Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Geometrical, flight, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and wind-tunnel studies for the F-16XL-1 airplane are summarized over a wide range of test conditions. Details are as follows: (1) For geometry, the upper surface of the airplane and the numerical surface description compare reasonably well. (2) For flight, CFD, and wind-tunnel surface pressures, the comparisons are generally good at low angles of attack at both subsonic and transonic speeds, however, local differences are present. In addition, the shock location at transonic speeds from wind-tunnel pressure contours is near the aileron hinge line and generally is in correlative agreement with flight results. (3) For boundary layers, flight profiles were predicted reasonably well for attached flow and underneath the primary vortex but not for the secondary vortex. Flight data indicate the presence of an interaction of the secondary vortex system and the boundary layer and the boundary-layer measurements show the secondary vortex located more outboard than predicted. (4) Predicted and measured skin friction distributions showed qualitative agreement for a two vortex system. (5) Web-based data-extraction and computational-graphical tools have proven useful in expediting the preceding comparisons. (6) Data fusion has produced insightful results for a variety of visualization-based data sets.

Geometrical, flight, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and wind-tunnel studies for the F-16XL-1 airplane are summarized over a wide range of test conditions. Details are as follows: (1) For geometry, the upper surface of the airplane and the numerical surface description compare reasonably well. (2) For flight, CFD, and wind-tunnel surface pressures, the comparisons are generally good at low angles of attack at both subsonic and transonic speeds, however, local differences are present. In addition, the shock location at transonic speeds from wind-tunnel pressure contours is near the aileron hinge line and generally is in correlative agreement with flight results. (3) For boundary layers, flight profiles were predicted reasonably well for attached flow and underneath the primary vortex but not for the secondary vortex. Flight data indicate the presence of an interaction of the secondary vortex system and the boundary layer and the boundary-layer measurements show the secondary vortex located more outboard than predicted. (4) Predicted and measured skin friction distributions showed qualitative agreement for a two vortex system. (5) Web-based data-extraction and computational-graphical tools have proven useful in expediting the preceding comparisons. (6) Data fusion has produced insightful results for a variety of visualization-based data sets.