DOCSLIB.ORG

Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 4412 Airfoil

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a NACA 4412 Airfoil AerodynamicAerodynamic CharacteristicsCharacteristics ofof aa NACANACA 44124412 AirfoilAirfoil Presented By: David Heffley Mentor: Dr. Van Treuren Scholar’s Day January 26, 2007 OverviewOverview ObjectiveObjective TheoryTheory ApparatusApparatus ExperimentalExperimental ComparisonComparison ResultsResults SummarySummary RecommendationsRecommendations ObjectiveObjective StudyStudy thethe liftlift andand dragdrag forcesforces onon aa NACANACA 44124412 airfoilairfoil ResolveResolve discrepancydiscrepancy inin windwind tunneltunnel datadata DevelopDevelop experimentalexperimental techniquestechniques forfor anan airfoilairfoil CompareCompare windwind tunneltunnel datadata ForceForce BalanceBalance toto PressurePressure DistributionDistribution BaylorBaylor datadata toto publishedpublished NACANACA datadata NACANACA 44124412 AirfoilAirfoil 4 digit code used to describe airfoil shapes 1st digit - maximum camber in percent chord 2nd digit - location of maximum camber along chord line (from leading edge) in tenths of chord 3rd and 4th digits - maximum thickness in percent chord NACA 4412 with a chord of 6” Max camber: 0.24” (4% x 6”) Location of max camber: 2.4” aft of leading edge (0.4 x 6”) Max thickness: 0.72” (12% x 6”) z Max thickness Max camber Mean camber line x Chord line Chord x=0 x=c Leading edge Trailing edge TheoryTheory Lift,Lift, DragDrag andand AngleAngle ofof AttackAttack StallStall AngleAngle Lift V∞ α Drag Relative Wind ρVc Momentum Reynolds Number = Re = = µ Viscous TheoryTheory Direct Method (Force Balance) L D C = C = l 1 d 1 Relates lift and drag forces to the velocity ρV 2S ρV 2S 2 2 Pressure Distribution (Pressure Ported Airfoil) P − P C = Local Stat P Relates local pressure on an airfoil to the velocity PDyn y c y 1 x C = (C − C )d( ) C = (C − C )d( ) X ∫ PF PA Y ∫ PL PU y c 0 c − c Cl = CY cosα − CX sinα Cd = CY sinα + C X cosα ExperimentalExperimental ApparatusApparatus BaylorBaylor UniversityUniversity WindWind TunnelTunnel 24” by 24” Test Section Test Range: 0 – 150 ft/s Open loop tunnel ExperimentalExperimental ApparatusApparatus ForceForce BalanceBalance PressurePressure TappedTapped AirfoilAirfoil Both NACA 4412 airfoils -8 to 20 Degrees 18 pressure ports are 24” wide with a 6” -18 to 20 Degrees chord length ExperimentalExperimental ComparisonComparison NACA Baylor University ReRe == 3,000,0003,000,000 ReRe == 150,000150,000 5454 pressurepressure portsports 1818 pressurepressure portsports VariableVariable densitydensity windwind ConstantConstant densitydensity tunneltunnel windwind tunneltunnel 2424”” chordchord lengthlength 66”” chordchord lengthlength ResultsResults StallStall angleangle 1111 degreesdegrees forfor 150,000150,000 ReRe (Baylor)(Baylor) 1515 degreesdegrees forfor 3,000,0003,000,000 ReRe (NACA)(NACA) LiftLift coefficientcoefficient agreesagrees withinwithin 2%2% ofof NACANACA publishedpublished datadata NoticeableNoticeable inaccuraciesinaccuracies inin dragdrag coefficientcoefficient datadata fromfrom thethe pressurepressure portedported airfoilairfoil DragDrag coefficientcoefficient isis ReRe dependentdependent AerodynamicAerodynamic CurvesCurves LiftLift CurveCurve DragDrag CurveCurve Cl Cd Higher Re Curve α Cl LiftLift CurveCurve Cl v α 1.70 1.50 1.30 1.10 0.90 0.70 NACA Report 563 0.50 NACA Report 824 0.30 Force Balance Coefficient Lift of 0.10 Pressure -20 -16 -12 -8 -4-0.10 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 -0.30 -0.50 -0.70 -0.90 Angle of Attack (Degrees) LiftLift PressurePressure DistributionDistribution 10 degrees CP vs. x/c -4 -3 -2 Exp Lower Surface Exp Upper Surface P C NACA 563 Lower Surface -1 NACA 563 Upper Surface -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 0 x/c 1 DragDrag CurveCurve CD v CL 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 NACA 563 0.025 NACA 824 0.02 Force Balance Pressure 0.015 Coefficient of Drag of Coefficient 0.01 0.005 0 -0.75 -0.25 0.25 0.75 1.25 Coefficient of Lift DragDrag PressurePressure DistributionDistribution 10 degrees CP vs. y/c -4 -3 Exp Lower Surface -2 Exp Upper Surface P NACA 563 Lower Surface C NACA 563 Upper Surface -1 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 y/c 1 CCDD vs.vs. ReynoldsReynolds NumberNumber Munson, B. R., Young, D. F., and Okiishi, T. H., 2006, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics SummarySummary ObjectivesObjectives Study airflow over an airfoil Resolve discrepancy in previous wind tunnel data Compare wind tunnel data ResultsResults Stall angle is a function of the Reynolds number Lift coefficient relates closely to published data Insufficient pressure ports to accurately map the pressure distribution for drag coefficient Drag coefficient highly dependent on Reynolds number RecommendationsRecommendations FurtherFurther experimentsexperiments NACANACA 00120012 (Double(Double thethe pressurepressure ports)ports) UtilizeUtilize BaylorBaylor’’ss 3D3D printerprinter DevelopDevelop liftlift andand dragdrag curvescurves forfor futurefuture experimentsexperiments toto referencereference QuestionsQuestions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Airfoil Drag by Wake Survey Using Ldv
    AIRFOIL DRAG BY WAKE SURVEY USING LDV 1 Purpose This experiment introduces the student to the use of Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) as a means of measuring air flow velocities. The section drag of a NACA 0012 airfoil is determined from velocity measurements obtained in the airfoil wake. 2 Apparatus (1) .5 m x .7 m wind tunnel (max velocity 20 m/s) (2) NACA 0015 airfoil (0.2 m chord, 0.7 m span) (3) Betz manometer (4) Pitot tube (5) DISA LDV optics (6) Spectra Physics 124B 15 mW laser (632.8 nm) (7) DISA 55N20 LDV frequency tracker (8) TSI atomizer using 50cs silicone oil (9) XYZ LDV traversing system (10) Computer data reduction program 1 3 Notation A wing area (m2) b initial laser beam radius (m) bo minimum laser beam radius at lens focus (m) c airfoil chord length (m) Cd drag coefficient da elemental area in wake survey plane (m2) d drag force per unit span f focal length of primary lens (m) fo Doppler frequency (Hz) I detected signal amplitude (V) l distance across survey plane (m) r seed particle radius (m) s airfoil span (m) v seed particle velocity (instantaneous flow velocity) (m/s) U wake velocity (m/s) Uo upstream flow velocity (m/s) α Mie scatter size parameter/angle of attack (degs) δy fringe separation (m) θ intersection angle of laser beams λ laser wavelength (632.8 nm for He Ne laser) ρ air density at NTP (1.225 kg/m3) τ Doppler period (s) 4 Theory 4.1 Introduction The profile drag of a two-dimensional airfoil is the sum of the form drag due to boundary layer sep- aration (pressure drag), and the skin friction drag.
    [Show full text]
  • Drag Force Calculation
    DRAG FORCE CALCULATION “Drag is the component of force on a body acting parallel to the direction of relative motion.” [1] This can occur between two differing fluids or between a fluid and a solid. In this lab, the drag force will be explored between a fluid, air, and a solid shape. Drag force is a function of shape geometry, velocity of the moving fluid over a stationary shape, and the fluid properties density and viscosity. It can be calculated using the following equation, ퟏ 푭 = 흆푨푪 푽ퟐ 푫 ퟐ 푫 Equation 1: Drag force equation using total profile where ρ is density determined from Table A.9 or A.10 in your textbook A is the frontal area of the submerged object CD is the drag coefficient determined from Table 1 V is the free-stream velocity measured during the lab Table 1: Known drag coefficients for various shapes Body Status Shape CD Square Rod Sharp Corner 2.2 Circular Rod 0.3 Concave Face 1.2 Semicircular Rod Flat Face 1.7 The drag force of an object can also be calculated by applying the conservation of momentum equation for your stationary object. 휕 퐹⃗ = ∫ 푉⃗⃗ 휌푑∀ + ∫ 푉⃗⃗휌푉⃗⃗ ∙ 푑퐴⃗ 휕푡 퐶푉 퐶푆 Assuming steady flow, the equation reduces to 퐹⃗ = ∫ 푉⃗⃗휌푉⃗⃗ ∙ 푑퐴⃗ 퐶푆 The following frontal view of the duct is shown below. Integrating the velocity profile after the shape will allow calculation of drag force per unit span. Figure 1: Velocity profile after an inserted shape. Combining the previous equation with Figure 1, the following equation is obtained: 푊 퐷푓 = ∫ 휌푈푖(푈∞ − 푈푖)퐿푑푦 0 Simplifying the equation, you get: 20 퐷푓 = 휌퐿 ∑ 푈푖(푈∞ − 푈푖)훥푦 푖=1 Equation 2: Drag force equation using wake profile The pressure measurements can be converted into velocity using the Bernoulli’s equation as follows: 2Δ푃푖 푈푖 = √ 휌퐴푖푟 Be sure to remember that the manometers used are in W.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Immersed Body Flow [Pp
    MECH 3492 Fluid Mechanics and Applications Univ. of Manitoba Fall Term, 2017 Chapter 4: Immersed Body Flow [pp. 445-459 (8e), or 374-386 (9e)] Dr. Bing-Chen Wang Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V6 When a viscous fluid flow passes a solid body (fully-immersed in the fluid), the body experiences a net force, F, which can be decomposed into two components: a drag force F , which is parallel to the flow direction, and • D a lift force F , which is perpendicular to the flow direction. • L The drag coefficient CD and lift coefficient CL are defined as follows: FD FL CD = 1 2 and CL = 1 2 , (112) 2 ρU A 2 ρU Ap respectively. Here, U is the free-stream velocity, A is the “wetted area” (total surface area in contact with fluid), and Ap is the “planform area” (maximum projected area of an object such as a wing). In the remainder of this section, we focus our attention on the drag forces. As discussed previously, there are two types of drag forces acting on a solid body immersed in a viscous flow: friction drag (also called “viscous drag”), due to the wall friction shear stress exerted on the • surface of a solid body; pressure drag (also called “form drag”), due to the difference in the pressure exerted on the front • and rear surfaces of a solid body. The friction drag and pressure drag on a finite immersed body are defined as FD,vis = τwdA and FD, pres = pdA , (113) ZA ZA Streamwise component respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Drag Coefficients of Inclined Hollow Cylinders
    Drag Coefficients of Inclined Hollow Cylinders: RANS versus LES A Major Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science In Chemical Engineering By Ben Franzluebbers _______________ Date: April 2013 Approved: ________________________ Dr. Anthony G. Dixon, Advisor Abstract The goal of this project was use LES and RANS (SST k-ω) CFD turbulence models to find the drag coefficient of a hollow cylinder at various inclinations and compare the results. The drag coefficients were evaluated for three angles relative to the flow (0⁰, 45⁰, and 90⁰) and three Reynolds numbers (1000, 5000, and 10000). The drag coefficients determined by LES and RANS agreed for the 0⁰ and 90⁰ inclined hollow cylinder. For the 45⁰ inclined hollow cylinder the RANS model predicted drag coefficients about 0.2 lower the drag coefficients predicted by LES. 2 Executive Summary The design of catalyst particles is an important topic in the chemical industry. Chemical products made using catalytic processes are worth $900 billion a year and about 75% of all chemical and petroleum products by value (U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, 2005). The catalyst particles used for fixed bed reactors are an important part of this. Knowing properties of the catalyst particle such as the drag coefficient is necessary to understand how fluid flow will be affected by the packed bed. The particles are inclined at different angles in the reactor and can come in a wide variety of shapes meaning that understanding the effect of particle shape on drag coefficient has practical importance.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Level, Non-Accelerated Flight
    Performance 8. Level, Non-Accelerated Flight For non-accelerated flight, the tangential acceleration, , and normal acceleration, . As a result, the governing equations become: (1) If we add the additional assumptions of level flight, , and that the thrust is aligned with the velocity vector, , then Eq. (1) reduces to the simple form: (2) The last two equations tell us that the altitude is a constant, and the velocity is the range rate. For now, however, we are interested in the first two equations that can be rewritten as: (3) The key thing to remember about these equations is that the weight,W,isagivenand it is equal to the Lift. Consequently, lift is not at our disposal, it must equal the given weight! Thus for a given aircraft and any given altitude, we can determine the required lift coefficient (and hence angle-of-attack) for any given airspeed. (4) Therefore at a given weight and altitude, the lift coefficient varies as 1 over V2. A sketch of lift coefficient vs. speed looks as follows: 1 It is clear from the figure that as the vehicle slows down, in order to remain in level flight, the lift coefficient (and hence angle-of-attack) must increase. [You can think of it in terms of the momentum flux. The momentum flux (the mass flow rate time the velocity out in the z direction) creates the lift force. Since the mass flow rate is directional proportional to the velocity, then the slower we go, the more the air must be deflected downward. We do this by increasing the angle-of-attack!].
    [Show full text]
  • On the Generation of a Reverse Von Kármán Street for the Controlled Cylinder Wake in the Laminar Regime
    On the generation of a reverse Von Kármán street for the controlled cylinder wake in the laminar regime Michel Bergmann,∗ Laurent Cordier, and Jean-Pierre Brancher LEMTA, UMR 7563 (CNRS - INPL - UHP) ENSEM - 2, avenue de la forêt de Haye BP 160 - 54504 Vandœuvre cedex, France (Dated: December 8, 2005) 1 Abstract In this Brief Communication we are interested in the maximum mean drag reduction that can be achieved under rotary sinusoidal control for the circular cylinder wake in the laminar regime. For a Reynolds number equal to 200, we give numerical evidence that partial control restricted to an upstream part of the cylinder surface may increase considerably the effectiveness of the control. Indeed, a maximum value of relative mean drag reduction equal to 30% is obtained when applying a specific sinusoidal control to the whole cylinder, where up to 75% of reduction can be obtained when the same control law is applied only to a well selected upstream part of the cylinder. This result suggests that a mean flow correction field with negative drag is observable for this controlled flow configuration. The significant thrust force that is locally generated in the near wake corresponds to a reverse Kármán vortex street as commonly observed in fish-like locomotion or flapping wing flight. Finally, the energetic efficiency of the control is quantified by examining the Power Saving Ratio: it is shown that our approach is energetically inefficient. However, it is also demonstrated that for this control scheme the improvement of the effectiveness goes generally with an improvement of the efficiency. Keywords: Partial rotary control ; Cylinder wake ; Drag minimization ; reverse Kármán vortex street.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Design Study of a Hydrogen Powered Ultra Large Cargo Aircraft
    Conceptual Design Study of a Hydrogen Powered Ultra Large Cargo Aircraft R.A.J. Jansen University of Technology Technology of University Delft Delft Conceptual Design Study of a Hydrogen Powered Ultra Large Cargo Aircraft Towards a competitive and sustainable alternative of maritime transport by R.A.J. Jansen to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Tuesday January 10, 2017 at 9:00 AM. Student number: 4036093 Thesis registration: 109#17#MT#FPP Project duration: January 11, 2016 – January 10, 2017 Thesis committee: Dr. ir. G. La Rocca, TU Delft, supervisor Dr. A. Gangoli Rao, TU Delft Dr. ir. H. G. Visser, TU Delft An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Acknowledgements This report presents the research performed to complete the master track Flight Performance and Propulsion at the Technical University of Delft. I am really grateful to the people who supported me both during the master thesis as well as during the rest of my student life. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Gianfranco La Rocca. He supported and motivated me during the entire graduation project and provided valuable feedback during all the status meeting we had. I would also like to thank the exam committee, Arvind Gangoli Rao and Dries Visser, for their flexibility and time to assess my work. Moreover, I would like to thank Ali Elham for his advice throughout the project as well as during the green light meeting. Next to these people, I owe also thanks to the fellow students in room 2.44 for both their advice, as well as the enjoyable chats during the lunch and coffee breaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Airframe Integration
    Aerodynamic Design of the Hybrid Wing Body Propulsion- Airframe Integration May-Fun Liou1, Hyoungjin Kim2, ByungJoon Lee3, and Meng-Sing Liou4 NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, 44135 Abstract A hybrid wingbody (HWB) concept is being considered by NASA as a potential subsonic transport aircraft that meets aerodynamic, fuel, emission, and noise goals in the time frame of the 2030s. While the concept promises advantages over conventional wing-and-tube aircraft, it poses unknowns and risks, thus requiring in-depth and broad assessments. Specifically, the configuration entails a tight integration of the airframe and propulsion geometries; the aerodynamic impact has to be carefully evaluated. With the propulsion nacelle installed on the (upper) body, the lift and drag are affected by the mutual interference effects between the airframe and nacelle. The static margin for longitudinal stability is also adversely changed. We develop a design approach in which the integrated geometry of airframe (HWB) and propulsion is accounted for simultaneously in a simple algebraic manner, via parameterization of the planform and airfoils at control sections of the wingbody. In this paper, we present the design of a 300-passenger transport that employs distributed electric fans for propulsion. The trim for stability is achieved through the use of the wingtip twist angle. The geometric shape variables are determined through the adjoint optimization method by minimizing the drag while subject to lift, pitch moment, and geometry constraints. The design results clearly show the influence on the aerodynamic characteristics of the installed nacelle and trimming for stability. A drag minimization with the trim constraint yields a reduction of 10 counts in the drag coefficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerodynamics of High-Performance Wing Sails
    Aerodynamics of High-Performance Wing Sails J. otto Scherer^ Some of tfie primary requirements for tiie design of wing sails are discussed. In particular, ttie requirements for maximizing thrust when sailing to windward and tacking downwind are presented. The results of water channel tests on six sail section shapes are also presented. These test results Include the data for the double-slotted flapped wing sail designed by David Hubbard for A. F. Dl Mauro's lYRU "C" class catamaran Patient Lady II. Introduction The propulsion system is probably the single most neglect­ ed area of yacht design. The conventional triangular "soft" sails, while simple, practical, and traditional, are a long way from being aerodynamically desirable. The aerodynamic driving force of the sails is, of course, just as large and just as important as the hydrodynamic resistance of the hull. Yet, designers will go to great lengths to fair hull lines and tank test hull shapes, while simply drawing a triangle on the plans to define the sails. There is no question in my mind that the application of the wealth of available airfoil technology will yield enormous gains in yacht performance when applied to sail design. Re­ cent years have seen the application of some of this technolo­ gy in the form of wing sails on the lYRU "C" class catamar­ ans. In this paper, I will review some of the aerodynamic re­ quirements of yacht sails which have led to the development of the wing sails. For purposes of discussion, we can divide sail require­ ments into three points of sailing: • Upwind and close reaching.
    [Show full text]
  • B-52, the “Stratofortress”
    B-52, The “StratoFortress” Aerodynamics and Performance Build-up Service • Crew – Upper Deck • 2 Pilots • Electronic Warfare Officer • Latest Model – Lower Deck – B-52H • Bombardier – Last B-52H delivered in 1962 • Radar Navigator • Transonic Bomber – Nuclear Payload capable • Deployment – 20 Cruise Missiles – 102 B-52H’s • AGM-86C – 192 B-52G’s • AGM-12 Have Nap • AGM-84 Harpoon – All in Service of USAF as – Up to 50,000 lb ordnance far as we can tell payload – $53.4 million each [1998$] – 51 bombs of 750-lb class Additional Payload • In addition to attack ordnance, B-52H carries: – Norden APQ-156 Multi-mode targeting radar – Terrain Avoidance Radar – Electro-Optical Viewing System (EVS) • Infra-red and low light display used in conjunction with terrain avoidance sensors to navigate in bad weather at low altitudes, or with the nuclear windscreen shielding in place – ECM • ALT-28 jammer • ALQ-117, -115, -172 deception jammers – Optional Stinger Air to Air missiles in aft gun-turret Weight Breakdown • Max TOGW – 505,000 lb • Fuel Weight – 299,434 lb internal – 9,114 lb on non-jettisonable under- wing pylons • Ordnance Weight – 50,000 lb • Airframe operational empty – 146452 lb Basic Geometry • Length: 160.9 ft • Tail Plane • Wing – Horizontal Tail Span: – Span: 185 ft 55.625 ft – Horizontal Tail Plan Area: – Area: 4000 ft^2 ~1004 ft^2 – Root Chord: ~34.5 ft – Mean Chord: 21.62 ft – Vertical Tail Height: – Taper Ratio: 0.37 24.339 ft – Leading Edge Sweep: – Vertical Tail Plan Area: 35° ~451 ft^2 – AR: 8.56 Wing Geometry • Wing Root: 14%
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: Immersed Body Flow [Pp
    MECH 3492 Fluid Mechanics and Applications Univ. of Manitoba Fall Term, 2017 Chapter 4: Immersed Body Flow [pp. 445-459 (8e), or 374-386 (9e)] Dr. Bing-Chen Wang Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Univ. of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V6 When a viscous fluid flow passes a solid body (fully-immersed in the fluid), the body experiences a net force, F, which can be decomposed into two components: a drag force F , which is parallel to the flow direction, and • D a lift force F , which is perpendicular to the flow direction. • L The drag coefficient CD and lift coefficient CL are defined as follows: FD FL CD = 1 2 and CL = 1 2 , (112) 2 ρU A 2 ρU Ap respectively. Here, U is the free-stream velocity, A is the “wetted area” (total surface area in contact with fluid), and Ap is the “planform area” (maximum projected area of an object such as a wing). In the remainder of this section, we focus our attention on the drag forces. As discussed previously, there are two types of drag forces acting on a solid body immersed in a viscous flow: friction drag (also called “viscous drag”), due to the wall friction shear stress exerted on the • surface of a solid body; pressure drag (also called “form drag”), due to the difference in the pressure exerted on the front • and rear surfaces of a solid body. The friction drag and pressure drag on a finite immersed body are defined as FD,vis = τwdA and FD, pres = pdA , (113) ZA ZA Streamwise component respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Study of a Supersonic Business Jet with Variable Sweep Wings
    27TH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES DESIGN STUDY OF A SUPERSONIC BUSINESS JET WITH VARIABLE SWEEP WINGS E.Jesse, J.Dijkstra ADSE b.v. Keywords: swing wing, supersonic, business jet, variable sweepback Abstract A design study for a supersonic business jet with variable sweep wings is presented. A comparison with a fixed wing design with the same technology level shows the fundamental differences. It is concluded that a variable sweep design will show worthwhile advantages over fixed wing solutions. 1 General Introduction Fig. 1 Artist impression variable sweep design AD1104 In the EU 6th framework project HISAC (High Speed AirCraft) technologies have been studied to enable the design and development of an 2 The HISAC project environmentally acceptable Small Supersonic The HISAC project is a 6th framework project Business Jet (SSBJ). In this context a for the European Union to investigate the conceptual design with a variable sweep wing technical feasibility of an environmentally has been developed by ADSE, with support acceptable small size supersonic transport from Sukhoi, Dassault Aviation, TsAGI, NLR aircraft. With a budget of 27.5 M€ and 37 and DLR. The objective of this was to assess the partners in 13 countries this 4 year effort value of such a configuration for a possible combined much of the European industry and future SSBJ programme, and to identify critical knowledge centres. design and certification areas should such a configuration prove to be advantageous. To provide a framework for the different studies and investigations foreseen in the HISAC This paper presents the resulting design project a number of aircraft concept designs including the relevant considerations which were defined, which would all meet at least the determined the selected configuration.
    [Show full text]