. A further criticism of the results were that the image method

used for both the numerical and the experimental study did not completely model

the ground effect. It could not account for the fact that both the ground and the

freestream move at the same velocity with respect to the wing.

The preliminary design of the aerodynamic levitation train in Chapter 12 was

based on the lift data obtained from the experiment. The conclusion of the prelimi­

nary design was that it would be possible to utilize the ground effect to aerodynami-

cally suspend a small prototype operating at 160-400 kph. This conclusion suggested

a wide array of future research in this area.

The author would suggest the following sequence for future research. If there

is further interest in the discrepancy between numerical and experimental results,

several numerical methods might be tried. First, the wind tunnel top and bottom

walls could be modeled using distributions of sources and sinks. Second, the panel

method could be executed in conjunction with a turbulent boundary layer model near

all physical surfaces. Third, the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations could be

solved on an appropriate grid.

Should there be interest in further illuminating the ground effect flow phe­

nomenon, the moving-model approach should be used to properly model the ground

plane and its boundary layer. One way of doing this would be to build the test rig

that is pushed by an automobile. The author does not consider the above studies to

be very crucial in regard to the proposed transportation system.


295

In terms of continuing the design of the aerodynamic levitation train, the next

step should be to study its pitch and heave stability. The data from this dissertation

should be used to establish the stability of a wing in ground effect. Even though

proximity to the ground is a stabilizing factor, a single wing near the ground is still

unstable because the center of gravity lies aft of the aerodynamic center. A second

wing or a horizontal stabilizer should be added to guarantee pitch stability. The

tandem configuration should be analyzed numerically, for example by using a panel

method. It may also be worthwhile to optimize the profile shape of the single or

tandem wing to achieve maximum lift while maintaining pitch stability.

Once the wing and its stability are fully understood, the full three-dimensional

body of the train and the guideway should be investigated. A three-dimensional

panel method might be used to design an optimally proportioned train. A model of

that train should be built and tested on a corresponding guideway. Such a model

could be remotely controlled on a closed track, or catapulted along a short segment

of straight track.
•296

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THE DISSERTATION

active wing - instead of testing a wing flying close to a surface one can
test the wing and its mirror-image. The plane of symmetry
between the wing and its image then models the
ground plane. The wing is called the active wing
and its image is the image wing.

advanced - a train developed in the United Kingdom that tilts as it


passenger train negotiates curves. Abbreviated as APT.

aerodynamic - the effect of the ground upon a vehicle operating in proximity


ground effect of the ground. Abbreviated as AGE.

aerodynamic lift - lift due to pressures created by the forward motion of a wing
through the air.

aerofoil boat - a flying boat that has several modes of operation. It


can act as displacement catamaran or trimaran, as
planing boat, as ram-wing, as wing-in-ground-effect,
or as free-flying airplane.

aeroskimmer - a raceboat that has wings to lift it just above the


water surface.

aerostatic lift - lift due to pressurized static air (lifting fans).

Aerotrain - tracked air cushion vehicle with lifting fans; various


vehicles were tested in France between 1965 and 1975.

Amtrak - a system of passenger trains operated by the National


297

Railroad Passenger Corporation on leased freight lines in


the United States.

angle of - angle between the velocity vector and the chordline of


attack a wing profile.

aspect ratio - a measure of a wing's slenderness (when viewed from


above or below).

boundary - a thin layer of fluid near any physical boundary in which


layer the flow velocity varies between zero at the boundary to a
value near the freestream velocity.

camber - a measure of the curvature of a wing profile.

chord - the distance between the leading and trailing edges of a wing.

drag the aerodynamic retarding force on a body. For a wing profile,


it is due to the streamwise component of the pressure forces
(pressure drag), to friction with the air (skin friction drag), and
to flow separation.

dynamic air - when a ram-air cushion is created between a wing and the
cushion underlying ground due to the forward motion (dynamic) of
that wing.

dynamic ground - the time-dependent effect of the ground upon a vehicle


effect moving in its proximity (e.g, a descending or pitching
aircraft near the runway).

electrodynamic - EDS, a noncontact suspension similar to magnetic


suspension levitation, but with larger ground clearance (typically 0.25
meters for the full-scale case) and with a smooth flat
undersurface. EDS vehicles utilize on-board
superconducting magnets, and require a certain forward
motion before the repulsive force becomes effective.

electromagnetic - EMS, a noncontact suspension system in which the


suspension vehicle rides on an electromagnetic cushion created by
298

conventional electromagnets. The train must wrap around


an elevated track with extremely small clearances (typically
one centimeter for the full-scale case).

finite wing - a three-dimensional wing with wingtips at the ends ( as


opposed to an infinite wing that is assumed to have an
infinite span).
heave stability - altitude stability; the tendency of a wing to return to its
initial altitude following a perturbation.

hovercraft - vehicle that rides on a cushion of air pressurized by fans.


The cushion is sealed off by rubber skirts under the
edges of the vehicle. The craft is propelled by
propellers.

hydroskimmer - same as a hovercraft.

image wing - instead of testing a wing flying close to a surface one can
test the wing and its mirror-image. The plane of symmetry
between the active and image wings then models the
ground plane.

incidence - same as the angle of attack.

interface vehicle - a vehicle that operates close to a solid or liquid surface.

leeward - towards the side away from the wind, downstream,


downwind, distal.

linear induction - a non-contacting propulsion system utilizing


motor electromagnetic forces between the vehicle and the
guideway.

magnetic - see electromagnetic suspension.


levitation

nonplanar - when a vehicle operates close to a wavy terrain. This


ground effect includes flight over waves and rough terrain.
299

nonplanar wing - a wing whose silhouette is not a rectangle when viewed


from the front (upstream).

ram-wing - a wing moving just above a solid or liquid surface. The


distance from the trailing edge to the surface is between
five and fifteen percent of the chord length.

separation - a phenomenon where flow can no longer follow the


curvature of the body and breaks away from the surface,
leaving behind a deadwater region.

singularity - a theoretical point at which some property tends to either


zero or infinity (e.g., sources, sinks, doublets, and vortices).

sink - a theoretical point that continuously absorbs mass,

source - a theoretical point that continuously produces/ejects mass.

span - the width of a wing; the distance between the two wingtips.

static ground - the time-independent effect of the ground upon a vehicle


effect moving in its proximity at constant speed and attitude (this
includes hovering craft).

terrafoil - a ram-wing moving over a solid ground surface.

thin airfoil - a theoretical airfoil that is so thin that the tangency


boundary conditions can be applied on the chordline, rather
than on the actual surface.

tilt-train - conventional train which tilts as it negotiates turns.

tip - wingtip; the spanwise end of a wing.

TACRV - Tracked Air Cushion Research Vehicle. Same as the


TLRV. Built for the US DOT by Grumman Aerospace
between 1971 and 1974.

TACV Tracked Air Cushion Vehicle. A subset of TLV which


300

utilizes fan-fed static air cushions for levitation and


guidance.

Tracked Levitated Research Vehicle. Same as the


TACRV. Built for the US DOT by Grumman Aerospace
between 1971 and 1974.

Tracked Levitated Vehicle. Any high speed ground


transportation vehicle using a non-contacting (i.e.,
levitating) form of suspension.

Tracked Ram Air Cushion Vehicle. A subset of TLV


which is aerodynamically suspended (dynamic air cushion).
It was proposed by the Transportation Systems Center and
by Mitre Corporation in 1974.

a theoretical point that causes the fluid in its vicinity to move


in a circular pattern.

towards the side from which the wind is blowing;


upstream, upwind, proximal.
301

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] "Assessment of the Potential for Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems


in the United States." Report and Report Supplement to the U.S. Congress,
part of the series Moving America: New Directions, New Opportunities by the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT), June 1990.

[2] Lippisch, Alexander M. Research in the Field of Planing Surfaces at Collins


Hydrodynamic Laboratory^ Collins Engineering Report CER-1117-1, 1 May 1960.
[3] Lippisch, Alexander M. The Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Planing Surfaces^
Collins Engineering Report CER-1117-2, 1960.

[4] Lippisch, Alexander M. The Paradox of Negative Drag on Planing Surfaces,


Collins Engineering Report CER-1117-4, 1960.

[5] Lippisch, Alexander M. and R.F. Colton Tow Tank Tests of a Low Aspect Ratio
Ground Effect Surface, Collins Radio Engineering Report (CER) 1117-8, 1963.
[6] Collins Radio Co. Research on the Aerofoil Boat Concept Engineering Proposal,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A., Jan 1964; 9 pages.

[7] Lippisch, Alexander M. Ground Effects Utilizing And Transition Aircraft, U.S.A.
Patent 3,190,582 (22 June 1964).

[8] Lippisch, Alexander M. "Der ,,Aerodynamische Bodeneffekt" und die Entwick-


lung des Flugflachen- (Aerofoil-) Bootes." Luftfahrttechnik-Raumfahrttechnik
Band 10, Nr. 10 (Oct 1964): 261-269; also "The "Aerodynamic Ground Ef­
fect" and the Development of the Aerofoil Boat." Unknown source, part of the
Alexander Lippisch Papers at the Department of Special Collections at the Parks
Library of Iowa State University (English translation).
302

[9] Lippisch, Alexander M. "Dynamic Air-Cushion Vehicle - Dr. Lippisch Sends


News of a Remarkable Craft." Flight International, Air-Cushion Vehicles Sup­
plement (London) (25 June 1964): 80-81.
[10] Lippisch, Alexander M. U.S.A. Patent 3,190,582 (.June 1965).

[11] Lippisch, Alexander M. The Aerodynamic Ground Effect Vehicle; the "'Aerofoil
Boat", Hydro-Space Systems Corporation Report 65-121, Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
U.S.A., 24 Nov 1965.

[12] Lippisch, Alexander M. and R.F. Colton Stepped Planing Boats, Some Full-Scale
Test Results, Technical &: Research Report R-9, Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, May 1970.

[1.3] Lippisch, Alexander M. Wing Arrangement, U.S.A. Patent 3,627,235 (Dec 14


1971).

[14] Lippisch, Alexander M. Aerofoilboat, U.S.A. Patent 3,661,111 (May 9 1972).

[15] Lippisch, Alexander M. Ground Effect Flying Surface, U.S.A. Patent 3,830,179
(Aug 20 1974).

[16] Lippisch, Alexander M. Aero Skimmer, U.S.A. Patent 3,830,448 (Aug 20 1974).

[17] Lippisch, Alexander M. "The Aerofoil Boat: A Free-Flying Ram-Wing/Surface


Effect Vehicle." in Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1974-75 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1975: 368-375.

[18] Iowa State University "The Alexander Martin Lippisch Papers." Department of
Special Collections, 403 Parks Library, ISU, Ames, Iowa 50011, telephone (515)
294-6672.

[19] Dugdale, L. "Deep Water Birds and Gust Soaring." Sailplane and Glider (Lon­
don) Vol. 13 (Feb 1945): 6-7, 11.

[20] Corbett, W. E. P. "The Soaring Flight of the Albatross." Sailplane and Glider
(London) Vol. 14 (Jul 1946): 7-8.

[21] Fitz Patrick, James L.G. Natural Flight and Related Aeronautics, New York:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sherman M. Fairchild Pub­
lication Fund Paper FF-7, Jun 1952: 118 pages; also issued under former name:
Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences.
303

[22] Ahlborn, Friedrich Der Flug der Fische. Hamburg, Germany: Real-Gymnasium
des Johanneums, 1895: 35 pages.

[23] Hankin, E. H. Animal Flight; a Record of Observation. London: IlifFe and Sons,
1914: 405 pages.

[24] Hankin, E. H. "Observations on the Flight of Flying Fishes." Zoological Society


of London, Proceedings No. 2 (1920): 467-474.
[25] Hubbs, Carl L. "The Flight of the California Flying Fish." Copeia (Northridge,
California, U.S.A.) No. 62 (1918): 85-88.

[26] Hubbs, Carl L. "Observations on the Flight of Fishes, With a Statistical Study
of the Flight of the Cypselurinae and Remarks on the Evolution of the Flight of
Fishes." Michigan Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Papers Vol. 17 (1932):
575-611.

[27] Hubbs, Carl L. Nature's Own Seaplanes, Smithsonian Institution Annual Report,
Washington, D.C., 1933: 333-348.

[28] Hubbs, Carl L. "Further Observations and Statistics on the Flight of Fishes."
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters. Papers Vol. 22 (1937): 641.
[29] Dowd, R. E. "The Aeronautics of the Flying Fish." Aerial Age Weekly (New
York) Vol. 12 (10 Jan 1921): 464-465.

[30] Nichols, J. T. and C. M. Breder, Jr. "About Flying Fishes." Natural History
(New York) Vol. 28 (Jan-Feb 1928): 64-77.

[31] Breder, C. M., Jr. "Field Observations on Flying Fishes; a Suggestion of Meth­
ods." Zoologica (New York) Vol. 9 (1929): 295-312.

[32] Breder, C. M., Jr. "On the Structural Specialization of Flying Fishes From the
Standpoint of Aerodynamics." Copeia (Northridge, California, U.S.A.) No. 4 (31
Dec 1930): 114-121.

[33] Shouletkin, Was "Airdynamics of the Flying Fish." Internationale Revue der
gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie (Leipzig, Germany) Vol. 22, No. 1/2
(1929): 102-110.

[34] Welkoborsky, Norbert "Fliegende Fische." Flugsport (Frankfurt am Main, Ger­


many) Vol. 25 (8 Nov 1933): 497-498.
304

[35] Latimer-Needham, C. H. "The Aerodynamics of the Flight of Flying-Fishes."


The Sailplane and Glider (London) Vol. 4 (11 Aug 1933); 174-175; issued un­
der former name: The Sailplane; abstracted by Klemin, Alexander Scientific
American (New York) Vol. 150 (Jan 1934): 37.
[36] Latimer-Needham, C. H. "Flying-Fish Aerodynamics." Flight International
(London) Vol. 60 (25 Oct 1951): 535-536.

[37] Krejci-Graf, Karl "Beobachtungen iiber den Flug fliegender Fische." Natur und
Volk (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Vol. 66 (1 Dec 1936): 623-625.
[38] Fontaine, Maurice "Quand les Poissons Quittent Leur Domaine Aquatique."
Science et Vie (Paris), Vol. 82 (Jul 1952): 25-30.
[39] "Ground Effect; the Whys and Wherefores." Flight International (London) Vol.
82 Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 1, No. 6 (20 Dec 1962): 117 (bound
in).

[40] Dornier, Claudius Flying Boat, Patent Office, Patent No. 1.591.475, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A., Jul 1926: 4 pages.

[41] Dornier, Claudius Vortrdge und Ahhandlungen aus dem Gebiete des Flugzeug-
baues und Luftschiffbaues, 1914-1930, Friedrichshafen, Germany, Jan 1930: 145
pages.

[42] Betz, Albert "Auftrieb and Widerstand einer Tragflache in der Nahe einer hor-
izontalen Ebene (Erdboden) (Mitteilungen aus der Gottinger Modellversuch-
sanstalt)." Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik and Motorluftschiffahrt Jahrgang 3, Heft
17 (14 Sep 1912): 217-220; also The Lift and Drag of a Wing in Proximity to the
Ground, McCook Field Memorandum Report 167 of the Engineering Division
of the Air Force Air Materiel Command, Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A., 1925 (English
Translation).

[43] Cowley, W. L. and C. N. H. Lock Cushioning Effect on Aeroplanes Close to the


Ground, Great Britain Aeronautical Research Council Report and Memorandum
ARC R&iM 754 (July 1920): 10 pages.

[44] Zahm, Albert F. and R. M. Bear Ground-Plane Influence on Airplane Wings,


David Taylor Model Basin Aero Report 173 (Feb 1921): 6 pages. 10 plates; also
issued under its former name: Construction Dept., Navy Yard, Washington,
D.C.; also abridged in: Franklin Inst. Journal, Vol. 191 (May 1921): 687-693;
also abridged in: Aviation and Aircraft Journal (New York), Vol. 10 (27 Jun
305

1921): 807-808; also in: Albert F. Zahm Aeronautical Papers (1885-1945), Vol.
2, Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A., University of Notre Dame (1950): 625-628.

[45] Wieselsberger, Carl. "Uber den Fliigelwiderstand in der Nahe des Bodens."
Zeitschrift fiir Flugtechnik und Motorluftschiffahrt (Miinchen, Germany) Heft
10, Jahrgang 12 (31 May 1921): 145-147; also "Der Einfluss der Erdbodennahe
auf den Fliigelwiderstand." Ergebnisse der Aerodynamischen Versuchsanstalt zu
Gottingen, II. Lieferung. 1923: 41-42 (Abridged Version); also Wing Resistance
Near the Ground, NACA TM 77, April 1922: 7 pages (English Translation).
[46] Raymond, Arthur E. Ground Influence on Aerofoils, NACA TN 67 (Dec 1921):
8 pages.

[47] Tomotika, Susumu. Report (Vol. 7) of the Aeronautical Research Institute of


Tokyo Imperial University (1933): 357-393.

[48] Datwyler, Gottfried Untersuchungen iiber das Verhalten von Tragfliigelprofilen


sehr nahe am Boden. Mitteilungen (I) aus dem Institut fiir Aerodynamik der
Eidgenossischen Technischen Hochschule Zurich, Promotionsarbeit 773 (disser­
tation), Verlag Leemann, Zurich, Switzerland (1934): 109 pages; also "Investi­
gations about the Behaviour of Aerofoil Profiles very near the Ground." Aircraft
Engineering 7 (Jan 1935): 24 (English Abstract).
[49] Ushakov, B. A. Effect of Nearness to the Ground on the Aerodynamic Charac­
teristics of the Wing, Central Aero-Hydrodynamical Institute, CAHI Technical
Note 47, Moscow (1935).

[50] Sears, William R. "Ground Effect With Special Reference to Pitching Moments."
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences (New York), Vol. 5 (May 1938): 281-285.
[51] Serebrisky, Y. M. "Experimental Investigation of the Vertical Approach of a
Plate and the Inclined Approach of a Wing to the Ground." Transactions of the
Central Aero-Hydrodynamical Institute, CAHI Transaction 422, Moscow (1939):
12 pages.

[52] Serebrisky, Y. M. and S. A. Biachuev Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Hori­


zontal Motion of a Wing Near the Ground, CAHI Report No. 437 (Transactions
437) of the Central Aero-Hydrodynamical Institute Moscow (1939); also NACA
TM 1095, Sep 1946: 32 pages (English Translation).

[53] Recant, Isidore G. Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Ground Effect on Wings With


Flaps, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical Note NACA TN
705 (May 1939): 17 pages.
306

[54] Miiller, Horst "Stromungsbilder zum Bodeneinfluss." Forschung auf dem Gebiete
des Ingenieurwesens Band 10, Heft 5 (Sep/Oct 1939): 220-226.
[55] Green, A. E. "The Forces Acting on a Circular-Arc Aerofoil in a Stream Bounded
by a Plane Wall." Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Second Se­
ries, Part One Vol. 46 (14 Nov 1939): 19-54.
[56] Licher, Rose M. Increase in Lift for Two and Three Dimensional Wings Near the
Ground, Douglas Aircraft Company Report SM-22615, Santa Monica, California,
U.S.A. (Oct 1956): 46 pages.

[57] Bagley, J. A. The Pressure Distribution on Two-Dimensional Wings Near the


Ground, Great Britain Aeronautical Research Council Report and Memorandum
ARC R&M 3238 (Feb 1960): 40 pages; also Royal Aircraft Establishment Report
Aero 2625, ARC 22,060 {Yeh 1960): 40 pages.
[58] Bagley, J. A. Low-Speed Tunnel Tests on a Two-Dimensional Aerofoil With Split
Flap Near the Ground, Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Note Aero 2636
(Mar 1961): 15 pages.

[59] Carter, Arthur W. Effect of Ground Proximity on the Aerodynamic Characteris­


tics of Aspect-Ratio-1 Airfoils With and Without End Plates, NASA TN D-970
(Oct 1961): 27 pages.

[60] Fink, Marvin P. and James L. Lastinger Aerodynamic Characteristics of Low-


Aspect-Ratio Wings in Close Proximity to the Ground, NASA TN D-926, July
1961: 37 pages.

[61] VVerle, Henri "Simulation de I'Effect de Sol au Tunnel Hydrodynamique." La


Recherche Aerospatiale (Paris), No. 95 (Jul-Aug 1963): 7-15; also reprinted as:
Office National d'Etudes et de Recherches Aerospatiales T.P. No. 63 (1963): 15
pages; also Simulation of the Ground Effect in the Hydrodynamic Tunnel English
translation. Technical Translation NASA-TT-F-13799, NTIS N71-33494, Aug
1971: 18 pages.

[62] White, Herbert E. Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Low-Aspect-Ratio Wing in Close


Proximity to the Ground, Navy Department, David W. Taylor Model Basin
Aerodynamics Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., Aero Report 1056, NTIS
N63-19883, Jun 1963: 25 pages.

[63] Onspaugh, Carl M. Wind Tunnel Investigation of Single and Tandem Low-
Aspect-Ratio Wings in Ground Effect, Burbank, Lockheed-California Co., Lock­
heed Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (LFL) Report L-53, May 1963.
307

[64] Stevens, William P. and Samuel G. Hansen Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Single


and Tandem Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings in Ground Effect Lockheed Report LR
16906, Lockheed-California Company, Burbank, California, U.S.A.; also TRE-
COM Technical Report 63-63, U.S. Army Transportation Research Command
(USATRECOM), Fort Eustis, Viginia, U.S.A., March 1964 (analysis of data
from Lockheed Report L-53): 100 pages.

[65] Harry, Charles W. Wind Tunnel Investigation of Ground Effect on a Rectangular


Wing of Several Moderate Aspect Ratios Bureau of Naval Weapons (BuWeps)
Problem Assignment 1-34-52, David W. Taylor Model Basin Aerodynamics Lab­
oratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., Aero Report 1086, NTIS AD 474 257, Jul
1965: 65 pages.

[66] Schaeffer, Richard L. and Martin D. Fink Evaluation of Airfoil Section Char­
acteristics in Ground Effect Navy Department, David W. Taylor Model Basin
Aerodynamics Laboratory, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., DTMB Technical Note
AL 2 (Oct 1965): 22 pages.

[67] Strand, Torstein and J. J. Brainerd Design of Wing Sections for Use Near the
Ground, Air Vehicle Corporation, San Diego, Report 349, AD-465949, N65-
28802, Mar 1965.

[68] Kumar, P. E. An Experimental Investigation into the Aerodynamic Character­


istics of a Wing, with and without Endplates, in Ground Effect prepared at the
College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, United Kingdom, Report COA-AERO-201,
NTIS N68-32300, Mar 1968: 54 pages.

[69] Gallington, Roger W., Mark K. Miller and Woodrow D. Smith "The Ram-Wing
Surface Effect Vehicle: Comparison of One-Dimensional Theory with Wind Tun­
nel and Free Flight Results." Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil Vol. 11, No. 15 (Feb
1972): 10-19; also Report SRL-TR-71-0012 US Air Force Systems Command
(July 1971).

[70] Gallington, Roger W. Ram Wing Surface Effect Boat AIAA Paper 72-601, 1972:
11 pages.

[71] Boccadoro, Yves A. Towing Tank Tests on a Ram Wing in a Rectangular Guide-
way prepared at M.LT., Cambridge, Massachussetts, U.S.A. for the Federal Rail­
road Administration, Report FRA-RT-73-34, NTIS PB 222.476, Jul 1973: 113
pages.
308

[72] Curtiss, H.C., Jr. and W. F. Putman Experimental Investigation of Aerody­


namic Characteristics of a Tracked Ram Air Cushion Vehicle prepared at Prince­
ton University, U.S.A. for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation at the
Transportation Systems Center of the U.S. Department of Transportation at
M.I.T., Cambridge, Massachussetts, U.S.A., Interim Report DOT-TSC-OST-78-
1; also Report DOT-TSC-OST-77-35; also AMS Technical Report 1318, NTIS
N78 24099 or PB-277 674, Jan 1978: pages.

[73] Haake, M., G. Kleineidam, R. Staufenbiel, B. Weckesser, M. Wessels


and B. T. Yeh Flugmechanische und aerodynamische Untersuchungen zum
Staufiiigelprinzip prepared at the Lehrstuhl fiir Luft- und Raumfahrt at the
RWTH Aachen, Germany, for the German ministry of defense, Report BMVg-
FBWT-79-4, NTIS N80-17037, Feb 1979: 111 pages.

[74] Steinbach, Dieter Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of the Flow


Around Airfoil Systems with Ground Effect prepared at the Institute for Theo­
retical Fluid Mechanics at Gottingen, Germany, Report DFVLR-FB-85-17; also
ISSN 0171-1342, NTIS N86-10026, Feb 1985: 63 pages.

[75] Huber, L. "Stromungsbilder zum Bodeneinfluss." Zeitschrift des Vereins


Deutscher Ingenieure (Berlin, Germany) Band 84, Nr. 29 (20 Jul 1940): 522-
523.

[76] Smith, Maurice H. and Mary Lee Bibliography on Ground Effects, Literature
Research 15, Princeton University James Forrestal Research Center Library (Oct
1959): 9 pages.

[77] Carmichael, Bruce H., Frank A. Dobson and William L. Rawlings State of the Art
Summary: Air-Cushion Vehicles, Aeronutronic Division of Ford Motor Co. Publ.
U-926, Newport Beach, Cahfornia, U.S.A. (Jun 1960): 6.1-6.12; also revised as:
Army Transportation Research Command TCREC Technical Report 61-108.

[78] Chaplin, Harvey R. Ground Effect Machine Research and Development in the
United States, David Taylor Model Basin Report 1463 and Aero Report 994,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A., (Dec 1960): 14-16.

[79] Mankuta, Harry Ground Effect Machines Morphology Study, Bell Aerosystems
Co. Report 2017-945002, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A. (Jan 1961): 34-36.

[80] Liberatore, E. K. GEM Activities and Bibliography. Revision 2, Bell Aerosystems


Co., Buffalo, New York, U.S.A. (Apr 1961): 39 pages.
309

[81] Rawlings, William L. and Donald H. Seiveno State-of-tlie-Art Surmnary;


Air-Cushion Vehicles. Revision i, Army Transportation Research Command
TCREC Technical Report 61-108, Fort Eustis, Virginia, U.S.A. (Aug 1961):
6.1-7.1; also Aeronutronic Division of Ford Motor Co. Publication U-926-RV 1.

[82] Earl, T. D. Ground Effect Machines NATO Advisory Group for Aeronautical
Research and Development AGARDograph 37, Paris, France (Jan 1962): 34.

[83] Park, Ford "Near-Surface Vehicles." International Science and Technology (New
York) (Feb 1962): 14-15.

[84] Borgenstam, Curt "Hovering Craft; Their Future Use and Development." Hov­
ering Craft & Hydrofoil {London) Vol. 2 (Oct 1962): 9, 11.
[85] Hayward, L. H. "The History of Air-Cushion Vehicles." Hovering Craft & Hy­
drofoil (London) Vol. 2 (Dec 1962): 12-17 and (Jan 1963): 12-18; also issued as
monograph by Kalerghi-McLeavy Publications, London, United Kingdom.

[86] Armfield, William J., IV et. al. Air Cushion Vehicles; Transportation of the
Future., New York, Transportation Research Associates (1962): 1, 2, 26-27, 43-
45.

[87] Tinson, Clifford W. "Ground Effect." Flight International (London) Vol. 83, Air
Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 2, No. 7 (24 Jan 1963): 14.
[88] Foshag, William F. Literature Search and Comprehensive Bibliography of Wings
in Ground Effect and Related Phenomena DTMB Report 2179 (Mar 1966).
[89] Reid, Elliott G. >1 Full-Scale Investigation of Ground Effect, NACA Report 265
(1927): 233-237.

[90] Reid, Elliott G. and Thomas Carroll A Warning Concerning the Take-Off With
Heavy Load, NACA TN 258 (Jul 1927): 6 pages.
[91] Tonnies, E. "Der Boden-Effekt beim Fluge in Erdnahe." Zeitschrift fiir Flugtech-
nik und Motorluftschiffahrt (Miinchen, Germany) Vol. 23 (29 Mar 1932): 157-
164; also Effect of the Ground on an Airplane Flying Close to it, NACA TM 674
(Jun 1932): 16 pages (English Translation).

[92] Wetmore, J. W. and L. L Turner, Jr. Determination of Ground Effect From


Tests of a Glider in Towed Flight, NACA Report 695, 1940: 13 pages.
310

[93] Buell, Donald A. and Bruce E. Tinling Ground Effects on the Longitudinal Char­
acteristics of Two Models With Wings Having Low Aspect Ratio and Pointed
Tips, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical Note NACA TN
4044 Washington, D.C. (Jul 1957): 48 pages.

[94] Buell, Donald A. and Bruce E. Tinling The Static Longitudinal Stability and
Control Characteristics in the Presence of the Ground of a Model Having Trian­
gular Wing and Canard, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Memo.
3-4-59A, Washington, D.C., 1959.

[95] Doetsch, K. H., G. C. Howell and W.F.W. Urich The Landing Flare of a Gothic-
Wing Aircraft of Aspect Ratio 1.0 Taking Account of the Aerodynamic Ground
Effect, Great Britain Royal Aircraft Establishment Technical Note Aero 2600,
Revised, Farnborough, United Kingdom, Jan 1960: 7 pages.

[96] Peckham, D. H. Ground Effect on a Gothic Wing of Aspect Ratio 1.0, Great
Britain Royal Aircraft Establishment, unpublished.

[97] Pitkin, M. Preliminary Technical Concept Evaluation - the Aerofoil Boat, Mar­
itime Administration (MARAD), 1972.

[98] Kaario, Toivo J. Translations from the Finnish of Two Patents and One Paper
Describing T. J. Kaario's Early Work on Air Cushion Vehicles (1932-1949),
Aerophysics Company Report AR-595 , Nov 1959: 6-15; includes "Ilman Kan-
tama Pintakulkuneuvo [Air Cushioned Surface Vehicle]." Teknillen Aikakauslehti
(Helsinki) Vol. 32, (Feb 1942): 43-47.

[99] Kaario, Toivo J. "The Principles of Ground Effect Vehicles." in: Princeton Uni­
versity and U.S. Army TRECOM Symposium on Ground Effect Phenomena:
a Compilation of the Papers Presented October 21-22-23, 1959, Philadelphia,
U.S.A.: IVY-CURTIS Press, March 1960: 253-262.

[100] Princeton University and U.S. Army TRECOM Symposium on Ground Effect
Phenomena; a Compilation of the Papers Presented October 21-22-23, 1959,
Philadelphia, U.S.A.: IVY-CURTIS Press, March 1960.

[101] Anonymous "New Canoe has Wings." Mechanics and Handicraft (New York)
Vol. 3 (Oct 1936): 27.

[102] Crook, Louis H. Warner Jet Propelled Compression Plane, Aerodynamic Lab­
oratory. Aeronautical Report 560, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., Jun 1943: 6 pages.
311

[103] Warner, Douglas K. Compression Airplane. Washington, D.C., Dec 1944: 11


pages (Patent Off. 2,364,677).

[104] Warner, Douglas K. Skimming and Flying Vehicle^ Washington, D.C., Dec 1944:
9 pages (Patent Off. 2,364,676).

[105] Daniels, Charles J. Tests of a Model of a Flying-Boat Hull Incorporating D. K.


Warner's "Compression-Plane" Principle, NACA 171, Washington, D.C., 1944;
also National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Memorandum Report L4F24.

[106] Mottard, Elmo J. and Robert D. Ruggles Tank Tests of a Powered Model of
a Compression Plane; NACA Model 171A-2, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Research Memorandum SL8G02, Washington, D.C., Jul 1948: 12
pages.

[107] Strand, Torstein and Scott Rethorst Interim Report on VRC Channel GEM
Concept, Vehicle Research Corporation, Pasadena, U.S.A., Nov 1960; presented
at ONR/TRECOM GEM Conference, Ft. Myer, Va., U.S.A., 16-18 Nov 1960.

[108] Strand, Torstein, Winston W. Royce and Toshie Fujita Performance Theory
for High Speed Ground Effect Machines, Vehicle Research Corporation Report
11, Pasadena, U.S.A., Jun 1961: 23 pages.

[109] Royce, Winston W. and Scott Rethorst Translational Characteristics of Ground


Effect Machines, IAS Paper 61-79 (Jan 1961): 24 pages; presented at IAS 29th
Annual Meeting, New York, 23-25 Jan 1961 (Institute of Aerospace Sciences
later became the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).

[110] Strand, Torstein "150 Knot GEM Cruise." in Institute of the Aerospace Sci­
ences. Proceedings of the Ground Effect Machines Forum, January 22-24, 1962.
New York, 1962: 32-37; also American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronau­
tics, Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper FF-32; also published in
Aerospace Engineering (New York) Vol. 21 (Apr 1962): 38-44.
[111] Strand, Torstein, Winston W. Royce and Toshie Fujita "Cruise Performance of
Channel-Flow Ground-Effect Machines." Journal of the Aerospace Sciences Vol.
29, No. 6 (Jun 1962): 702-711, 718.

[112] Rethorst, Scott. "The 100-knot Columbia." Flight International (London) Vol.
82 (25 Oct 1962) Air Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 1, No. 4: 73-76 (bound
in).
312

[113] Rethorst, Scott. "VRC Surface Effect Ship Columbia." Proceedings of the Na­
tional Meeting on Hydrofoils and Air Cushion Vehicles, Washington, D.C.,
September 17-18, 1962, New York: Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences (IAS)
and US Navy, 1962: 135-140; abstracted in: Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil (Lon­
don) Vol. 2 (Oct 1962): 22-23. (IAS later merged with the American Rocket
Society to become the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).

[114] Strand, Torstein, Roy G. Fowler and Hideo Yoshihara Increased Airplane En­
durance Through Employment of Wing End Plates in Ground Proximity, Air
Vehicle Corporation, San Diego, U.S.A., Dec 1962: 14 pages.

[115] Rethorst, Scott and W. T. Potter "Maritime Administration Surface Effect


Ship." New York: Society of Automotive Engineers, Preprint 697D, Apr 1963: 6
pages; presented at the SAE-ASNE National Aeronautical Meeting, Washington,
D.C., 8-11 Apr 1963.

[116] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1967/68 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1968.

[117] Anonymous "Aeromobilia." Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil (London) Vol. I (Dec
1961): 9-11.

[118] Bertelsen, William R. "The Arcopter GEM Project." Hovering Craft & Hydro­
foil (London) Vol. 1 (Jul 1962): 21-23.
[119] Anonymous "Across the Mississippi." Flight International (London) Vol. 82 (19
Jul 1962) Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. I, No. I: 3-4 (bound In).

[120] Strang, C. "With the Outboarders." Motor Boating (New York) Vol. 108 (Aug
1961): 32, 54.

[121] Ando, Shigenori and Jun-ichi Miyashita "Comments on Aerodynamic Drag


of Ground Effect Machines." Aerospace Engineering (New York) Vol. 20 (Nov
1961): 24-25, 79, 81-83.

[122] Anonymous "Japanese Ram-Wing." Flight International (London) Vol. 82 (25


Oct 1962) Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 1, No. 4.: 70 (bound in).

[123] Anonymous "Kawasaki's Ram Wing." Flight International (London) Vol. 82


(22 Nov 1962) Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 1, No. 5: 88 (bound in).

[124] Ando, Shigenori, Jun-ichi Miyashita and K. Teraj "Design Philosophy and
Test Results of Two-Seated Experimental Simple Ram-Wing with Side Floats."
Kawasaki Review No. 14 (Mar 1964): 3-34.
313

[125] Ando, Shigenori "Japan's Ram-VVing Research." Flight International (London)


VoL 85 (28 May 1964) Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 4, No. 23; 72
(bound in).

[126] Ando, Shigenori, Jun-ichi Miyashita and K. Teraj "Summary of the Model Tests
for Simple Ram Wing KAG-3." Hovering Craft and Hydrofoil Yo\. 3 (Aug-Sep
1964): 38-50.

[127] Ando, Shigenori "An Idealised Ground Effect Wing." Aeronautical Quarterly
(Feb 1966); 53-?.

[128] Ashill, P.R. "The State of the Art of Ram-Wing Research." Hovering Craft and
Hydrofoil Vol. 2 (May 1963); 18-20, 22; also Note 159 of the Engineering College
of Aeronautics, Cranfield, United Kingdom (Nov 1963); 14 pages.

[129] Ashill, P.R. "Kawasaki KAG-3." Flight International (London) Vol. 85 Air-
Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 4, No. 20 (27 Feb 1964); 29-30, 17 (bound
in).

[130] Ashill, P.R. On Some Aspects of the Aerodynamic Performance of Ground-


Effect Wings. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Southampton, 1968.
[131] Ashill, P.R. "On the Minimum Induced Drag of Ground-Effect Wings." The
Aeronautical Quarterly Vol. XXI (Aug 1970); 211-232,
[132] Lockheed-California Co. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Tests of the Winged Hull.
Phase i. Report LFL L-47-1, Burbank, California, U.S.A., Aug 1961.
[133] Lockheed-California Co. Research Proposal of Response of Aerodynamic Lifting
Surface in Ground Effect to Passage Over Sinusoidal Surface., Report 15778,
Burbank, California, U.S.A., Mar 1962; 12 pages.

[134] Lockheed-California Co. Proposal for Evaluation of the Effects of Surface Waves
on the Performance of a Winged Hull Test Vehicle., Report LR 15785, Burbank,
California, U.S.A., Mar 1962; 18 pages.

[135] Anonymous, A Design Study of Winged Hull Vehicles Configured for


Transoceanic Logistics^ Lockheed-California Co. Report LR 16027, Jul 1962:
110 pages.

[136] Anonymous, Operational Analysis of the Winged Hull Concept in ASW Oper­
ations., Lockheed-California Co. Report LR 16243, Sep 1962.
314

[137] Anonymous Preliminanj Economic Analysis of Winged Hull Vehicles.


Lockheed-California Co. Report LA/ME/2148, Sep 1962.

[138] Anonymous, Preliminary Economic Analysis of Passenger Carrying Winged


Hull, Lockheed-California Co. Report LA/ME/2161, Oct 1962.
[139] Anonymous "Air-Cushioned, This Lockheed "Winged-Hull" .. Japanese Ram-
Wing." Flight International (London) Vol. 82 Air-Cushion Vehicles Supplement
Vol. 1, No. 4 (25 Oct 1962): 70-71 (bound in).

[140] Lockheed-California Ca. Technical Proposal for a Stability and Control Study
of Winged-Hull Vehicles, Report 16429, Burbank, California, U.S.A., Nov 1962:
25 pages.

[141] Lockheed-California Co. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Tests of a Winged Hull Con­
figuration, Report LFL L-50, Burbank, California, U.S.A., Jan 1963.
[142] Anonymous A System Analysis for Limited War, Lockheed-California Co. Re­
port LR 16812, May 1963.

[143] Lockheed-California Co. Quick Response Logistics Vehicle Design Study, Report
16811, Burbank, California, U.S.A., May 1963: 184 pages.

[144] Anonymous "Water Wind Tunnel." Flight International (London) Vol. 84 Air
Cushion Vehicles Supplement Vol. 3, No. 13 (25 Jul 1963): 3 (bound in).
[145] Swope, W. A. et al. Winged Hull Stability and Control Study, Lockheed Cali­
fornia Company Report, Burbank, California, U.S.A., AD 641901, Jul 1964.

[146] Herman, J. F. and M. L. Jager and P. F. Balla Winged Hull Stability and
Control Study, Lockheed-California Co. Report LR 17910, Jul 1964; revisions
Feb 1966 and Aug 1966.

[147] Alter, Horace J. and Vsevolod B. Koriagin Winged Hull Vehicle, U.S.A. Patent
3,216,673 (9 Nov 1965).

[148] Fridsma, G. Model Tests of the Lockheed Winged Hull, Davidson Laboratory,
Stevens Institute of Technology, Jan 1967.

[149] Stevens, William P. Feasibility Study of a Dynamic Interface Vehicle Config­


ured for an Amphibious Assault Mission, Lockheed-California Co. Report 15736,
Burbank, U.S.A., Feb 1962: 16 pages.
315

[150] Walters, Donald E., E. G. Stout, T. P. Higgins, Jr. and J.R. Brown The Dy­
namic Interface Vehicle, New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and As­
tronautics Paper 62-140, Jun 1962: 8 pages; also presented as IAS Paper No.
62-140 at the IAS National Summer Meeting, Los Angeles, California, 19-22 Jun
1962.

[151] Anonymous "You can Fly This $300 Boat!" Mechanix Illustrated Vol. 58 (Feb
1962): 65-67 & cover.

[152] Barlow, Gerald R. and R. G. Huntington Preliminary Study of Hover Perfor­


mance of a Ram-Wing GEM, David Taylor Model Basin Report 1662 and Aero
Report 1015, Washington, D.C. (Oct 1962): 39 pages.

[153] Barrows, Timothy M. and S. E. Widnall The Aerodynamics of Ram-Wing Ve­


hicles for Application to High Speed Ground Transportation, AIAA Paper 70-142
(Jun 1970).

[154] Barrows, Timothy M. Analytical Studies of the Lift and Roll Stability of a Ram
Air Cushion Vehicle, performed for the DOT by the Transportation Systems
Center, Interim Report DOT-TSC-FRA 72 10; also Report FRA-RT-73-21 (Dec
1972), NTIS PB-219 820: 67 pages.

[155] Anonymous "Causing a Mild Sensation on the Connecticut River From Essex
South to Long Island Sound is a 26 ft. Ram-Wing Boat Designed by Norman
Dickinson." in People and Projects, Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil (London) Vol.
2 (Sep 1963): 4.

[156] Kumar, P.E. Stability of Ground Effect Wings. College of Aeronautics Cranfield
Report Aero 196, AD 853136, Jul 1964.

[157] Yaffee, M. L. "Ram Wing studied as Transit Vehicle." Aviation Week & Space
Technology (2 January, 1967): 56-58, 60.
[158] Gallington, Roger W. "Ram Wing Surface Effect Boat." Journal of Hydronau-
tics Vol. 7, No. 3 (Jul 1973): 118-123.
[159] Gallington, Roger W. Vortex Shedding from the Ram Wing Vehicle, Paper pre­
sented to International Hovering Craft, Hydrofoil and Advanced Transit Systems
Conference, Brighton, England, (May 13-16, 1974).

[160] Miller, Jeffrey Arnot The Dynamic Compensation of a Ram Wing Surface Effect
Vehicle, Masters Thesis, Brown University (Nov 1974).
316

[161] Anonymous "Ram Wing Vehicles as Water-Borne Transport Facilities, State of


the Art and Future Development" Hovering Craft and Hydrofoil Vol. 13, No. 2
(Nov 1974).

[162] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B.V., Savitsky, Daniel and William F. Lehman Wave Con­
tours in the Wake of a 20-degree Deadrise Planing Surface, Report 337, Davidson
Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Jun 1948.

[163] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B.V., Savitsky, Daniel and William F. Lehman Wave Con­
tours in the Wake of a 10-degree Deadrise Planing Surface, Report 344, Davidson
Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Nov 1948; also S.M.F Publication
Fund Paper 170.

[164] Savitsky, Daniel and Joseph W. Neidinger Wetted Area and Center of Pressure
of Planing Surfaces at Very Low Speed Coefficients, Report 493, Davidson Labo­
ratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, July 1954; also S.M.F Publication Fund
Paper FF-11.

[165] Foshag, William F. Design and Fabrication of Two "Hydro-Skimmer" Models,


Aerophysics Co. Proposal AP-28, Washington, D.C., Jan 1961: 10 pages.

[166] Dunham, William H. Preliminary Results of Wind-Tunnel Tests of the HS-2


Hydroskimmer, David Taylor Model Basin Report 1571, Washington, D.C., Oct
1961: 34 pages.

[167] Dunham, William H. "Aerodynamically Designed Amphibious Vehicle." U.S.


Patent 3,077,321 Washington, D.C. (Feb 1963): 18 pages.

[168] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1970/71 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1971.

[169] Bertelsen, William R. Ground Effect Machines, U.S.A. Patent 3,322,223 (30
May 1967).

[170] Anonymous "Ground-EflFect Goliath to Thunder Across Tundra." Popular Me­


chanics (June 1992): 15.
[171] 3a,ne^s Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1981 Edition, London: Jane's Pub­
lishing Company, Ltd., 1981.

[172] Lange, Roy H. "Survey of Unconventional Aircraft Design Concepts." in Sterk,


F.J. and E. Torenbeek (eds.) Unconventional Aircraft Concepts: Papers pre­
sented at a symposium organized by the Netherlands Association of Aeronautical
317

Engineers (NVvL) and the Students Society 'Leonardo da Vinci' on April


1987 at the Delft University of Technology, Delft: Delft University Press, 1987:
1-50.

[173] Lange, Roy K. Design Concepts for Future Cargo Aircraft, AIAA Paper No.
75-306, presented at the AIAA 11th Annual Meeting and Technical Display,
Washington, D.C. (Feb 24-26, 1975).

[174] Gallington, Roger W. and Harvey R. Chaplin Theory of Power Augmented Ram
Lift at Zero Forward Speed, DTNSRDC Report ASED-365, Feb 1976.
[175] Krause, F.H. Parametric Investigation of a Power Augmented Ram Wing Over
Water, ASED TM 16-76-95, Oct 1976.
[176] McCabe, Earl F., Jr. Parametric Investigation of a Power Augmented Ram
Wing with Load Alleviation Devices Over Water Waves of Various Sea States,
DTNSRDC Report ASED TM 16-76-97, 1976.

[177] Moore, J.W. et. al. Parametric and Conceptual Design Study of Aircraft Wing-
in-Ground Effect (WIG) Vehicles, Report No. 76020-30 and Lockheed-Georgia
LG77ER0049, May 1977.

[178] Kocivar, Ben "New-Technology Monster Transports." Popular Science (Oct


1980): 72-75

[179] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1980 Edition, London: Jane's Pub­
lishing Company, Ltd., 1980.

[180] Dane, Abe "VVingships: Massive VVing-In-Ground-EfFect Flyers combine jet­


liner speeds with steamship Economy." Popular Mechanics (May 1992): 35-38,
123.

[181] Anonymous, Lockheed Report LR 17910, (Jul 1964).

[182] Condit, P. M. and J. E. Harrington An Investigation of a Dynamic Instability


of a Winged G.E.M., U.S. Army Transportation Research Command TRECOM
Technical Report 64-54, Dec 1964; also Princeton University Report No. 692,
Dec 1964.

[183] Harry, Charles W. and Lynn A. Trobaugh "Wind Tunnel Investigation of


Ground Effect on a Rectangular Wing of Several Moderate Aspect Ratios,"
DTMB Report 1979, (Jul 1965).
318

[184] Harry, Charles W. and Lynn A. Trobaugh "Wind Tunnel Investigation of an


Aspect Ratio 10 Tandem Wing Aircraft Configuration in Ground Effect. Part I
- Longitudinal Characteristics," DTMB Report 2259-1, Aerodynamics Labora­
tory, David Taylor Model Basin, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; also Report Aero-
1111-1, NTIS AD 641 246, Jul 1966: 71 pages.

[185] Cole, Tim "License to Fly." Popular Mechanics (July 1989): 57-59, 124-125.

[186] Seidman, David "We Have Lift Off (Boat That Flies)." Offshore (Mar 1991).

[187] Cameron, Kevin A. "The Boat that Flies." Popular Science (April 1992): 56-60,
111.

[188] Comisarow, P. and G. W. Brasseur An Evaluation of the Wing-in-Ground Effect


(WIG) Transport Aircraft Concept, DTMB Report C-2318, Nov 1966.
[189] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1972/73 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1973.

[190] McMasters, John H. and Richard R. Greer "A Conceptual Study for a New
Winged Surface Effect Vehicle System." Naval Eng. Journal (April 1974): 41-
51.

[191] McMasters, John H. and Richard R. Greer "Large Winged Surface Effect Ve­
hicles." Jane's Surface Skimmers (1975/6): 425-433.

[192] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1976/77 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1977.

[193] Stanford Research Institute Future Urban Transportation Systems: Technolog­


ical Assessment MR-2, PB 178 260, May 1967.
[194] Shilkoff, Marilyn J. "How Fast can Trains go?" SAE Journal Vol. 75, No. 7
(Jul 1967): 74-84.

[195] Giraud, Francois "Tracked Air Cushion Vehicles." in: High Speed Ground
Transportation: Proceedings of the Carnegie-Mellon Conference on High Speed
Ground Transportation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: Transportation Re­
search Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University (1969): 17-27.

[196] Lissaman, P. B. S. "Down to Earth Aerodynamics: Potential and Problems


of the Fluid Mechanics of Rapid Ground Transportation." High Speed Ground
Transportation Journal Wo\. 2, No. 1 (Jan 1968): 149-164.
319

[197] Hellman, Hal Transportation in the World of the Future, New York: M. Evans
and Company Inc., 1968.

[198] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1968/69 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1969.

[199] Widnall, Sheila E. and Timothy M. Barrows An Analytic Solution for Two-
and Three-Dimensional Wings in Ground Effect, MIT Fluid Dynamics Research
Laboratory Report 69-1 (Jun 1969); also in Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 41,
Part 4 (1970): 769-792.

[200] Dienemann, P.F. and J.P. Large Cost Analysis for NECPT, Vol. I, High Speed
Ground Modes, North-East Corridor Transportation Project NECTP-222, De­
cember 1969.

[201] TRW Systems Group HSGT Systems, Engineering Study, Tracked Air Cushion
Vehicle, North-East Corridor Transportation Project NECTP-219, December
1969.

[202] Williams, J.C, R.F. Davis and G.F. Martin "Preliminary Investigation of the
Lift and Drag of an Airfoil Operated between Parallel Planes." High Speed
Ground Transportation Journal Vol. 3, No. 3 (1969): 352.
[203] Saito, Tstsuru "The New Tokaido Line: Past Performance and Future
Prospects." in: High Speed Ground Transportation: Proceedings of the Carnegie-
Mellon Conference on High Speed Ground Transportation, Pittsburgh, Pennsyl­
vania, U.S.A.: Transportation Research Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University
(1969): 47-57.

[204] Berthelot, Jean M. "Economics Of The Aerotrain Systems." Jane's Surface


Skimmers {impOy. 271-276.
[205] Tracked Hovercraft Ltd. A Cost Comparison of three Tracked Air Cushion Ve­
hicle Configurations, Federal Railroad Administration Report FRA-RT-71-68,
July 1970.

[206] Harris, Gordon L. and Gerald R. Seemann "The Terrafoil: A New Concept in
High Speed Ground Transportation." High Speed Ground Transportation Journal
Vol. 4, No. 2 (1970): 197-209.

[207] Kovatch, G., et. al. Transportation Systems Technology - A Twenty-Year Out­
look, PB 204 800, August 1971.
320

[208] VVahl, Paul "Personal Rapid Transit." Popular Science (Nov 1971): 73-77, 136.

[209] Goss, W.P. and D.E. Cromack "Transportation in a Tube - High Speed Ground
Transportation of the Future." High Speed Ground Transportation Journal, Vol.
5, No. 3 (1971): 427-441.

[210] Tan, Engnam Anthony The Design of a Ram-Wing Vehicle for High Speed
Ground Transportation, Masters Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
USA (December 1972): 146 pages.

[211] Fraize, W. E. and Timothy M. Barrows The Tracked Ram Air Cushion Vehicle
(TRACV). A System Definition Study, Mitre Corporation Report MTR-6554,
performed for the Office of Research, Development and Demonstration of the
Federal Railroad Administration (Department of Transportation), Report DOT-
FRA-ORD&D-74-27, NTIS PB-230 485, Nov 1973: 224 pages.

[212] Ellis, C. Hamilton The Lore of the Train, New York: Crescent Books (1973).

[213] Coffey, Howard T., Chilton, Frank and Lyle 0. Hoppie "Magnetic Levitation
For Tomorrow's Transportation." Jane's Surface Skimmers (1973/74): 351-357.

[214] Shuldiner, Herbert "New Turbotrains Pace the Comeback of Passenger Rail­
roads." Popular Science (Oct 1974): 66-69, 126.

[215] Lehl, Elvest L. and Glen W. Zumwalt "The Airtrain: An Aircraft Technology
Ground Transportation System." High Speed Ground Transportation Journal
Vol. 8, No. 2 (1974): 11-15.

[216] Tan, Engnam Anthony, William P. Goss and Duane E. Cromack "The Design
of a Ram Wing Vehicle for High Speed Ground Transportation." High Speed
Ground Transportation Journal Vol. 8, No. 3 (1974): 167-183.
[217] Edward De Bono, editor Eureka! An Illustrated History of Inventions from the
Wheel to the Computer, Holt, Rinehart and Winston; New York (1974).
[218] Scott, David "Single-Rail Hovercars Geared For Low-Cost City Transit." Pop­
ular Science (Oct 75): 64.
[219] Jane's Yearbooks Jane's Surface Skimmers, 1975/76 Edition, London: Jane's
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1976.

[220] Collins, Jane High Speed Trains, Secausus, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Chartwell
Books Inc. (1978).
321

[221] Sato, Akihiro "Beyond the Bullet: Japan's New Train shoots for More Speed."
Popular Mechanics (Apr 1980): 96-100, 188, 190.
[222] Eskow, Dennis "Coming: The Fastest Train In The West." Popular Mechanics
(Nov 1983): 90-93.

[223] Hollingsworth, J. Brian and Arthur F. Cook The Illustrated Encrjclopedia of


the World's Modern Locomotives, New York, U.S.A.: Crescent Books (1983).
[224] Peters, J.L. "Aerodynamics of Very High Speed Trains and Maglev Vehicles:
State of the Art and Future Potential" International Journal of Vehicle De­
sign, Technological Advances in Vehicle Design Series (of books), SP3, Impact
of Aerodynamics on Vehicle Design (1983): 308-341.
[225] Eskow, Dennis "Japan Struts Its Stuff." Popular Mechanics (May 1985): 102-
105.

[226] Pope, Gregory T. "Supertrain: New Superconductors Rekindle Interest in Lev­


itated Locomotives." Popular Mechanics (Jun 1988): 78-80, 89, 114.

[227] Anonymous "TGV: The World's Fastest Train." Electric Lines (July-August
1990): 8-11, 36.

[228] Anonymous "Air-Powered El (Elevated) Train Would Hit 300 Mph." Popular
Mechanics (Mar 1991): 17.
[229] "Safety of High Speed Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems: Prelimi­
nary Safety Review of the Transrapid Maglev System" in Moving America: New
Directions, New Opportunities series, USDOT/FRA (April 1991): 36 pages.
[230] "Safety Relevant Observations on the TGV High Speed Train" in Moving Amer­
ica: New Directions, New Opportunities series, USDOT/FRA (July 1991): 38
pages.

[231] Transportation Research Board "In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Intercity
Passenger Transport." National Research Council, TRB Special Report SR 233,
Washington, D.C., 1991. ISBN 0-309-05122-3.

[232] "High-Speed Ground Transport: Acquiring Rights-of-Way for Maglev Systems


Requires a Flexible Approach", Report by the US General Accounting Office
(GAO) to the US Senate, Report GAO/RCED-92-82 (February 1992): 50 pages.
[233] High Speed Ground Transportation Systems I: Planning and Engineering. Pro­
ceedings of the First International Conference on High Speed Ground Trans­
portation (HSGT) Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA, October 25-28, 1992, edited
by Murthy V.A. Bondada and Roger L. Wayson, ISBN Q-S7262-927-9.

[234] Moberg, David "Fast Trains on a Slow Track; Late to the Station." In These
Times (Jun 14, 1993): 14-17.
[235] O'Connor, Leo "U.S. Developers Join Magnetic Rail Push." Mechanical Engi­
neering Vol. 115, No. 8 (Aug 1993): 74-77.
[236] "Magnetschwebebahn: Freie Fahrt fiir den Transrapid?" StromThemen 11.
Jahrgang, Nr. 4, April 1994.

[237] Gabrielli, G and Theodore von Karman "What Price Speed?" Mechanical
Engineering (Oct 1950); 775-781.
[238] Pistolesi, Enrico "Teorie ed Esperienze sul Problema dell'Ala in Vicinanza del
Suolo." Pubblicazioni della R. Scuola d'Ingegneria di Pisa Ser. VI, no. 261 (July
1935); 1-25; also Ground Effect - Theory and Practice, NACA TM 828, June
1937; 40 pages; also published in L'Aerotecnica Vol. 15 (Apr 1935): 393-418.

[239] Kiichemann, Dietrich. The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft. Oxford, United


Kingdom: Pergamon Press, 1978: 295-302.

[240] Howell, J.P. and K.W. Everitt "The Underbody Flow of an EDS-type Ad­
vanced Ground Transport Vehicle." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics Vol. 8 (1981): 275-294.
[241] Prandtl, Ludwig "Tragfliigeltheorie. I. Mitteilung." Nachrichten von der
Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen - Mathematisch-
Physikalische Klasse (1918); 451-477.
[242] Prandtl, Ludwig "Tragfliigeltheorie. II. Mitteilung." Nachrichten von der
Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen - Mathematisch-
Physikalische Klasse (1919): 107-137, particularly Part A.
[243] Prandtl, Ludwig Applications of Modern Hydrodynamics to Aeronautics, Na­
tional Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Seventh Annual Report [NACA TR
116] (1921): 183-184.

[244] Prandtl, Ludwig "Der Induzierte Widerstand von Mehrdeckern." Ergebnisse der
Aerodynamischen Versuchsanstalt zu Gottingen, II. Lieferung. 1923: 9-16; also
The Induced Drag of Multiplanes, NACA TN 182, 1924 (English Translation).
323

[245] Prandtl, Ludwig Induced Drag of Multiplanes, National Advisory Committee


for Aeronautics NACA TN 182 (1924).

[246] Prandtl, Ludwig "Der Induzierte Widerstand von Flugeln mit Endscheiben."'
Ergebnisse der Aerodynamischen Versuchsanstalt zu Gottingen, III. Liejerung.
1927; 17-18.

[247] Betz, Albert "Die Gegenseitige Beeinflussung zweier Tragflachen." Zeitschrift


fiir Flugtechnik and Motorluftschiffahrt (Miinchen, Germany) Vol. 5 (17 Oct
1914): 253-258.

[248] Lay, W. E. "Is 50 Miles Per Gallon possible with Correct Streamlining?" Jour­
nal of the Society of Automotive Engineering (New York) Vol. 32 (Apr 1933):
144-156: also SAE Journal "Vol. 32 (May 1933): 177-186.

[249] Heald, Roy H. "Comparison of the Ground-Plane and Image Methods for Rep­
resenting Ground Effects in Tests on Vehicle Models." Journal of Research of
the National Bureau of Standards Vol. 13 (Dec 1934): 863-870.
[250] Ono, Masami "On the Representation of a Ground in the Wind Tunnel." Jour­
nal of the Aeronautical Sciences Vol. 3 (Nov 1935): 40-42.
[251] Hara T., M. Kawaquiti, G. Fukuchi and A.Yamamoto "Aerodynamics of High
Speed Train." Monthly Bulletin of the International Railway Congress Associa­
tion Vol. 45, No. 2 (Feb 1968): 1-26.
[252] Klemin, Alexander "A Belt Method of Representing the Ground." Journal of
the Aeronautical Sciences Vol. 1, No. 4 (Oct 1934): 198-199.
[253] Stalker, Edward A. "Aerodynamics of the Railway Train." Railway Mech. Eng.
Vol. 108 (Aug 1934): 282-286.

[254] Tani, Itiro, Hideo Itokawa and Masuo Taima Further Studies of the Ground Ef­
fect on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Aeroplane, With Special Reference
to Tail Moment, Report 158 (Vol. 13) of the Aeronautical Research Institute of
Tokyo Imperial University (Nov 1937): 117-145.

[255] Barrows, Timothy M. and Sheila E. Widnall "Optimum Lift-Drag Ratio for a
Ram Wing Tube Vehicle." AIAA Journal Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1970): 491-497.

[256] Turner, Thomas R. A Moving Belt Ground Plane for Wind-Tunnel Ground
Simulation and Results for Two Jet Flap Configurations, NASA TN D-4228,
1967.
324

[257] Turner, Thomas R. Wind Tunnel Investigation of a 3/8-scale Automobile Model


over a Moving Belt Ground Plane, NASA TN D-4229, 1967.
[258] Carr, G.W. Correlation of Pressure Measurements in Model and Full Scale
Wind Tunnels and on the Road, Society of Automotive Engineers SAE 750065,
1975.

[259] Grunwald, K.J. Aerodynamic Characteristics of Vehicle Bodies at Crosswind


Conditions in Ground Proximity, NASA TN D-5935, 1970.
[260] Butler Sidney F.J., B.A. Moy and T.N. Pound A Moving Belt Rig for Ground
Simulation in Low Speed Wind Tunnels, Aeronautical Research Council Report
and Memorandum ARC R&M 3451 (1963).

[261] Poisson-Quinton, Philippe "From Wind Tunnel to Flight, the Role of the Lab­
oratory in Aerospace Design." Journal of Aircraft Vol. 5, No. 3 (May/Jun 1968):
193-214.

[262] Carr, G.W. and M.J. Roser Wind Tunnel Tests of Vehicle Models using a
Moving Ground Surface, Motor Industry Research Association Report 1966/13
(1966).

[263] Beauvais, F.N., S.C. Tignor and T.R. Turner Problems of Ground Simulation in
Automotive Aerodynamics, Society of Automotive Engineers SAE 680121, 1968.
[264] Hucho, W.H., L.J. Janssen and G. Schwartz The Wind Tunnel's Ground Plane
Boundary Layer - its Interference with the Flow Underneath Cars, Society of
Automotive Engineers SAE 750066, 1975.

[265] Baker, C.J. "Train Aerodynamic Forces and Moments from Moving Model Ex­
periments." Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics VoL 24
(1986); 227-251.

[266] Kemmerly, Guy T., John W. Paulson Jr., and Michael Compton "Exploratory
Evaluation of Moving-Model Technique for Measurement of Dynamic Ground
Effects." Journal of Aircraft Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1988): 557-562.

[267] Papenfuss, H.D. and M. Kronast "Moving-Model Technique used in Automo­


bile Aerodynamics for Measurement of Ground Effects." Experiments in Fluids
(Berlin, Germany) Vol. 11, No. 2/3 (1991): 161-166.

[268] Malavard, Lucien Ground Effect on Airfoils; Rheoelectric Analog Study of The­
oretical Flows. France: Bureau d'Analyse et de Recherche Appliquees, Contract
DA 91-591-EUC-1397 (Apr 1961): 30 pages.
325

[269] Malavard, Lucien "Remarque sur les Proprietes Aerodynamiques Theoriques


des Profils d'Ailes en Presence du Sol." presented at Day of Studies on the
Ground Effect Machine, Paris, 27 Feb 1961.

[270] Chaplin, Harvey R. and Lewis W. Masters Rheoelectric Measurements of Some


Theoretical Effects of Ground Proximity on Wings, David Taylor Model Basin,
NSRDC Aero Report 1068, Washington, D.C., Jan 1964: 13 pages.

[271] Le Sueur, Maurice "L'Influence du Voisinage d'un Sol sur I'Envol et


FAtterrissage des Avions." La Science Aerienne Vol. 3 (Jan-Feb 1934): 60-93;
also Ground Effect on the Take-Off and Landing of Airplanes, NACA TM 771,
1935 (English Translation).

[272] Ohtani K., N. Takei and H. Sakamoto Nissan Full Scale Wind Tunnel - its
Application to Passenger Car Design, Society of Automotive Engineers SAE
720100, 1972.

[273] Mason W.T. and G. Sovran "Ground Plane Effects on the Aerodynamic Char­
acteristics of Automobile Models." Advances in Road Vehicle Aerodynamics,
Cranfield, United Kingdom, 1973: Paper 17.

[274] Kramer C., H.J. Gerhardt, E. Jager and H. Stein "Wind Tunnel Tests on
Underbody Aerodynamics." (German) Symposium on Industrial Aerodynamics,
Aachen, Germany, 1974: Paper 3.

[275] Hamsten, B. and F.M. Christensen Correlation Tests in a Climatic Wind Tun­
nel, Society of Automotive Engineers SAE 750064, 1975.
[276] McDonald, A.T. "A Historical Survey of Automotive Aerodynamics." in Morel,
Thomas and Charles Dalton (eds): Aerodynamics of Transportation. New York,
U.S.A.: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1979: 61-69.

[277] Morel, Thomas and Charles Dalton (eds) Aerodynamics of Transportation. New
York, U.S.A.: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1979: 248 pages.
Based on: The Joint ASME-CSME Applied Mechanics, Fluids Engineering and
Bioengineering Conference, Niagara Falls, New York, June 18-20, 1979; also
listed as: ASME Symposium on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamics 1979.

[278] George, A.R. "Aerodynamics of Simple Bluff Bodies including effects of Body
Shape, Ground Proximity, and Pitch." in Morel, Thomas and Charles Dalton
(eds): Aerodynamics of Transportation. New York: The American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1979: 71-81.
326

[279] Howell, J.P. "Force and Wake Characteristics of Simple Bluff Bodies in Ground
Proximity." in Morel, Thomas and Charles Dalton (eds): Aerodynamics of Trans­
portation. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1979:
83-91.

[280] Baker, C.J. "The Effect of Turbulence.Simulation on the Wind-Induced Loads


on Ground Vehicles." in Morel, Thomas and James A. Miller (eds): Aerody­
namics of Transportation - II. New York: The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 1983: 1-9.

[281] Morel, Thomas and James A. Miller (eds) Aerodynamics of Transportation -


II. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1983: 89 pages.
Based on: The Winter Annual Meeting of the ASME, Boston, Massachusetts,
November 13-18, 1983, sponsored by The Fluids Engineering Division, ASME.
Also listed as: ASME Symposium on Ground Vehicle Aerodynamics 1983.

[282] Volgepohl G. "Luftwiderstand von Eisenbahn-Fahrzeugen." Zeitung des Vereins


Deutscher Ingenieure (Feb 1934).
[283] Howell, J.P. and K.W. Everitt "Gust Response of a High Speed Train Model."
in Morel, Thomas and James A. Miller (eds): Aerodynamics of Transportation
- II. New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1983: 81-89.
[284] Rosenhead, L. "The Lift on a Flat Plate Between Parallel Walls." Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London, Series A Vol. 132 (2 Jul 1931): 127-152.
[285] Green, A. E. "The Two-Dimensional Aerofoil in a Bounded Stream." Quarterly
Journal of Mathematics (London), Vol. 18, No. 71 (Sep 1947): 167-177.
[286] Havelock, T. H. "The Lift and Moment on a Flat Plate in a Stream of Finite
Width." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A Vol. 166, No. 925
(19 May 1938): 178-196.

[287] Haller, Pierre de "La Portance et la Trainee Induite Minimum d'une Aile au
Voisinage du Sol (The Lift and Minimum Induced Drag of a Wing in Proxim­
ity to the Ground)." Mitteilungen aus dem Institut fiir Aerodynamik der Eid-
genossischen Technischen Hochschule Ziirich No. 5 (1936).
[288] Hudimoto, Busuke "The Lift on an Aerofoil With a Circular Arc Section Placed
Near the Ground." Memoirs of the College of Engineering, Kyoto Imperial Uni­
versity Vol. 8 (Mar 1934): 36-41.
327

[289] Tomotika, Susumu and Isao Imai "Note on the Lift and Moment of a Circular-
Arc Aerofoil Which Touches the Ground With its Trailing Edge." Proceedings of
the Physico-Mathematical Society of Japan (Tokyo) Vol. 20 (Jan 1938): 15-32.
[290] Plotkin, A. "Thin Ellipse in Ground Effect: Lift Without Circulation." Journal
of Applied Mechanics Vol. 55 (Sep 1988): 735-736.
[291] Tomotika, Susumu, Ziro Hasimoto and Kaoru Urano "The Forces Acting on
an Aerofoil of Approximate .Joukowski Type in a Stream Bounded by a Plane
Wall." The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics (Oxford,
United Kingdom) Vol. 4, Part 3 (Sep 1951): 289-307.

[292] Tani, Itiro "On the Effect of the Ground Upon the Lift of a Monoplane Wing."
Journal of the Aeronautical Research Institute (ARI) of Tokyo Imperial Univer­
sity, No. 96 (Aug 1932): 684-689 (in Japanese).
[293] Saunders, G. H. "Aerodynamic Characteristics of Wings in Ground Proximity."
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal {Ottawa, Canada) Vol. 11 (June 1965):
185-192.

[294] Tani, Itiro, Masuo Taimaand Sodi Simidu The Effect of Ground on the Aerody­
namic Characteristics of a Monoplane Wing, Report 156 (Vol. 13) of the Aero­
nautical Research Institute of Tokyo Imperial University (Sep 1937): 23-76 (in
English). Sometimes the second author's name is reported as M. Tomika, and
the report's title as On the Effect of the Ground upon the Lift of a Monoplane
Wing.
[295] Plotkin, A. and C.G. Kennell "Thickness-Induced Lift on a Thin Airfoil in
Ground Effect." AIAA JournalWo\. 19, No. 11 (1981): 1484-1486; also Technical
Note AIAA 81-4297.

[296] Dragos, Lazar "Numerical Solution of the Equation for a Thin Airfoil in Ground
Effect." AIAA Journal Vol 28, No. 12 (1990): 2132-2134.

[297] Schlichting, Hermann and Erich Truckenbrodt Aerodynamics of the Airplane,


New York: McGraw-Hill (1979).

[298] Katz, Joseph and Allen Plotkin Low-Speed Aerodynamics: From Wing Theory
to Panel Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill (1991).
[299] Hummel, Dietrich "Nichtlineare Tragfiiigeltheorie in Bodennahe." Zeitschrift
fiir Flugwissenschaften Vol. 21, No. 12 (Dec 1973): 425-442.
328

[300] Tan, C.H. and A. Plotkin "Lifting-Line Solution for a Symmetrical Thin Wing
in Ground Effect." AIAA Journal Vol. 24, No. 7 (July 1986); 1193-1194.

[301] Thomas, F. "Aerodynamische Eigenschaften von Pfeil- und Deltaflugeln in


Bodennahe." 1958 Jahrbuch der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fiir Luftfahrt
(Braunschweig, Germany): 53-61.

[302] Ackermann, U. and G. Bock "Betrachtungen zu einem Zwei-Wirbel-


Flugelmodell." Zeitschrift fiir Fluqwissenschaften (Braunschweig, Germany) Vol.
9 (Apr/May 1961): 100-104.

[303] Kohlman, D. A Theoretical Method of Determining the Ground Effect on Lift


and Pitching Moment for Wings of Arbitrary Planform, Boeing Document D3-
1861 (Oct 1958).

[304] Binder, Gunter "Nichtlineare Tragflachentheorie fiir schiebende und hangende


Flugel in Bodennahe (Nonlinear Lifting-Surface Theory for Yawed and Banked
Wings in Ground Proximity)." Zeitschrift fiir Flugwissenschaften und Weltraum-
forschung Vol. 1, No. 4 (Jul/Aug 1977); 241-249.
[305] Gersten, Klaus "Berechnung der Aerodynamischen Beiwerte von Tragflugeln
endlicher Spannweite in Bodennahe" Abhandlung der Braunschweigischen I'Fzs-
senschaftlichen Gesellschaft XII (1960): 95-115.
[306] Multhopp, H. "Methods for Calculating the Lift Distribution of Wings (Sub­
sonic Lifting-Surface Theory)." Great Britain Aeronautical Research Council Re­
ports and Memoranda ARC R&M 2884 (1955); also. Royal Aircraft Establish­
ment RAE Report Aero. 2353, Oct. 1950.

[307] Hess, J.L. and A.M.O. Smith "Calculation of Potential Flow about Arbitrary
Bodies." Progress in Aeronautical Sciences Vol. 8 (1967); 1-138.

[308] Chow, Chuen-Yen An Introduction to Computational Fluid Mechanics. New


York: John Wiley h Sons, 1979.

[309] Kollmann, Wolfgang Computational Fluid Dynamics. Washington: Hemisphere


Publishing Corp., 1980.

[310] Moran, Jack An Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Aerodynamics.


New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

[311] Anderson, John David, Jr. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. New York;


McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1984.
329

[312] Giesing, Joseph P. Extension of the Douglas Neumann Program to Problems


of Lifting, Infinite Cascades, Report LB 31653 of the Long Beach Division of
Douglas Aircraft Co., sponsored by The Bureau of Ships Fundamental Hydrome­
chanics Research Program (related to the DTMB), Washington, D.C. (Jul 1964):
71 pages. (NTIS AD 605 207).

[313] Giesing, Joseph P. Potential Flow About 2-D Airfoils. Part /, Report LB 31946
of the Lone Beach Division of Douglas Aircraft Co. (May 1968); 152 pages.
(NTIS AD 773 524).

[314] Gersten, Klaus and Jan von der Decken "Aerodynamische Eigenschaften
Schlanker Flugel in Bodennahe." 1966 Jahrbuch der Wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft fiir Luft- und /Jawm/a/iri (Braunschweig, Germany): 108-125.
[315] Bertin, John J. and Michael L. Smith Aerodynamics for Engineers. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1979.

[316] Gray, Frank Blackman, Jr. The Use of Aerodynamic Lift for Support of High
Speed Surface Transport Vehicles, Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, U.S.A.
(1971).

[317] Davis, Joseph E. and Gordon L. Harris "Nonplanar Wings in Nonplanar Ground
Effect." Journal of Aircraft Vol. 10, No. 5 (May 1973): 308-312.

[318| Barrows, Timothy M., Sheila E. Widnall and Herbert H. Richardson The Use of
Aerodynamic Lift for Application to High Speed Ground Transportation, Report
FRA-RT-71-56 for the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation (OHSGT)
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) of the U.S.A. (June 1970): 132
pages; also MIT Fluid Dynamics Research Lab Report T 70-3.

[319] Kida, T. and Y. Miyai "A Theoretical Note on the Lift Distribution of a Non-
Planar Ground Effect Wing." Aeronautical Quarterly Vol. 24 (Aug 1973): 227-
240.

[320] Tuck, E.O. A Non-Linear Unsteady One-Dimensional Theory for Wings in


Extreme Ground Effect Report T7906, Applied Mathematics Department, Uni­
versity of Adelaide, Australia, June 1979: 37 pages.

[321] Tuck, E.O. "A Nonlinear Unsteady One-Dimensional Theory for Wings in Ex­
treme Ground Effect." Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 98, Part 1 (1980), nearly
identical to Report T7906: 33-47.
330

[322] Tuck, E.O. "Steady Flow and Static Stability of Airfoils in Extreme Ground
Effect." Journal of Engineering Mathematics Vol. 15, No. 2 (April 1981): 89-102.

[323] Newman, J.N. "Analysis of Small-Aspect-Ratio Lifting Surfaces in Ground Ef­


fect." Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vo\. 117 (1982): 305-314.

[324] Tuck, E.O. and M. Bentwich "Sliding Sheets: Lubrication with Comparable
Viscous and Inertia Forces." Journal of Fluid Mechanics Vol. 135 (1983): 51-69.

[325] Deese, J.E. and R.K. Agarwal Euler Calculation for Flow over a Wing in
Ground Effect, AIAA-86-1765, sponsored by McDonnell Douglas (1986): 5 pages.
[326] Plotkin, A. and S.S. Dodbele "Slender Wing in Ground Effect." AIAA Journal
Vol. 26, No. 4 (April 1988): 493-494.

[327] Hashiguchi, Masanori, Takashi Ohta and Kunio Kuwahara Computational


Study of Aerodynamic Behavior of a Car Configuration, AIAA-87-1386, paper
presented at the AIAA 19th Fluid Dynamics and Lasers Conference, June 8-10,
1987, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. (Jun 1987): 11 pages.

[328] Lamb, Horace Hydrodynamics. New York: Dover Publications, 1945.

[329] Nicolai, Leland M. Fundamentals of Aircraft Design. San Jose, California,


U.S.A.: METS, Inc., 1984 (revised from the 1975 edition).

You might also like