Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

An experimental comparison of two adaptation strategies in an adaptive-walls wind-tunnel

  • 41 Accesses

  • 5 Citations


In the present work an experimental comparison is made between two adaptation strategies: the Judd's method and the Everhart's method. A NACA 0012 airfoil has been tested at Mach numbers up to 0.4: models with chords up to 200 mm have been tested in a 200 mm × 200 mm test section. The two strategies, though based on different theoretical approaches, show a fairly good agreement as far as c p distribution on the model, lift and drag curves and residual interference are concerned and agree, in terms of lift curve slope and drag coefficient at zero lift, with the McCroskey correlation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Everhart JL (1983) A Method for Modifying Two-Dimensional Adaptive Wind-Tunnel Walls Including Analytical and Experimental Verification. NASA TP-2081

  2. Ferri A; Baronti P (1973) A Method for Transonic Wind Tunnel Corrections. AIAA J 11: 63–66

  3. Judd M; Wolf SWD; Goodyer MJ (1976) Analytical Work in Support of the Design and Operation of Two-Dimensional Self Streamlining Test Section. NASA CR-148196

  4. McCroskey WJ (1987) A Critical Assessment of Wind Tunnel Results for the NACA 0012 Airfoil. AGARD CP-429 ‘Aerodynamic Data Accuracy and Quality: Requirements and Capabilities in Wind Tunnel Testing’, Naples, Italy, 28 September, 1 October, 1987 paper n.1

  5. Mokry M (ed.); Erickson JC Jr; Goodyer MJ; Mignosi A; Russo GP; Smith J; Wedemeyer E; Newman PA (1990) Limits of Adaptation, Residual Interferences Chapter 6 of the AGARD AR-269. Fluid Dynamics Panel Working Group 12 on Adaptive Wind Tunnel Walls: Technology and Applications

  6. Murthy AW (1989) Residual Interference Assessment in Adaptive Wall Wind Tunnel NASA CR-181896 Sept. 1989

  7. Russo GP; Zuppardi G (1987) Numerical Simulation of an Adaptive- Walls Wind-Tunnel: a Comparison of two Different Strategies. L'Aerotecnica, Missili e Spazio 4: 239–249

  8. Russo GP; Zuppardi G; Basciani M (1993a) Evolution of the Adaptive Walls Wind Tunnel, Sixth International Conference on Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements (CMEM93) Siena 3/5 May 1993, pp. 395–410

  9. Russo GP; Zuppardi G; Basciani M (1993b) Recent Developments of the Adaptive-Walls Wind-Tunnel in Naples. Pacific International Conference on Aerospace Science and Technology, Tainan, Taiwan, 6/9 December

  10. Russo GP; Zuppardi G; Basciani M (1994) 2-D Tests in the Adaptive- Walls Wind-Tunnel in Naples. 2nd International Conference on Experimental Fluid Mechanics (ICEFM '94), Torino, 4/9 Luglio 1994, pp. 472/479

  11. Sears WR (1974) Self Correcting Wind Tunnels. Aeronautical J 78: Feb/Mar 74

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to G. P. Russo.

Additional information

This work has been supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Scientific and Technological Research (MURST 60%).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russo, G.P., Zuppardi, G. & Basciani, M. An experimental comparison of two adaptation strategies in an adaptive-walls wind-tunnel. Experiments in Fluids 19, 274–279 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00196476

Download citation


  • Mach Number
  • Theoretical Approach
  • Test Section
  • Drag Coefficient
  • Adaptation Strategy