Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Parasitic drag

Parasitic drag, also known as parasite drag, is the component of total aerodynamic drag on an aircraft or other body moving through a fluid that is unrelated to the generation of lift, arising instead from the viscous interaction between the fluid and the body's surface as well as pressure differences caused by its shape. It constitutes a major portion of the drag at higher speeds and includes three primary subcomponents: skin friction drag, form drag, and interference drag. Unlike induced drag, which results from the creation of lift and wingtip vortices, parasitic drag affects every part of the vehicle and increases proportionally with the square of the velocity, making it a critical factor in determining maximum achievable speeds and fuel efficiency.^[1]^[2] Skin friction drag originates from the shear stress exerted by the air's viscosity on the vehicle's wetted surfaces, where a boundary layer of slower-moving air forms, with the magnitude depending on surface roughness, Reynolds number, and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Form drag, sometimes called pressure or profile drag, results from the separation of airflow around non-streamlined shapes, creating low-pressure wakes behind protrusions like antennas, landing gear, or engine cowlings, and is minimized through aerodynamic shaping. Interference drag emerges at junctions where aircraft components meet, such as the wing-fuselage interface, where conflicting airflow patterns generate additional turbulence and drag greater than the sum of individual components. These elements are quantified in the zero-lift drag coefficient C_{D_0}, often estimated using methods like the equivalent flat-plate area approach, where C_{D_0} \approx C_F \cdot (S_{wet}/S_{ref}) \cdot FF, with C_F as the skin friction coefficient, S_{wet} the wetted area, S_{ref} the reference area, and FF a form factor.^[1]^[2]^[3] In aircraft design, reducing parasitic drag is paramount for enhancing performance, as even small reductions—such as a 0.0001 increase in C_D on the Concorde—could necessitate removing passengers to maintain range,^[4] while redesigns like the F-102's area ruling cut drag by 25 counts, boosting top speed by 10%. Techniques to mitigate it include streamlining fuselages, using flush rivets and smooth finishes for skin friction, fairings at junctions for interference, and retractable gear or vortex generators to prevent flow separation. Parasitic drag buildup analysis, often performed early in the design process using tools like component summation or computational fluid dynamics, directly influences vehicle sizing, propulsion requirements, and overall operational costs, underscoring its role in balancing aerodynamic efficiency with structural and mission constraints.^[3]^[5]

Fundamentals

Definition

Parasitic drag, also known as parasite drag, is the component of total aerodynamic drag that results from the physical presence and shape of an object moving through a fluid, independent of any lift generation. It arises primarily from pressure differences across the object's surfaces and shear stresses due to fluid viscosity along those surfaces. This drag acts opposite to the direction of motion and affects all objects in fluid flow, whether they produce lift or not.^[6] The concept of parasitic drag developed in early 20th-century aerodynamics as researchers sought to understand and minimize drag on aircraft and other vehicles. A foundational contribution came from Ludwig Prandtl's boundary layer theory, introduced in 1904, which described the thin layer of fluid near the object's surface where viscous effects dominate and contribute significantly to drag.^[7] In physical terms, parasitic drag is quantified as a force, typically measured in Newtons in the International System of Units (SI). Its magnitude is proportional to the dynamic pressure of the fluid (one-half the fluid density times the square of the velocity), the object's reference area (such as a projected frontal area or wetted surface area), and a dimensionless parasitic drag coefficient that encapsulates the object's geometry and surface properties. For lifting bodies like aircraft wings, total drag is the sum of parasitic drag and induced drag, the latter arising from the generation of lift.^[8]^[9] Representative examples of purely parasitic drag occur on non-lifting bodies, such as a sphere moving through air or water, where the drag stems entirely from the object's form and surface interaction with the fluid, or a flat plate aligned parallel to the flow at zero angle of attack, dominated by viscous shear along its surface.^[6]

Relation to Total Drag

In aerodynamics, the total drag force D_{\text{total}} acting on an aircraft is the sum of parasitic drag D_{\text{parasitic}} and induced drag D_{\text{induced}}, where induced drag results from the generation of lift through wingtip vortices and downwash.^[2] This decomposition is expressed in terms of drag coefficients as C_D = C_{D_0} + C_{D_i}, with C_{D_0} representing the zero-lift drag coefficient associated with parasitic drag.^[10] Parasitic drag, often termed zero-lift drag, is quantified at zero angle of attack and embodies the inherent resistance due to the vehicle's shape and surface interactions with the fluid, independent of lift production.^[10] The proportional contributions of parasitic and induced drag to total drag vary significantly with operating conditions. Induced drag predominates at low speeds and high lift coefficients, such as during takeoff and landing, where the aircraft requires substantial lift relative to its speed, leading to stronger vortices and downwash.^[2] Conversely, parasitic drag becomes dominant at higher speeds and lower lift coefficients, as seen in cruise flight, because parasitic drag scales with the square of velocity while induced drag decreases inversely with velocity squared.^[2] For a typical commercial transport aircraft in cruise, parasitic drag constitutes approximately 60% of total drag, with induced drag accounting for the remaining 40%.^[11] This relationship has key practical implications for vehicle design and performance, particularly in aerospace and automotive contexts. Reducing parasitic drag enhances fuel efficiency by lowering the thrust required to overcome resistance; for instance, in long-range commercial jets, even small reductions in parasitic drag can yield substantial fuel savings over extended flights due to its large share in cruise conditions.^[11] In ground vehicles like automobiles, aerodynamic drag—equivalent to parasitic drag—can represent up to 50% of total road load at highway speeds, making its minimization essential for improving overall energy efficiency and reducing consumption.^[12]

Components

Form Drag

Form drag, also known as pressure drag, arises from the unbalanced pressure distribution around an object in fluid flow, primarily due to the effects of viscosity that prevent complete pressure recovery on the rearward-facing surfaces.^[13] In viscous flows, the boundary layer thickens and can separate from the surface, leading to the formation of a low-pressure wake behind the body; this separation creates a region of turbulent eddies where the static pressure remains lower than on the forward-facing surfaces, resulting in a net rearward force.^[2] Unlike inviscid flow assumptions where pressure forces would cancel out symmetrically, the viscous-induced separation disrupts this balance, making form drag the dominant contributor to total resistance for many shapes.^[14] Key factors influencing form drag include the object's geometry, particularly the distinction between blunt and streamlined shapes. Blunt or bluff bodies, such as spheres or cylinders, promote early flow separation due to adverse pressure gradients, forming large separation bubbles and expansive low-pressure wakes that amplify the pressure imbalance.^[15] In contrast, streamlined shapes like airfoils are designed to delay separation by gradually decelerating the flow, minimizing wake size and allowing better pressure recovery, thereby reducing form drag significantly.^[16] The role of separation bubbles is critical, as they act as localized regions where the boundary layer detaches and reattaches, but in bluff bodies, persistent separation leads to persistent low-pressure zones that sustain high drag levels.^[17] Representative examples illustrate the impact of shape on form drag. For a bluff body like a sphere at moderate Reynolds numbers, the drag coefficient is approximately 0.47, with nearly all drag stemming from pressure differences and wake formation.^[18] Conversely, a streamlined airfoil exhibits a much lower drag coefficient of about 0.01 to 0.05 at low angles of attack, where flow remains attached over most of the surface, limiting the wake and pressure drag to a minor fraction of total resistance. Historically, early quantification of form drag on various shapes was advanced through wind tunnel experiments conducted by Gustave Eiffel in the 1910s. Using his wind tunnel at the base of the Eiffel Tower, operational from 1909 to 1912, Eiffel systematically tested models to measure drag forces, demonstrating how shape influences pressure distribution and separation, which laid foundational data for aerodynamic design.^[20] These tests, involving thousands of runs, highlighted the dramatic reduction in form drag achievable with streamlined profiles compared to blunt ones.^[21]

Skin Friction Drag

Skin friction drag arises from the viscous shear stresses acting tangentially on the surface of an object moving through a fluid, resulting from the momentum transfer within the velocity gradient of the boundary layer adjacent to the surface.^[1] This drag component occurs without flow separation and is directly tied to the fluid's viscosity, where the no-slip condition at the wall causes the fluid velocity to vary from zero at the surface to the free-stream velocity farther away.^[1] The boundary layer, a thin region near the surface where viscous effects dominate, is the site of this shear stress, with the wall shear stress \tau_w defined as \tau_w = \mu \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} \right)_{y=0}, where \mu is the dynamic viscosity and u is the velocity component parallel to the surface.^[22] The nature of the boundary layer significantly influences skin friction drag, with two primary types: laminar and turbulent. In a laminar boundary layer, flow is smooth and orderly, producing lower shear stresses and thus reduced friction drag, typically occurring at Reynolds numbers \mathrm{Re} < 5 \times 10^5 based on the distance from the leading edge.^[22] Conversely, a turbulent boundary layer features chaotic mixing and eddies, leading to higher shear stresses and increased friction drag—often 3 to 5 times that of a laminar layer at comparable conditions—which predominates at \mathrm{Re} > 5 \times 10^5.^[23] The transition between these states depends on factors like surface roughness, pressure gradients, and free-stream turbulence, and maintaining laminar flow can substantially lower overall drag.^[22] Skin friction drag is particularly dominant on flat plates, where it constitutes the entirety of the drag force, and on streamlined bodies such as modern aircraft fuselages, where it constitutes the majority of the component's total drag due to minimal flow separation.^[1] On a typical commercial transport aircraft in cruise, skin friction contributes approximately 50% of the overall drag, with the fuselage being a major wetted surface contributor.^[11] Ludwig Prandtl's foundational work in the 1900s, particularly his boundary layer theory introduced in 1904 and applied industrially in the 1920s, provided the equations for analyzing these effects, including the skin friction coefficient C_f = \frac{\tau_w}{0.5 \rho V^2}, where \rho is fluid density and V is free-stream velocity.^[24] This non-dimensional parameter enables prediction of friction drag from boundary layer solutions, revolutionizing aerodynamic design by isolating viscous effects near surfaces.^[24]

Interference Drag

Interference drag arises from the aerodynamic interactions between different components of the aircraft, where airflow streams from one part (e.g., wing and fuselage) mix and create additional turbulence, vortices, or flow disruptions that increase drag beyond the simple sum of the individual parts.^[2] This type of drag is particularly prominent at junctions such as the wing-root-fuselage interface, nacelle attachments, or landing gear struts, where differing flow directions and speeds conflict, leading to localized separation or eddy formation.^[25] In aircraft design, interference drag can contribute 5% to 10% of the total drag in conventional configurations, though poor design can increase this significantly, up to 20% in some cases.^[26] It is minimized through the use of fairings, fillet shaping, and optimized junctions to smooth airflow transitions and reduce these interactions.^[2]

Influencing Factors

Geometry and Shape

The geometry and shape of an object profoundly influence parasitic drag by determining the patterns of airflow separation and wake formation, with streamlined forms minimizing pressure differences that contribute to form drag. Parasitic drag, primarily driven by shape-induced form drag, arises from the inability of air to follow abrupt contours, leading to low-pressure wakes that increase overall resistance. Optimizing geometric parameters allows for significant reductions in this component, enabling more efficient designs across scales from vehicles to aircraft. Key geometric parameters affecting parasitic drag include the fineness ratio, defined as the ratio of an object's length to its maximum diameter, cross-sectional area, and overall streamlining. The fineness ratio plays a critical role in balancing pressure drag; for axisymmetric bodies, an optimal ratio around 6:1 minimizes total drag by promoting gradual flow acceleration and deceleration, as demonstrated in wind tunnel tests on afterbodies, where square-base configurations exhibit drag levels up to 2.5–3.3 times higher than optimal streamlined ones.^[27] Reducing cross-sectional area perpendicular to the flow direction lowers the momentum deficit in the wake, directly decreasing form drag, while streamlining—such as teardrop profiles—accelerates flow smoothly over the surface to prevent early separation, achieving drag coefficients as low as 0.05, nearly 90% less than a sphere's 0.47.^[16] Specific features like leading-edge radius and afterbody taper further refine these effects. A larger leading-edge radius reduces the peak suction pressure and adverse pressure gradients, delaying flow separation and thereby lowering drag; for instance, increasing the radius on rotor airfoils can postpone stall onset and cut drag by enhancing attached flow over a wider angle of attack range.^[28] Similarly, tapering the afterbody, as in boattail designs, contracts the wake by recovering pressure through gradual area reduction, with circular-arc boattails at fineness ratios of 3-5 yielding drag reductions of 20-50% at subsonic speeds compared to blunt bases.^[29] Practical examples illustrate these principles in engineering applications. In automobiles, streamlining via aero kits—such as rounded noses and tapered rear ends—can halve the drag coefficient from 0.5 for boxy sedans to 0.25 for optimized models, improving fuel efficiency by 5-7% at highway speeds through reduced wake turbulence.^[30] For aircraft, fuselage shaping emphasizes elongated, teardrop-like contours to cut parasitic drag; helicopter fuselages with streamlined profiles and positioning the maximum diameter forward helps minimize wake formation and the fuselage's contribution to overall drag.^[31] These shape effects exhibit qualitative independence from Reynolds number at high values typical of full-scale operations, where drag coefficients plateau and trends like separation delay from streamlining persist across scales, though absolute magnitudes scale with flow regime.^[17]

Surface Characteristics

Surface characteristics of an aircraft or vehicle play a critical role in influencing the boundary layer development, primarily affecting skin friction drag, which constitutes a major portion of parasitic drag. The texture, material, and condition of the surface determine the shear stress at the wall, with smoother surfaces promoting laminar flow and lower friction, while irregularities disrupt the flow and elevate drag.^[32] Surface roughness accelerates the transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layers, thereby increasing skin friction drag due to heightened turbulence intensity and momentum transfer near the wall. In turbulent flows, rough surfaces amplify the effective shear stress, leading to higher overall parasitic drag compared to polished equivalents. For instance, corroded or weathered surfaces exhibit elevated skin friction coefficients, whereas maintained, smooth conditions sustain lower drag levels.^[33]^[34] A notable example of controlled roughness is the dimpled surface of a golf ball, where shallow indentations promote early transition to turbulence, which delays flow separation and reduces form drag; however, this comes at the cost of increased skin friction drag relative to a smooth sphere. To mitigate roughness-induced drag, laminar flow control techniques such as boundary layer suction or specialized coatings are employed to delay transition and maintain laminar flow over larger surface areas, potentially reducing skin friction by significant margins.^[35]^[36] Real-world surface degradation, such as insect residue accumulation on aircraft leading edges, exemplifies the drag penalty from unintended roughness, with studies indicating increases in fuel consumption—and thus drag—up to 30% due to premature transition and elevated skin friction. Conversely, engineered anti-drag coatings like riblets, which mimic shark skin with micro-grooves aligned in the flow direction, can reduce the skin friction coefficient by approximately 8% in turbulent boundary layers on aircraft fuselages and wings.^[37]^[38] The quantifiable impact of roughness is often assessed through the dimensionless parameter k/δ, the ratio of roughness height k to boundary layer thickness δ; values exceeding 0.1 typically trigger early transition to turbulence, substantially raising skin friction drag.^[39]

Modeling and Calculation

Drag Coefficient

The parasitic drag coefficient, commonly denoted as C_{D_p} or C_{D_0} (the zero-lift drag coefficient), is a dimensionless parameter that quantifies the magnitude of parasitic drag relative to dynamic pressure and reference area. It is defined by the relation

C_{D_p} = \frac{D_p}{\frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S},

where D_p represents the parasitic drag force, \rho is the fluid density, V is the freestream velocity, and S is the reference area (typically the wing planform area for aircraft). This formulation normalizes the drag force to enable comparisons across different scales and conditions, capturing the combined influence of form drag and skin friction drag in the absence of lift-induced effects.^[8]^[40] In the context of profile drag, C_{D_0} specifically refers to the drag coefficient at zero angle of attack or zero lift, encapsulating all parasitic contributions from the aircraft's geometry and surface properties. This coefficient is fundamental in aerodynamic modeling, as it forms the baseline for total drag predictions in the drag polar equation C_D = C_{D_0} + k C_L^2, where deviations from zero lift introduce induced drag terms. Experimental determination of C_{D_0} relies on wind tunnel measurements, where forces are recorded under controlled conditions to isolate parasitic components, often using force balances and pressure distributions.^[41] The parasitic drag coefficient is not constant but varies with operating conditions, particularly Mach number and Reynolds number. As Mach number increases toward transonic regimes, compressibility effects lead to shock wave formation and boundary layer thickening, causing C_{D_p} to rise nonlinearly; for instance, profile drag increases significantly beyond Mach 0.7 due to wave drag onset. Similarly, Reynolds number influences C_{D_p} through scale-dependent boundary layer transition and skin friction: higher Reynolds numbers generally reduce the coefficient by promoting turbulent flow with delayed separation, though viscous effects dominate at low speeds. These dependencies are critical for scaling wind tunnel data to full-scale flight.^[42]^[43] Typical values for C_{D_0} in sleek modern aircraft, such as high-subsonic jets with streamlined fuselages and laminar flow designs, range from 0.015 to 0.025, with 0.02 serving as a representative benchmark for efficient configurations like the P-51 Mustang or contemporary transports. These values are derived from empirical wind tunnel campaigns and flight tests, underscoring the coefficient's role in optimizing fuel efficiency and performance.^[44]

Estimation Techniques

Empirical methods for estimating parasitic drag rely on component build-up approaches, where the total drag coefficient is calculated by summing contributions from individual aircraft elements such as the fuselage, wings, nacelles, tail surfaces, and protuberances, with adjustments for interference effects.^[45] This technique draws from extensive experimental data and provides semi-empirical formulas tailored to specific components; for instance, fuselage drag is often approximated using relations like C_D = C_f (1 + 1.5(d/l) + 7(d/l)^2), where C_f is the skin friction coefficient, d is the diameter, and l is the length, based on wetted area.^[45] Similarly, wing profile drag can be estimated as C_{D_s} = 2 C_f (1 + 1.5(t/c) + 60(t/c)^3), with t/c as the thickness-to-chord ratio, allowing designers to iteratively refine configurations during early design phases.^[45] Hoerner's handbook remains a seminal reference for these methods, emphasizing statistical correlations from wind tunnel and flight data across subsonic to hypersonic regimes.^[45] Analytical approximations simplify parasitic drag estimation by breaking it into skin friction and form drag components, often using boundary layer theory for initial predictions. For turbulent flow over a smooth flat plate, the skin friction coefficient is given by C_f = 0.074 / \mathrm{Re}^{1/5}, where Re is the Reynolds number based on plate length, serving as a baseline for wetted surface contributions in aircraft components.^[46] This empirical relation, derived from integral methods and velocity profile assumptions, assumes fully turbulent conditions starting from the leading edge and is integrated over surfaces to yield total skin friction drag.^[46] Form drag estimates then add pressure drag penalties for bluff shapes, such as base drag on fuselages approximated as \Delta C_D = 0.029 (d_B / d_f)^2 C_f, with d_B and d_f as base and forebody diameters, respectively.^[45] These approximations prioritize rapid assessment in conceptual design, though they require corrections for real geometry and flow transitions. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools provide detailed predictions by solving the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations to capture viscous effects in the boundary layer and wake, enabling full-configuration analysis of parasitic drag. These simulations discretize the flow field using finite volume or finite element methods, incorporating turbulence models like k-ε or Spalart-Allmaras to resolve skin friction and separation-induced form drag without relying on empirical breakdowns.^[47] For subsonic aircraft, structured or unstructured grid approaches yield pressure and shear stress distributions integrated over surfaces to compute the drag coefficient, with applications in optimizing shapes to minimize parasitic components. Validation of these estimation techniques involves comparing predictions with flight test measurements, where parasitic drag is isolated from total drag using stabilized flight maneuvers or accelerometer data.^[48] Empirical and analytical methods typically show errors up to 10% high or 22% low relative to flight tests in subsonic conditions, while CFD achieves better consistency with refined grids and turbulence modeling, though scatter in flight data can reach ±20% due to measurement uncertainties.^[48] Overall, for subsonic flows, these approaches yield accuracies within 5-10% for well-characterized configurations when cross-validated against experimental results.^[48]

References

[1]
Drag | Glenn Research Center - NASA
Jan 21, 2023 · Drag is the aerodynamic force opposing an aircraft's motion through air, generated by the interaction of a solid body with a fluid.
[2]
[PDF] Chapter 5: Aerodynamics of Flight - Federal Aviation Administration
There are three types of parasite drag: form drag, interference drag, and skin friction. Form Drag. Form drag is the portion of parasite drag generated by the.
[3]
[PDF] 3. Drag: An Introduction - Virginia Tech
Jan 31, 2019 · Drag is central to aerodynamic design, and even minor changes can be critical. It can be viewed from different perspectives, including pressure ...
[4]
[PDF] EAE 130A Project 2 Report: Airplane Drag and Performance Analysis
One of the important parameters in aircraft design and performance evaluation is drag buildup and analysis. The drag of an aircraft essentially determines ...
[5]
Parasite Drag | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Definition. In aviation, Parasite (Parasitic) Drag (DP) is defined as all drag that is not associated with the production of lift.
[6]
Boundary Layer | Glenn Research Center - NASA
Jul 17, 2024 · The theory which describes boundary layer effects was first presented by Ludwig Prandtl in the early 1900's. The general fluids equations had ...
[7]
The Drag Equation
The drag equation states that drag D is equal to the drag coefficient Cd times the density r times half of the velocity V squared times the reference area A.
[8]
Drag | SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Parasitic drag increases with the square of the airspeed, while induced drag, being a function of lift, is greatest when maximum lift is being developed, ...Parasite Drag · Induced Drag · Wave Drag
[9]
Induced Drag Coefficient | Glenn Research Center - NASA
Jul 27, 2023 · This additional force is called induced drag because it faces downstream and has been “induced” by the action of the tip vortices.
[10]
[PDF] Aircraft Drag Reduction: An Overview - Chalmers Publication Library
parasitic drag and/or power-addressable in many cases via creative overall aircraft configuration design, as discussed in a subsequent section. Bushnell ...
[11]
[PDF] introduction to drag and automobile drag
... aerodynamic drag is a small percentage of total drag at low speeds. • Mileage estimates on the highway differ more significantly, since aerodynamic drag is.
[12]
Form Drag - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Form drag is caused by differences between the pressure distribution over a body in viscous flow and that in an ideal inviscid flow.
[13]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/form-drag
[14]
Drag of Blunt Bodies and Streamlined Bodies
Cylinders and spheres are considered bluff bodies because at large Reynolds numbers the drag is dominated by the pressure losses in the wake. The variation of ...
[15]
Shape Effects on Drag | Glenn Research Center - NASA
Sep 9, 2025 · A quick comparison shows that a flat plate gives the highest drag, and a streamlined symmetric airfoil gives the lowest drag, by a factor of almost 30!
[16]
Bluff Body Flows – Introduction to Aerospace Flight Vehicles
The drag coefficient for a sphere is also shown for reference. The drag reduces quickly with increasing Reynolds number Re (note the logarithmic scales) ...
[17]
Drag Coefficient - The Engineering ToolBox
The drag coefficient quantifies the drag or resistance of an object in a fluid environment. ; Streamlined body, 0.04, π / 4 d2 ; Airplane wing, normal position ...
[18]
Eiffel Drop Test Machine and Wind Tunnel - ASME
In 1903, Eiffel built a device to test the drag on various bodies by dropping them along a vertical cable hung from the second level ofthe tower that bears his ...
[19]
A century of wind tunnels since Eiffel - ScienceDirect.com
in 1908, before the building of its first wind tunnel, Gustave Eiffel conceived a very ingenious drop test machine to study the drag of solids [2], [3]. He ...
[20]
Boundary Layer Flows – Introduction to Aerospace Flight Vehicles
History. Historically, Ludwig Prandtl introduced the concept of the boundary layer. His work on the subject originated from experiments made with his students ...Missing: parasitic | Show results with:parasitic
[21]
Direct numerical simulation of skin friction drag reduction on ...
Sep 24, 2024 · The skin friction drag of a turbulent boundary layer is 3–5 times that of a laminar boundary layer.3 Therefore, it is expected that a ...
[22]
On the drag reduction mechanism of hypersonic turbulent boundary ...
Feb 21, 2023 · Studies have shown that for a subsonic aircraft in cruise state, the friction drag of turbulent boundary layer accounts for 50% of the total ...
[23]
[PDF] Ludwig Prandtl's Boundary Layer
boundary-layer theory occurred in the late 1920s when de- signers began to use the theory's results to predict skin- friction drag on airships and airplanes.
[24]
[PDF] NACA
The minimum-drag afterbody is that of a fineness ratio of about 6 and its drag will be approximately 30 to 40 percent of that for a square-base body of fineness ...Missing: parasitic | Show results with:parasitic
[25]
Effects of Leading Edge Radius on Stall Characteristics of Rotor Airfoil
Jun 12, 2024 · A larger leading edge radius helps to reduce the suction pressure peak and adverse pressure gradients, thus delaying the leading edge separation and stall of ...
[26]
[PDF] EFFECT OF FINENESS RATIO ON BOATTAIL DRAG OF CIRCULAR ...
An investigation has been conducted to determine the effect of fineness ratio on the drag of circular-arc boattails at subsonic and low supersonic speeds.Missing: parasitic | Show results with:parasitic
[27]
Drag reduction technology and devices for road vehicles
Jul 15, 2024 · Passive devices modify the shape of a vehicle without the need for an energy input or active control. Examples include wheel covers, vortex ...
[28]
Experimental Study of Helicopter Fuselage Drag | Journal of Aircraft
Mar 14, 2016 · The total drag of a helicopter, at level cruise flight, comprises parasite drag, profile drag of rotor blades, and induced drag due to lift ...
[29]
Effect of Surface Roughness on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of ...
It is shown that as the surface roughness increases, the minimum drag also increases due to the increase of the skin friction and the lift decreases. Surface ...
[30]
(PDF) Effect of Surface Roughness on Aerodynamic Performance of ...
Feb 25, 2025 · Comparisons with previous studies corroborate these findings, proving that surface roughness generates increased turbulence and skin friction, ...
[31]
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.C033819
[32]
Mechanism of drag reduction by dimples on a sphere - AIP Publishing
Apr 17, 2006 · The drag reduction by dimples has been explained such that dimples on a sphere induce a turbulent boundary layer on its surface and lower drag ...
[33]
Drag Reduction by Laminar Flow Control - MDPI
The greatest potential for aerodynamic drag reduction is seen in laminar flow control by boundary layer suction.
[34]
NASA Researchers to Flying Insects Bug Off
Nov 1, 2013 · Studies show that bug splatter and other factors that cause drag can increase airplane fuel consumption as much as 30 percent.
[35]
Riblets - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
From an aerodynamic perspective riblets were identified as a mature technology which could provide modest reductions (7–8% skin friction drag reduction for ...
[36]
Direct Numerical Simulation of Boundary Layer Transition Induced ...
A key dimensionless parameter governing transition onset is the relative roughness height k / δ , defined as the ratio of roughness height k to boundary layer ...Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
[37]
[PDF] Fluids – Lecture 10 Notes - MIT
Drag breakdown. The drag on a subsonic aircraft can be broken down as follows. D = Do + Dp + Di where. Do = “parasite” drag of fuselage + tail + landing gear + ...
[38]
Aerodynamics of Finite Wings – Introduction to Aerospace Flight ...
The non-lifting part depends primarily on the airplane's overall shape and is typically referred to as the form drag or parasitic drag coefficient. The lifting ...
[39]
[PDF] Independent Effects of Reynolds Number and Mach Number on ...
(b) Effect on usable lift coefficient. Figure 32.—Effect of Reynolds number on drag coefficients for clean and iced wing with WB33 artificial ice shapes.
[40]
[PDF] The Variation of Profile Drag with Mach Number - AERADE
He quotes the aircraft lift coefficient and the Reynolds number for each Mach number; these are tabulated in Table la together with his drag coefficients. His ...
[41]
[PDF] Aircraft Drag Polar Estimation Based on a Stochastic Hierarchical ...
Dec 7, 2018 · While the zero drag coefficient contains the parasitic drag of the whole aircraft, the wing is mainly responsible for the lift-induced drag.Missing: sleek | Show results with:sleek
[42]
[PDF] Fluid-Dynamic Drag
... DRAG OF AIRPLANE CONFIGURATIONS. (a) Induced Drag of Wings drag due to wing twist, induced interference_15-33. (b) Parasitic Drag of Airplanes drag of “Meteor ...
[43]
[PDF] Hermann Schlichting (Deceased) Klaus Gersten Ninth Edition
However a new fifth section on numerical methods in boundary–layer theory has been added. The partition into chapters had to be somewhat modified in order to.
[44]
[PDF] Technical Status Review Drag Prediction and Analysis from ... - NATO
Methods based on the Euler equations and Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations, at least for simple configurations, are approaching this status. The status ...
[45]
[PDF] Prediction of Aerodynamic Drag. - DTIC
13. The aerodynamic cleanness factor accounts for form drag and interference effects riot treated by fuselage shape parameters. Examples are form and.