IP Library Granted Patent US 8,317,128
Granted Patent B2
US 8,317,128 · App. 12/932,091 · Granted Nov 27, 2012

Laminar flow wing optimized for transonic cruise aircraft

View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 8,317,128
App. No.
12/932,091
Granted
Nov 27, 2012
Kind
B2
Abstract

On an aircraft designed for maximum efficient cruise speed in the range from about Mach 0.8 to about Mach 1.2, and having fuselage and wings with: (a) less than about 25 degrees of leading edge sweep, in combination with airfoil thickness to chord ratios between about 3% and about 8%, as an average along the wing semi-span outboard from the zone of substantial fuselage influence, and (b) wing leading edge sweep between about 20 degrees and about 35 degrees, in combination with airfoil thickness to chord ratios equal to or below about 3% as an average along the semi-span outboard from the zone of substantial fuselage influence to the wing tip.

Claims (17)

1. An aircraft having maximum efficient cruise speed in a range from about Mach 0.8 to about Mach 1.2, and having a fuselage and wings with:

(a) less than about 25 degrees of leading edge sweep, in combination with airfoil thickness to chord ratios between about 3% and about 8%, as an average along a wing semi-span outboard from a zone of substantial fuselage influence, and

(b) a wing leading edge sweep between about 20 degrees and about 35 degrees, in combination with airfoil thickness to chord ratios equal to or below about 3% as an average along the semi-span outboard from the zone of substantial fuselage influence to a wing tip.

2. The aircraft of claim 1 including fuselage lengthwise contours to minimize or reduce a wave drag of a combined wing and fuselage, including engine nacelles and empennage and other lifting and control surfaces.

3. The aircraft of claim 2 having fuselage and wing contours, including airfoil and sweep, to minimize or reduce total drag of the combined wing-fuselage, including effects of laminar flow in reducing skin friction drag.

4. The aircraft of claim 3 having empennage contours to minimize or reduce total drag of a combined wing, fuselage and empennage.

5. The aircraft of claim 4 having wing and empennage contours to maximize or increase a total range of the aircraft for a given maximum total takeoff weight or other related constraint, including the effects of thickness-to-chord ratio and sweep on a structural weight of the wings and empennage.

6. The aircraft of claim 4 having wing and empennage contours to minimize or decrease a total weight of the aircraft for a given mission or mix of missions, including effects of thickness-to-chord ratio and sweep on a structural weight of the wings and empennage.

7. The aircraft of claim 4 having wing and empennage contours to minimize or decrease a total weight of the aircraft for a given anticipated flight mission or mix of missions, including effects of thickness-to-chord ratio and sweep on a structural weight of the wings and empennage, where such wing and empennage contours are characterized by either (a) an iterative process combining configuration design experience, aerodynamic analysis and wind tunnel testing, or (b) a computer-based multi-disciplinary optimization method combined with configuration design constraints.

8. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein a drag rise Mach number lies between about 0.80 and 0.97.

9. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein a drag rise Mach number lies between about 0.97 and 1.2.

10. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein a drag rise Mach number lies between about 0.92 and 0.97, for a wing average t/c of about 3%.

11. The aircraft of claim 1 wherein a drag rise Mach number lies between about 0.95 and 1.15, for a wing average t/c of about 3%.

12. The aircraft of claim 1 having about 3% average wing t/c, characterized in that Mdd, corresponding to about 0.002 drag coefficient increase, occurs at about Mach 0.96.

13. The aircraft of claim 1 having about 3% average wing t/c, characterized in that wing leading edge sweep is between about 20 degrees and about 35 degrees, and by a supersonic drag rise Mach number between about 0.99 and 1.05.

14. The aircraft of claim 1 having wing leading edge sweep less than about 25 degrees, characterized in that wing average t/c is between about 3% and 8%.

15. The aircraft of claim 1 having wing leading edge sweep between about 20 degrees and 35 degrees, characterized in that wing average t/c is less than about 3%.

Assignments (6)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 21, 2023
From: LUZINSKI, JOSEPH J
To: BOEING ACE COLLATERAL AGENT, LLC
Reel/Frame 063710/0928 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Jul 12, 2021
From: AERION CORPORATION; AERION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
To: BOEING ACE COLLATERAL AGENT LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 056819/0235 →
SECURITY INTEREST Recorded Mar 25, 2021
From: AERION CORPORATION; AERION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
To: BOEING ACE COLLATERAL AGENT LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT
Reel/Frame 055724/0653 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 15, 2019
From: AERION CORPORATION
To: AERION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 048077/0026 →
ASSIGNMENT THIS IS A CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT BASED ON REEL/FRAME 025883/0875.WE ARE CORRECTING THE TITLE IN ASSIGNMENT. Recorded May 12, 2011
From: TRACY, RICHARD R.; CHASE, JAMES D.
To: AERION CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 026640/0430 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Feb 16, 2011
From: TRACY, RICHARD R.; CHASE, JAMES D.
To: AERION CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 025883/0875 →