Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Wing area (exposed, reference, gross) vs CL & Cl

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Wing area (exposed, reference, gross) vs CL & Cl

Old 24th Aug 2015, 21:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wing area (exposed, reference, gross) vs CL & Cl

Here's a question for the highly technical aerodynamicists. Maybe I'll stump the band with this one.

My question is- between the various wing area definitions, which more accurately reflects the lift coefficients actually seen on the wing sections? Given that the difference in wing area definitions as relates, e.g., to a Boeing 787 is a whopping 25% in area (between Piano gross and exposed area), the question of definitions is hardly a minor distinction.

First, I think I understand the difference between exposed and reference wing area (reference area extends the imaginary wing planform trapezoid through the fuselage and does not include the "yehudi" / extensions; exposed is just like it sounds). Then there are gross area and "wimpress" definitions, which include the exposed yehudi or wing extensions and all or almost all of their imaginary extended portions which pass thru the fuselage.

And I think I understand the difference between CL and Cl (CL is for the whole wing, Cl is for a local airfoil).

One might intuitively think the exposed area is the most accurate since it is all that is hanging out there, but actually the "carry-through" wing area reflected in the other definitions' area is indirectly producing massive lift (via the fuselage) -- this is because the wing lift cannot simply stop on a dime at the junction of the fuselage (unless the fuselage were an infinite wall).

Another way to put my question is this: If someone at Boeing (pre-CFD days) were picking an airfoil for the 737, and the calculations showed that the lift coefficient at mid-span needed to be Cl 0.50 based on exposed area, would this more accurately select an airfoil than if they based the Cl on gross area (perhaps about Cl 0.40)?

Yet another way to put the question is -- were airfoils more accurately "labeled" by reference area, gross area, or exposed area re their design lift coefficient Cl? Let's say a designer (again, pre- CFD days) picks a laminar flow airfoil with a design lift coefficient of Cl 0.6 and puts it on a plane based on his gross area calculation. Will this airfoil be close to ideal, or should he have instead picked a Cl 0.75 airfoil because in flight exposed area is more accurate re Cl? And in the old days, not that long ago really, airfoils really were labelled with lift coefficients (eg, many NACA laminar flow series airfoils).

I realize the Cl varies considerably across the wingspan, depending on twist and 3D effects, but for any arbitrary point, my question still seems meaningful, albeit a tad nerdy.

Any thoughts (esp if someone were a designer)?

Last edited by Mach Stall; 24th Aug 2015 at 21:44. Reason: clarity
Mach Stall is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 17:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm only a fledgling aero guy but I think I understand your point.

But help me please - is there an online sketch(es) describing the differences in definition?

TIA!
barit1 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2015, 19:52
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna/AT
Age: 55
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I found this page with a few drawings:
Wing Geometry

The page is part of a (somewhat dated) site about Aircraft Design:
Aircraft Design, Synthesis and Analysis

cheers
peter
captainpeter is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2015, 12:36
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The short answer is neither!
Read the Stanford lecture notes cited by Capt. Peter (not really dated) and you will get a lot of information on how local lift coefficient varies across the span.
The total lift is an integration of all these bits.
When folks talk about wing area they generally mean the REFERENCE area, which can be anything the designer chooses.
The OVERALL lift coefficient is then the integral of the local lifts divided by this reference area.
Therefore, so long as you are consistent, local Cl has to come from detailed aerodynamic calculations, but CL is a global average
Owain Glyndwr is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2015, 01:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The reason I ask is historical in nature.

A light commercial aircraft from 1936 has a semi-elliptical planform and a stated (advertised) area of 185 ft^2.

A later 1939 adaption of the same design has same chord & span, same tip shape, but a slightly wider aft fuselage; this trims about one ft^2 on each side off the wing area at the root. BUT - this later model is advertised as 210 ft^2!

So the only reasonable answer I can conjure is that the rules of the game changed. Drafting the two as accurately as I can, I see the fuselage width times the chord is about 25 square feet. This accounts for the difference in advertised area, even though the effective area is virtually identical. One method includes the 25 ft^2, the other omits this area.

The OP's question puts names to these areas, I guess. 185 ft^2 is the exposed area; 210 is the reference area.
barit1 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.