-
THE HIGH SPEED
FRONTIER
-
-
- Chapter 2: The High-Speed
Airfoil Program
-
- THE QUEST FOR UNDERSTANDING
(1928-1935)
-
-
-
- [13] On July 16, 1928,
the man who was to dominate Langley high-speed aerodynamics for
the next 30 years reported for duty. John Stack was the son of
Irish-born parents, a heritage which may have accounted for his
personal charm, garrulousness, love of horses, and ability to
absorb large quantities of whiskey. Educated at the Chauncey Hall
School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, his distinctive
accent retained little to suggest an Irish background (it can be
described as upper-class Bostonian with variations). Stack was at
his best in the midst of conflict, crusading passionately for some
cause such as a new wind tunnel against the forces of reaction and
stupidity (which in his view was anyone and everyone who had any
objection to the project).
-
- He had applied for NACA employment during
his senior year at MIT, where several of the faculty were involved
in various ways with NACA activities. On his arrival there were
fewer than 60 professionals at Langley, loosely organized in
"sections" attached to the research facilities they operated. As
was customary, Elton W. Miller, the fatherly, mild-mannered
Chief of Aerodynamics, escorted Stack around the
Laboratory introducing him to virtually the entire staff. After
the tour, "Mr. Miller," as he was universally called, indulged
himself with a final question that [14] he invariably
directed to new engineers with private enjoyment, "Where
would you prefer to be assigned?" Believing he had a
choice Stack said, "the VDT." "Very good, I had already decided to
put you there," Miller replied. (More often than not, as in my own
case, the new arrival's choice did not agree with Mr. Miller's and
he was told, "Well I have decided to place you elsewhere. Let me
know in a year or two how you like it.")
-
- Stack was assigned immediately to the
12-inch high-speed tunnel
project which was then under
construction- the lone NACA researcher in this field. For the next
decade his work would be closely followed by Eastman N. Jacobs,
VDT section head, a man for whose technical sagacity Stack had
enormous respect. Both men had the same kind of restless energy
and pragmatic approach to research problems. Neither was a
theoretician, although both of them frequently supported
theoretical work by others and frequently made use of such work.
Their own activity in this area was limited to applying the usual
analytical tools of the engineer.
-
- In his first years at Langley, Stack was
quite modest about his knowledge of aerodynamics and was eager to
learn. As W. F. Lindsey, who high-speed arrived in 1931 and was a
major contributor throughout the high-speed airfoil program, puts
it, "Practically all we knew about compressible flow theory at
that time was what was written in five or six pages in Glauert's
1926 textbook." Among the five professionals in the VDT group in
1930, Stack was chosen to act as section head in Jacobs' absence.
(In those days, there was no formal appointment to the assistant
section head position.) Apparently Stack's general deportment as a
junior engineer was exemplary; the tough assertive characteristics
mentioned earlier began to show themselves slowly at first, not
reaching full flower until after Jacobs departed Langley in the
mid-forties (refs. 22, 23).
-
- The first attempts to operate the 12-inch
tunnel with its unique jet-augmentor induction drive produced such
violent flow oscillations that it was soon decided to convert to a
closed throat. Stanton's small supersonic tunnel in England, in
which the test airfoil spanned the throat (ref. 24), may have suggested the configuration. This
configuration eliminated the pulsations and the uncertain large
boundary effects of the open-tunnel setup, but suffered large
constriction effects which were not [15] understood at
that time. Pressure distributions on the 3-inch chord airfoils
were found to be similar in character to the Briggs/Dryden results
but different in detail. There was no way to tell whether either
set of data was correct at the higher speeds. The renowned British
theorist, G. I. Taylor, visited Langley in late 1929 and examined
the data. Results of his recent studies of subcritical
compressible flows by the electrical analogy method seemed, by
inference and extrapolation, to cast doubts on the 12-inch tunnel
data. Discouraged, Stack and Jacobs set the data aside and decided
to go back to the open-throat configuration, with the first
objective of achieving stable flow. (It is now believed that the
closed-throat data were valid at speeds below the onset of tunnel
choking. Unfortunately they were never published and were later
disposed of.)
-
- Another famous visitor, Amelia Earhart,
came to view a test run in the high-speed tunnel at this same time
period. She was clad in a raccoon fur coat. When the tunnel
started she leaned forward to feel the flow of air into the
entrance bell and her coat was instantly sucked into the bell,
causing a large tear and terrifying its owner (ref. 22).
-
- Stack has reviewed the laborious
succession of design changes to the tunnel (ref. 20) that followed Taylor's visit: reversion back to
the open throat modified by incorporation of a 1/2-inch annular
enlargement at the entrance to the diffuser and a large reduction
in length of the open section; rejection of the open throat,
primarily because of windage effects on the balance and
secondarily because of flow pulsations; a second reversion back to
the closed throat-11 inches in diameter but virtually the same
arrangement at the 12-inch tunnel except for the 1/2-inch step at
the entrance of the diffuser and the use of 2-inch chord test
models. By this time (1931) a high-tip-speed propeller test had
been made in the PRT which afforded a basis for comparison and
evaluation of the closed-throat wind tunnel data. Stack applied
Goldstein's method to calculate the performance of the test
propeller using the new high-speed section data from the 11-inch
tunnel (ref.
25). His results agreed with the
PRT tests except that the onset of performance deterioration in
the calculation occurred at a somewhat lower Mach number. We now
know this shift in speed was due to a combination of constriction
effects in the tunnel, Reynolds
number differences, and
three-dimensional relief at the propeller tip. Still, the
comparison was close enough to confirm that the [16] tunnel was an
effective tool, and it was used at once to try to define improved
sections. Following the lead of Briggs and Dryden, airfoils with
the maximum thickness shifted rearward were found to offer
improved high-speed performance, a fact which further strengthened
confidence in the 11-inch tunnel (ref. 26).
-
- At this stage (1933) the Langley group,
according to Stack, had CC exhausted its intuition as regards
methods for further improvement of aerodynamic shapes"
(ref.
20). However, now that making the
tunnel work was no longer the primary problem, interest finally
shifted to the nature of the "burble" phenomena. E. N. Jacobs is
believed to have first suggested to Stack that the schlieren
optical system ought to be tried to make the phenomena visible.
From his interest in amateur astronomy Jacobs was familiar with
the Foucault test for mirrors, and the schlieren system, first
described in 1889 by Mach, was optically a close relative.
Unfortunately, in the limited Langley library of the early
thirties nothing could be found except a schematic drawing in
Wood's Physical
Optics. This was used as a guide to
construct the first crude schlieren (ref. 23). Reading-glass quality lenses about 3 inches in
diameter were located together with a short-duration-spark light
source. Celluloid inserts were used to support the test model at
the tunnel walls. The first tests were made on a circular cylinder
about 1/2-inch in diameter, and the results were spectacular in
spite of the poor quality of the optics. Shock waves and attendant
flow separations were seen for the first time starting at subsonic
stream speeds of about 0.6 times the speed of sound. Visitors from
all over the Laboratory, from Engineer-in-Charge H. J. E. Reid on
down, came to view the phenomena. Langley's ranking theorist,
Theodore Theodorsen, viewed the new results skeptically,
proclaiming that since the stream flow was subsonic, what appeared
to be shock waves was an "optical illusion," an error in judgment
which he was never allowed to forget. At the annual dinner of the
Langley staff in the fall of 1936, a skit was presented in which
Stack played the role of Theodorsen, complete with Norwegian
accent, making the "optical illusion" pronouncement.
-
- Flow pictures for an airfoil at high
speeds were obtained
in short order. All of the
implications were not immediately understood; however it was seen
that a shock wave formed shortly after the speed of
[17]
sound was reached locally and that flow separation was induced by
effects of the shock. This emphasized the idea that shapes should
be sought with the least possible induced velocities. Stack has
described this concept as "the inspiration . . . which led
immediately to a new approach to the problem of developing better
shapes" (ref. 20).
-
- Shortly after the first dramatic results
of the schlieren tests had been obtained, Jacobs came back from a
meeting with Reid and announced that $10 000 of Public Works
Administration funds would be made available to build a 24-inch
high-speed tunnel, provided that a design could be accomplished in
a few weeks. Justification for the larger tunnel rested entirely
on Jacobs' argument that it was the low Reynolds number of the
11-inch tunnel data which was responsible for the discrepancy with
the PRT propeller data mentioned previously. Jacobs' idea was to
build a 24-inch tunnel exactly similar in all respects except size
and Reynolds number to the 11-inch tunnel, and this was the basic
design specification. A number of improvements were included
however: a new 5-inch schheren system, an improved balance, and a
photo-recording multiple-tube manometer.
-
- The tunnel was erected outside the VDT
building on a reinforced
concrete base which also formed the
entrance section and the test chamber surrounding the tunnel
throat. Ira Abbott quickly became an expert in reinforced
concrete. Dick Lindsey and Ken Ward were instructed by Jacobs to
design the entrance section independently and bring their results
to him for comparison. (They were sufficiently similar to merit
Jacobs' quick approval.) Stack specialized in aerodynamic issues
and coordinated the design project. The design was completed as
scheduled and the tunnel was built approximately within the cost
limitation in about one year's time. Figure 1 shows the two
principal operators of the 24-inch tunnel involved with a survey
rake installation in a scene typical of the mid-thirties.
-
- The first test in the new tunnel involved
a much more important issue than the Reynolds number-effect
question for which the tunnel had been built. Jacobs had been
invited to present a paper at the forthcoming Fifth Volta Congress
on High Speeds in Aviation in Italy, and he realized that an
elucidation of what was actually happening in the compressibility
burble phenomena would be most appropriate and important,
especially...
-
-
-
-
- [18] FIGURE 1-John
Stack and W. F. "Dick" Lindsey (standing inside the 24-Inch
High-Speed Tunnel) in the thirties.
-
-
- ....in view of the possibility now of
presenting flow photographs in addition to pressure distributions
and forces. Accordingly, a 5-inch chord 4412 airfoil model built
for the VDT with 56 small pressure holes was tested in the 24-inch
tunnel and simultaneous pressures and flow photographs were
obtained for the first time. After describing the new
understanding of the burble phenomena achieved in the Langley
program, Jacobs went on to derive for the first time the relation
between the low-speed suction pressure peak on an airfoil and the
speed ratio (Mach number) at which the local speed of sound would
be reached. That is, the critical Mach number could now be related
to or estimated from the low-speed pressure [19] signature of the
airfoil. Obviously this relation contained a powerful implication:
the critical Mach number could be increased by shape changes which
could be determined by simple incompressible theory or low-speed
tests.
-
- A NACA Technical Note covering some of the
same ground as the Volta paper was written by Stack (ref. 27), and a more elaborate Technical Report
(ref.
28) was issued later in which Stack
credits Jacobs with the critical Mach number derivation. Together
with Jacobs' paper these publications proclaimed the first major
contribution of NACA in-house high-speed research-the fundamental
understanding of the burble phenomena derived in large part from
the revelations of the schlieren photographs.
-
- COMMENTARY
-
- Throughout the history of NACA newer types
of test facilities were often placed into service somewhat
prematurely in order to capitalize on their advanced capabilities.
This frequently resulted in some unforeseen difficulties. In the
case of the first NACA high-speed wind tunnel these difficulties
were compounded by strong interactions between the tunnel flow and
the test airfoil flows at high speeds. Furthermore, the high-speed
airfoil problem was so new that no criteria existed for judging
whether valid data were being obtained, a situation which had its
roots in the lack of knowledge of what actually happened in
airfoil flows when the compressibility burble occurred. It seems
obvious now that the first goal in such circumstances should be to
acquire at least a qualitative understanding of the basic flow
phenomena, and that this should always precede any program to
produce force data for use by designers. The closed-throat 12-inch
tunnel of 1929 could have been used to provide the great
enlightenment from combined pressure and schlieren pictures which did
not come until some five years later in the program actually
pursued. It was the eventual achievement of this fundamental
understanding that now stands out as NACA's first major
accomplishment in high-speed aerodynamics. It also formed the
solid base on which the advances in critical speed discussed in
the next section could be made. By comparison, perfection of the
testing technique so as to acquire improved [20] force data for
designers, which was the goal of the early program (ref. 19), produced only relatively unimportant data prior
to 1934.
-
- A principal factor in the long delay in
acceptance of the closed-throat data was the doubt engendered by
G. I. Taylor in 1929. W. F. Lindsey points out that Taylor's real
expertise extended only to the critical speed, and beyond that
point his speculations should not have been taken as seriously as
they were (ref. 23). E. N. Jacobs also feels that the cautious
conservatism often displayed by so-called "experts" when they are
asked to judge new phenomena beyond their previous
experience has been a cause of undue delays (ref. 19). As another example he cited his 1926
investigation of thrust augmentors (ref. 17). Lewis turned the report of this work over to
Dryden for review. Dryden expressed some doubts about it based on
momentum considerations. As a result, publication was held up for
several years, until 1931. Another obvious example was
Theodorsen's off-hand optical-illusion" pronouncement, but by that
time Jacobs and Stack had acquired enough confidence and momentum
to proceed on their own judgments. As a general rule, the
speculations and doubts of experts in viewing new phenomena should
not be overrated.
-
- The essence of the idea that the critical
speed could be related to the low-speed velocity profile of the
airfoil was first stated by Briggs and Dryden in 1925
(ref.
11). However, the only use they
made of it was to show that the trends in their observed critical
speeds were qualitatively consistent with the concept. They never
considered applying the idea as a tool to develop improved shapes.
It remained for Stack and Jacobs to recognize the potential of
this concept and to put it to quantitative use. They established
the mathematical relationship between Mcr and the
low-speed peak negative pressure coefficient, thereby making it
possible for designers to estimate from low-speed theoretical or
experimental data the critical speeds of their designs, and
providing high-speed researchers with a practical theoretical tool
for achieving improved forms. Stack clearly felt a sense of
excitement and fresh "inspiration" from this accomplishment
(ref.
20). In his view the "new" concept
was one of the fruits of the combined pressure and schlieren study
for the 4412 airfoil in 1934. Whether previous readings of Briggs
and Dryden had planted the seeds of the idea matters little; the
revelations of the 1934 research gave the concept real meaning and
inspired its useful application.
-
- [21] It will be
difficult for today's researchers to comprehend the procurement
story of the 24--inch high-speed tunnel. That kind of quick
action-design by the research staff in three or four weeks and
construction for some $12 000 in less than a year-is rarely seen
in the present complex organization. Facility procurements follow
a complex process of reviews and approvals and many stages of
design and construction involving several inhouse and outside
agencies. Procurement of test models has followed a similar
pattern. Of perhaps even greater concern than time and cost is the
discouraging effect of these long and costly procurements on the
interest and initiative of researchers.
-
- Periodically throughout the history of
NACA situations would arise, in the research programs as well as
in facility procurements, where it was obvious that the normal
agency procedures could not accomplish the job effectively
within time or cost limits. Small teams or task groups would be
set up in these cases, relieved of their normal duties and
exempted from normal lines of authority, burdens of paperwork,
etc-that is, freed from the restraints of the large parent
organization, while taking advantage of its services and
facilities whenever possible. Almost invariably these special
groups did an impressive job.
-
- The use of this special-group technique,
not only in emergencies but as a regular device in R&D and
procurement programs for recapturing the benefits of the small
organization, offers partial salvation to today's enormous
bureaucracies, industrial as well as governmental.
-
-
-