Making Air Travelling More Economical, An Innovative Drag Reduction Approach For A Supercritical Wing Section Using Shock Control Bumps

Open access


Air travelling is the second largest travelling medium used by people. In future it is expected to be the first choice for the travellers. As increase in the price of oil cost of air travelling is getting higher. Engineers are forced to find the cheaper means of travelling by innovating new techniques. This paper presents the new idea to reduce air travelling cost by reducing drag, which is major driving factor of high fuel consumption. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional shock control contour bumps have been designed and analysed for a supercritical wing section with the aim of transonic wave drag reduction. A supercritical airfoil (NACA SC (02)-0714) has been selected for this study considering the fact that most modern jet transport aircraft that operate in the transonic flow regime (cruise at transonic speeds) employ supercritical airfoil sections. It is to be noted that a decrease in the transonic wave drag without loss in lift would result in an increased lift to drag ratio, which being a key range parameter could potentially increase both the range and endurance of the aircraft. The major geometric bump parameters such as length, height, crest and span have been altered for both the two-dimensional and three-dimensional bumps in order to obtain the optimum location and shape of the bump. Once an optimum standalone three-dimensional bump has been acquired an array of bumps has been manually placed spanwise of an unswept supercritical wing and analysed under fully turbulent flow conditions. Different configurations have been tested with varying three-dimensional bump spacing in order to determine the contribution of bump spacing on overall performance. The results show a 14 percent drag reduction and a consequent 16 percent lift to drag ratio rise at the design Mach number for the optimum arrangement of bumps along the wing span. This innovative technique proves to be a bridge between economical problems and engineering solutions and a milestone for aviation engineering.


  • 1. Qin, N., Zhu, Y., and Ashill, P. R., “CFD Study of Shock Control at Cranfield,” ICAS 2000 Congress, pp. 2105.1-2105.10.

  • 2. Konig, P., Pätzold, M., Krämer, E., Lutz, T., Rosemann, H., Richter, K., and Uhlemann, H., “Numerical and Experimental Validation of Three-Dimensional Shock Control Bumps,” 4th Flow Control Conference, 23-26 June 2008, Seattle, Washington, AIAA paper 2008-4001.

  • 3. Ogawa, H., Babinsky, H., Pätzold, M., and Lutz, T., “Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Control using Three-Dimensional Bumps for Transonic Wings,” AIAA Journal, Volume 46, No.6, June 2008, pp. 1442- 1452.

  • 4. Qin, N., Wong, W.S., and Le Moigne, A., “Three-Dimensional Contour Bumps for Transonic Wing Drag Reduction,” ICAS 2000 Congress, pp. 2105, 1-10. Proc. IMechE Vol. 222 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering, 2008, pp.619-629.

  • 5. Sommerer, A., Lutz, T., and Wagner, S., “Numerical Optimization of Adaptive Transonic Airfoils with Variable Camber,” ICAS 2000 Congress, pp. 2111.1-2111.10.

  • 6. Qin, N., Wong, W.S., and Le Moigne, A., “Adjoint-Based Optimization of a BWB Shape with Shock Control Bumps,” UKAA Consortium Conference, 5-6 April, 2006.

  • 7. Sobieczky, H., Geissler, W., and Hannemann, M., “Expansion Shoulder Bump for Wing Section Viscous/Wave Drag Reduction,” FLOWCON IUTAM Symposium on Mechanics of Passive and Active Flow Control, Göttingen, 7-11 September, 1998.

  • 8. Harris, C.D., Langley Research Centre, Hampton, Virginia “NASA Supercritical Airfoils, A Matrix of Family Related

  • 9. Airfoils,” NASA Technical Paper 2969. 1990.

  • 10. Baldwin, B. S. and Lomax, H., “Thin Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent Flows,” 16th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 1978, AIAA-78-0257.

  • 11. Le Moigne, A., “A Discrete Navier-Stokes Adjoint Method for Aerodynamic Optimization of Blended Wing-Body Configurations,” Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Aeronautics., Cranfield University., UK, 2002.

  • 12. Schmitt, V., and Charpin, F., “Pressure Distributions on the ONERA-M6-Wing at Transonic Mach Numbers, Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment,” Report of the Fluid Dynamics Panel Working Group 04, AGARD AR 138, May 1979.

  • 13. Byun, G., and Simpson, R.L., “Surface-Pressure Fluctuations from Separated Flow over an Axisymmetric Bump,” AIAA Journal, Volume 48, No.10, October 2010, pp. 2397-2405.

  • 14. Slater, J. W., “ONERA M6 Wing,” web page URL:, 2000 [cited 02 January 2011].

  • 15. Slater, J.W., “ONERA M6 Wing,” web page, URL:, 2000 [cited 03 January 2011].

  • 16. Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 2nd ed., AIAA, Washington D.C, 1992, Chaps. 3, 4.

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 4 4 4