Issue No 22 THE AVIATION HISTORIAN 59
1 Fozard, J.W. (Ed); Sydney Camm and the
Hurricane (Airlife Publishing, 1991)
2 Ackroyd, J.A.D.; “The Aerodynamics of the
Spitfire”, The Journal of Aeronautical History, Royal
Aeronautical Society, March 2016
3 Tests on the Hurricane Aircraft L1696 in the 24ft
Tunnel, Aeronautical Research Council (ARC)
Reports and Memoranda (R&M) No 2652, 1940
4 Ower, E.; “Interference”, Transactions of the
Royal Aeronautical Society, July 1932
5 Parkin, J.H. and Klein, G.J.; The Interference
Between the Body and Wings of Aircraft,
Engineering Research, University of Toronto,
Bulletin 8, Section 9, 1928
6 Ackroyd, J.A.D.; “Sir George Cayley: The
Invention of the Aeroplane near Scarborough at
the Time of Trafalgar”, The Journal of Aeronautical
History, Royal Aeronautical Society, June 2011
7 Technical Report by the Accidents Investigation
Sub-Committee on the Accident to the Aeroplane
G-AAZK at Meopham, Kent, on 21st July, 1930;
ARC R&M No 1360, 1931
8 Ower, E.; “Interference”, Aircraft Engineer
supplement to Flight, January 22, 1932
9 White, J.A. and Hood, M.J.; Wing Fuselage
Interference, Tail Buffeting and Air-flow About the
Tail of a Low-Wing Monoplane, NACA Report 482,
1934
10 Muttray, H; Luftfahrtforschung 1928, translated
as Investigation of the Effect of the Fuselage
on the Wing of a Low-wing monoplane, NACA
Technical Note 517, 1929; republished by
Prandtl, L. and Betz, A. (Eds.) as Ergebnisse der
aerodynamischen versuchsanstalt zu Goettingen
in 1932
11 Klein, A.L.; The Effect of Fillets on Wing-Fuselage Interference, Paper for the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME),
California Institute of Technology, Berkeley,
California, June 1932
12 Klein, A.L.; Transactions of the ASME 56,
pp1–10, 1934
13 Collected Reports on British High Speed Aircraft
for the Schneider Trophy Contest of 1927, ARC
Monograph No 1300, January 1931
14 Muttray, H.; Luftfahrtforschung 1934, translated
as The Aerodynamic Aspect of Wing-Fuselage
Fillets, NACA Technical Note 764, 1935
15 Delano, J.B.; Pressure Distribution on the
Fuselage of a Midwing Airplane Model at High
Speeds, NACA Technical Note 890, February 1943
(submitted September 1939)
16 Becker, John V.; The High-speed Frontier –
Case Studies of Four NACA Programs 1920–1950,
NASA, 1980
17 Mair, W.A. (Ed.); Research on High Speed
Aerodynamics at the Royal Aircraft Establishment
from 1942 to 1945, ARC R&M 2222, 1946
18 Abbot, I.E., Von Doenhoff, A.H. and Stivers L.S.
Jr; Summary of Airfoil Data, NACA Technical Report
824, 1945
19 US Patent 20110204185 A1, Lyons N.J./AIRBUS
OPERATIONS LIMITED [UK]; “Aircraft Fairing”, 2015
20 Whitcomb, R.T.; A Study of the Zero-Lift Drag-
Rise Characteristics of a Body Near the Speed of
Sound, NACA Technical Report 1273, 1954
21 Garrison, P.; “The Man Who Could See Air”,
Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine, July 2002
22 Jones, Robert T.; Theory of Wing-Body Drag
at Supersonic Speeds, NACA Technical Report
1284, 1953
23 NASA Technical Note D-4316, 1968the pressure field of another then the second
body is sure to receive a corresponding increment
of thrust from the first”.^22
Seemingly innocent of expanding fillets or
nacelle lengthening, he went on to say that in the
supersonic range relative placement of bodies
— particularly wing and fuselage — suddenly
became important. It seemed that supersonic and
subsonic engineers never met around the NACA
water cooler.
Lessons learned?
In 1962 the USA’s National Aeronautics & Space
Administration (as NACA had become in 1958)
was tasked with investigating unexpected flutter
experienced with the T-tail of the Lockheed C-141
StarLifter.^23 As a result, NASA explored a new
shape for the streamlined fairing that Lockheed
had added “to improve airflow” at the juncture
between the fin and tailplane. This was a classic
three-dimensional teardrop — completely the
wrong thing to join two aerofoils — but that is
exactly how the test model emerged from the
Skunk Works some 30 years after Klein and Ower
had proved that such a combination could only
have an adverse effect. Sure enough, using a body
that was not streamlined was the solution that
worked in the windtunnel, and how production
Starlifters were subsequently built.
With hindsight, it is easy to assume that
changing the Short Mussel from embarrassing
failure to sparkling performer by adding a simple
piece of fabric would cause the world of aircraft
design to take note. Even if not immediately in
1926, then one would have thought the next 20
years of painstaking tunnel work and number-
crunching would have established a universal
principle in the minds of designers. The curious
case of the StarLifter’s tail shows that the
development of aviation has its own rules.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to
thank Ralph Pegram for his invaluable help with the
preparation of this articleTAHEndnote references