1982NASA Technical Reports Server (NASA)Requires access

KC-135 wing and winglet flight pressure distributions, loads, and wing deflection results with some wind tunnel comparisons

L. C. Montoya, P. F. Jacobs, S. G. Flechner, Robert L. Sims

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

A full-scale winglet flight test on a KC-135 airplane with an upper winglet was conducted. Data were taken at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 0.82 at altitudes from 34,000 feet to 39,000 feet at stabilized flight conditions for wing/winglet configurations of basic wing tip, 15/-4 deg, 15/-2 deg, and 0/-4 deg winglet cant/incidence. An analysis of selected pressure distribution and data showed that with the basic wing tip, the flight and wind tunnel wing pressure distribution data showed good agreement. With winglets installed, the effects on the wing pressure distribution were mainly near the tip. Also, the flight and wind tunnel winglet pressure distributions had some significant differences primarily due to the oilcanning in flight. However, in general, the agreement was good. For the winglet cant and incidence configuration presented, the incidence had the largest effect on the winglet pressure distributions. The incremental flight wing deflection data showed that the semispan wind tunnel model did a reasonable job of simulating the aeroelastic effects at the wing tip. The flight loads data showed good agreement with predictions at the design point and also substantiated the predicted structural penalty (load increase) of the 15 deg cant/-2 deg incidence winglet configuration.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A full-scale winglet flight test on a KC-135 airplane with an upper winglet was conducted. Data were taken at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 0.82 at altitudes from 34,000 feet to 39,000 feet at stabilized flight conditions for wing/winglet configurations of basic wing tip, 15/-4 deg, 15/-2 deg, and 0/-4 deg winglet cant/incidence. An analysis of selected pressure distribution and data showed that with the basic wing tip, the flight and wind tunnel wing pressure distribution data showed good agreement. With winglets installed, the effects on the wing pressure distribution were mainly near the tip. Also, the flight and wind tunnel winglet pressure distributions had some significant differences primarily due to the oilcanning in flight. However, in general, the agreement was good. For the winglet cant and incidence configuration presented, the incidence had the largest effect on the winglet pressure distributions. The incremental flight wing deflection data showed that the semispan wind tunnel model did a reasonable job of simulating the aeroelastic effects at the wing tip. The flight loads data showed good agreement with predictions at the design point and also substantiated the predicted structural penalty (load increase) of the 15 deg cant/-2 deg incidence winglet configuration.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A full-scale winglet flight test on a KC-135 airplane with an upper winglet was conducted. Data were taken at Mach numbers from 0.70 to 0.82 at altitudes from 34,000 feet to 39,000 feet at stabilized flight conditions for wing/winglet configurations of basic wing tip, 15/-4 deg, 15/-2 deg, and 0/-4 deg winglet cant/incidence. An analysis of selected pressure distribution and data showed that with the basic wing tip, the flight and wind tunnel wing pressure distribution data showed good agreement. With winglets installed, the effects on the wing pressure distribution were mainly near the tip. Also, the flight and wind tunnel winglet pressure distributions had some significant differences primarily due to the oilcanning in flight. However, in general, the agreement was good. For the winglet cant and incidence configuration presented, the incidence had the largest effect on the winglet pressure distributions. The incremental flight wing deflection data showed that the semispan wind tunnel model did a reasonable job of simulating the aeroelastic effects at the wing tip. The flight loads data showed good agreement with predictions at the design point and also substantiated the predicted structural penalty (load increase) of the 15 deg cant/-2 deg incidence winglet configuration.

Key concepts: Wingtip device, Wing, Deflection (physics), Wind tunnel, Structural engineering, Mach number, Aeroelasticity, Airplane

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
KC-135 wing and winglet flight pressure distributions, loads, and wing deflection results with some wind tunnel comparisons — Research Paper | ScholarLens