DOCSLIB.ORG

Postal Penguin an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Postal Penguin an Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy Postal Penguin An Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle for the Navy Team 8-Ball Final Presentation April 22nd, 2003 1 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 2 Introduction Team Members and Positions Justin Hayes Greg Little Ben Smith David Andrews Chuhui Pak Alex Rich Nate Wright Jon Hirschauer Christina DeLorenzo 3 Introduction Request for Proposal Overview RFP Requirement Specification Effect of Specification Mission 1, Strike Range 500 nm High Fuel Requirements Mission 2, Endurance 10 Hrs Low TSFC, High Fuel Payload 4,600 lbs Internal Volume Cruise Speed > M 0.7 No Supersonic, Engine Ceiling > 40,000 ft Engine, Aero Performance Sensor Suite Global Hawk Volume, Integration Stealth Survivability Oblique Angles Carrier Ops Structural Loads 4 Introduction Project Drivers (Pictures Courtesy of Global Security) Carrier Operation Fuel Store Capacity Stealth Sensor Suite Flyaway Costs 5 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 6 Background Research Existing Aircraft (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity) 7 Background Research Advanced Technologies, VSTOL Harrier Review 14 Panel Study AV-8b Harrier Jump Jet (HaRP) 12 Increased Failure 10 Rates 8 55 Peacetime 6 Vehicle Losses All Other Navy Aircraft (17 lives lost) 4 2 Mishap Rates of Hours 100,000 Flight per Mishaps 14-20 per 100,000 0 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 hrs Fiscal Year Increases Weight, Cost, Volume 8 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concepts Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 9 Concepts Overview Concept Descriptions Concept Rubber Stealth Ducky Biggun Wing Delta U2 Beetle Conventional Tail YES YES Canted Tail YES YES YES Delta Wing YES Flying Wing YES Single Engine YES YES YES YES YES Multi Engine YES Vectored Thrust YES YES YES Water Landing YES Acceptable Length YES YES YES YES 10 Concepts Overview Reduction Chart Stealth Wing Beetle Delta U2 Biggun Rubber Ducky 11 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 12 Design Evolution, Weights Initial Configuration, Problems Severe Instability (21% MAC) Significant cg Travel Landing Problems Drag Divergence Fuel Volume 13 Design Evolution, Weights Weight Changes, cg Shift Shift Engine Forward Widen Midsection New Airfoil, MS(1)-0313 Planform Sweep 14 Design Evolution, Weights Solving the Weights Problem Ordinance Release Ordinance Retention Loiter JDAM JDAM, pre-drop HARM, pre-drop HARM JDAM/HARM, post-drop 15 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 16 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Layout 17 Final Configuration Postal Penguin Internal Layout Exhaust Wing Tanks Engine Integrated Sensor Suite Fuel Tanks Main Gear Nose Gear Inlets Payload 18 Final Configuration Postal Penguin External Layout Pelikan Tails Ailerons Flaps Main Gear Nose Gear Air intake 19 Final Configuration For Dr. Brown General Characteristics Length 32' Weight 16-34.5 kips Span 45' VStall 105 knt SpanFolded 30' VLaunch 130-150 knt HeightMax 14.3' VLand 125 knt AR 4.35 Λo 22.7° 20 Final Configuration Penguin Top/Side View Length 35’ Folded Length 32’ Span 45’ Folded Span 30’ Wheelbase 15’ Track Width 10’ 21 Final Configuration Penguin Front View 22 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 23 Systems Overview General Systems (Pictures Courtesy of GlobalSecurity, FAS) Landing Gear Defensive Weapons Engine Hydraulics Bomb Bay Command/Control Electrical Flight Control 24 Systems Overview Bomb Bay, HARM Must be rail launched Utilize already existing technology LAU-118/A Guided Missile Launcher BRU-32/A Bomb Rack (Courtesy of GlobalSecurity) 25 Systems Overview HARM Rail Launch System 26 Systems Overview JDAM Pneumatic Ejector Utilize already existing technology Pneumatic Ejector Racks The Advantages of Pneumatic Ejection 27 Systems Overview Main Gear Placement Size Geometric Retraction Weight: 600 lbs Tires – Type VII cg Diameter: 25.84 in. Width: 7.30 in. Ground Clearance 28 Systems Overview Nose Gear Size Placement Tires – Type VII Geometric Retraction Diameter: 18.27 in. Weight: 600 lbs Width: 4.27 in. 4 x 10 Weight vs. Length 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 Weight 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Length 29 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 30 Aero-Performance Aerodynamic Considerations General Characteristics: Supercritical airfoil for drag divergence AR λ b S MAC Λ 1/2 Moderate sweep for transonic performance/neutral point location 4.35 0.29 45 ft. 465 ft 11.4 ft 10 deg High span and area for good L/D characteristics Reasonable thickness for potential fuel storage 22.65 deg 45’ If Penguins Had Wings… 31 Aero-Performance The Contenders MS(1)-0313 SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313 The Penguin presented unique design requirements: High L/D, good low-speed lift, all in a very small package. Some characteristics looked at are below. 40 kft SC(2)-0712 MS(1)-0317 MS(1)-0313 CL max 1.3 1.38 1.42 α max 3.1 6.8 5.2 t/c 0.12 0.17 0.13 The MS(1)-0313 provided the best combination of characteristics. 32 Aero-Performance Drag Polar, Build-up Drag Polar (40,000 ft) 1.6 Example drag polar 1.4 for the cruise altitude of 40,000 ft (deep 1.2 strike/SEAD missions) 1 The marker signifies 0.8 CL maximum L/D of 13.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 L/D)MAX = 13.8 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 CD 33 Aero-Performance Sweep and MDD A supercritical CL vs. MDD airfoil alone is not enough to counter the 0.74 effects of increased wave 0.72 drag. 10 deg 0.7 5 deg Wing has been DD M swept 10 deg at 0 deg mid-chord to 0.68 raise Mach drag divergence. 0.66 0.64 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.05 1.25 CL 34 Aero-Performance Thickness and MDD While sacrificing fuel Midchord Sweep vs. MDD volume, the decreased CL = 0.5 thickness in the wings allowed for great 0.82 improvement in the Mach 0.8 drag divergence values for all potential angles of 0.78 sweep. 0.76 DD 13 % t/c 0.74 M 17 % t/c 0.72 0.7 0.68 0.66 0 10203040 Midchord sweep (deg) 35 Aero-Performance Performance Factors Requirements refresher: 0.85 Mach at Sea Level 0.7 Mach (or better) cruise speed at 40kft or better (Deep Strike/SEAD) 10 hour endurance/loiter mission 8400 ft/min (or better) initial climb rate Endurance Range (40,000 ft) Max Speed (SL) Initial ROC (SL) RFP 14.5 h 550 nm 0.83 M 10260 ft/min T/O Accel. Stall Speed Approach Speed T/O speed Carrier 5g 109 kts 131 kts 150 kts Ceiling L/D Max Loiter Velocity Range Velocity Other 57,700 ft 13.8 0.54 M 0.71 M 36 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 37 Control and Stability Control Surface Sizing Take Off Rotation Speed Aileron Size 7.28 ft^2 JDAM MISSION Flap Size 13.49 ft^2 117.66 knots Rudder Size 16.84 ft^2 HARM MISSION 121.29 knots LOITER MISSION 121.83 knots 38 Control and Stability Roll Required Roll Rate: 45 degrees in 1.4 seconds Landing Take off Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 HARM 201 262 638 (Deg/sec) JDAM 202 262 456 (Deg/sec) Loiter 201 262 562 (Deg/sec) 39 Control and Stability HARM Mission Sideslip Flight ( Beta = 11.5 deg ) Take Off Landing Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 Delta A 1.82 1.81 1.83 (degrees) Delta R 0.31 0.32 0.21 (degrees) PHI 2.64 2.671 6.92 (degrees) 40 Control and Stability JDAM Mission Stead/Level Flight Control Power Assessment Landing Take Off Cruise Mach # 0.197 0.227 0.7 CL trim 1.12 0.85 0.48 Delta e -3.9 -.96 0.28 (degrees) AOA 12.54 9.26 -.84 (degrees) 41 Agenda Introduction Background Research Concept Overview, Selection Design Evolution, Weights Final Configuration Systems Overview Aero-Performance Control & Stability Structural Analysis Pelikan Tail Autonomy, Carrier Integration Cost Summary and Questions 42 Structural Analysis Material Usage Large, One-Piece, Carbon Composites Titanium, Ceramic Aramid Composites BMI Silicon Titanium Radar Absorbent Paint 43 Structural Analysis Wing Box Layout Skin Stiffeners Aft Spar Aileron LE Spar 44 Structural Analysis Bulkhead/Spar Placement 36% 60% 12% Al 7075 Al 2024 45 Structural Analysis Bulkhead
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Supercritical Airfoils
    NASA Technical Paper 2969 1990 NASA Supercritical Airfoils A Matrix of Family-Related Airfoils Charles D. Harris Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia National Aeronautics-and Space Administration Office of Management Scientific and Technical Information Division Summary wind-tunnel testing. The process consisted of eval- A concerted effort within the National Aero- uating experimental pressure distributions at design and off-design conditions and physically altering the nautics and Space Administration (NASA) during airfoil profiles to yield the best drag characteristics the 1960's and 1970's was directed toward develop- over a range of experimental test conditions. ing practical two-dimensional turbulent airfoils with The insight gained and the design guidelines that good transonic behavior while retaining acceptable were recognized during these early phase 1 investiga- low-speed characteristics and focused on a concept tions, together with transonic, viscous, airfoil anal- referred to as the supercritical airfoil. This dis- ysis codes developed during the same time period, tinctive airfoil shape, based on the concept of local resulted in the design of a matrix of family-related supersonic flow with isentropic recompression, was supercritical airfoils (denoted by the SC(phase 2) characterized by a large leading-edge radius, reduced prefix). curvature over the middle region of the upper surface, and substantial aft camber. The purpose of this report is to summarize the This report summarizes the supercritical airfoil background of the NASA supercritical airfoil devel- development program in a chronological fashion, dis- opment, to discuss some of the airfoil design guide- lines, and to present coordinates of a matrix of cusses some of the design guidelines, and presents family-related supercritical airfoils with thicknesses coordinates of a matrix of family-related super- critical airfoils with thicknesses from 2 to 18 percent from 2 to 18 percent and design lift coefficients from and design lift coefficients from 0 to 1.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental and Numerical Investigations of a 2D Aeroelastic Arifoil Encountering a Gust in Transonic Conditions Fabien Huvelin, Arnaud Lepage, Sylvie Dequand
    Experimental and numerical investigations of a 2D aeroelastic arifoil encountering a gust in transonic conditions Fabien Huvelin, Arnaud Lepage, Sylvie Dequand To cite this version: Fabien Huvelin, Arnaud Lepage, Sylvie Dequand. Experimental and numerical investigations of a 2D aeroelastic arifoil encountering a gust in transonic conditions. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, Springer, In press, 10.1007/s13272-018-00358-x. hal-02027968 HAL Id: hal-02027968 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02027968 Submitted on 22 Feb 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF A 2D 2 AEROELASTIC AIRFOIL ENCOUNTERING A GUST IN TRANSONIC 3 CONDITIONS 4 Fabien HUVELIN1, Arnaud LEPAGE, Sylvie DEQUAND 5 6 ONERA-The French Aerospace Lab 7 Aerodynamics, Aeroelasticity, Acoustics Department 8 Châtillon, 92320 FRANCE 9 10 KEYWORDS: Aeroelasticity, Wind Tunnel Test, CFD, Gust response, Unsteady coupled 11 simulations 12 ABSTRACT: 13 In order to make substantial progress in reducing the environmental impact of aircraft, a key 14 technology is the reduction of aircraft weight. This challenge requires the development and 15 the assessment of new technologies and methodologies of load prediction and control. To 16 achieve the investigation of the specific case of gust load, ONERA defined a dedicated 17 research program based on both wind tunnel test campaigns and high fidelity simulations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supercritical Airfoil
    TF-2004-13 DFRC The Supercritical Airfoil Supercritical wings add a graceful appearance to the modified NASA F-8 test aircraft. NASA Photo E73-3468 An airfoil considered unconventional when tested in the early 1970s by NASA at the Dryden Flight Research Center is now universally recognized by the aviation industry as a wing design that increases flying efficiency and helps lower fuel costs. Called the supercritical airfoil, the design has led to development of the supercritical wings (SCW) now used worldwide on business jets, airliners and transports, and numerous military aircraft. Conventional wings are rounded on top and flat on the bottom. The SCW is flatter on the top, rounded on the bottom, and the upper trailing edge is accented with a downward curve to restore lift lost by flattening the upper surface. 1 At speeds in the transonic range -- just below vibrations. In rare cases, aircraft have also become and just above the speed of sound -- the SCW delays uncontrollable due to boundary layer separation. the formation of the supersonic shock wave on the upper wing surface and reduces its strength, allowing Supercritical wings have a flat-on-top "upside the aircraft to fly faster with less effort. down" look. As air moves across the top of a SCW it does not speed up nearly as much as over a curved NASA's test program validating the SCW upper surface. This delays the onset of the shock concept was conducted at the Dryden Flight wave and also reduces aerodynamic drag associated Research Center from March 1971 to May 1973 and with boundary layer separation.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Transonic Aerodynamics of Airfoils and Wings
    W.H. Mason 7. Transonic Aerodynamics of Airfoils and Wings 7.1 Introduction Transonic flow occurs when there is mixed sub- and supersonic local flow in the same flowfield (typically with freestream Mach numbers from M = 0.6 or 0.7 to 1.2). Usually the supersonic region of the flow is terminated by a shock wave, allowing the flow to slow down to subsonic speeds. This complicates both computations and wind tunnel testing. It also means that there is very little analytic theory available for guidance in designing for transonic flow conditions. Importantly, not only is the outer inviscid portion of the flow governed by nonlinear flow equations, but the nonlinear flow features typically require that viscous effects be included immediately in the flowfield analysis for accurate design and analysis work. Note also that hypersonic vehicles with bow shocks necessarily have a region of subsonic flow behind the shock, so there is an element of transonic flow on those vehicles too. In the days of propeller airplanes the transonic flow limitations on the propeller mostly kept airplanes from flying fast enough to encounter transonic flow over the rest of the airplane. Here the propeller was moving much faster than the airplane, and adverse transonic aerodynamic problems appeared on the prop first, limiting the speed and thus transonic flow problems over the rest of the aircraft. However, WWII fighters could reach transonic speeds in a dive, and major problems often arose. One notable example was the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Transonic effects prevented the airplane from readily recovering from dives, and during one flight test, Lockheed test pilot Ralph Virden had a fatal accident.
    [Show full text]
  • A Perspective on 15 Years of Proof-Of-Concept Aircraft
    NASA Reference Publication . 1- 1- August 1987 / A Perspective on 15 Years of Proof-of-ConceptAircraft Development and Flight Research at Arnes-Moffett by the Rotorcraft and Powered-Lift Flight Projects Division, 197 0- 1985 David D. Few NASA NASA Reference Publication 1187 . 1987 A Perspective on 15 Years of Proof-of-ConceptAircraft Development and Flight Research at Ames-Moffett by the Rotorcraft and Powered-Lift Flight Projects Division, 1970-1985 David D. Few Ames Research Center Mofett Field, Calfa ornia National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office NOMENCLATURE i CL coefficient of lift i. CTOL conventional takeoff and landing DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency v DTNSRDC David Taylor Naval Systems Research and Development Center KTAS knots true air speed PNdB perceived noise level in decibels R&T research and technology RCF rotating cylinder flap SCAS stability and control augmentation system STOL shor t takeoff and landing STOVL shoft takeoff and vertical landing TOFL takeoff field length T/W thrust-weight VC critical control speed V/STOL vertical/short takeoff and landing V/STOLAND vertical/short takeoff and landing avionics system VTOL vertical takeoff and landing iii SUMMARY This paper defines a proof-of-concept (POC) aircraft and briefly describes the concept of interest for each of the six aircraft developed by the Ames-Moffett Rotorcraft and Powered-Lift Flight Projects Division from 1970 through 1985; namely, the OV-10, the C-8A Augmentor Wing, the Quiet Short-Haul Research Aircraft (QSRA), the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft (TRRA), the Rotor Systems Research Aircraft (RSRA)-compound, and the yet-to-fly RSRA/X-Wing Aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 7, Lecture 3: Effects of Wing Sweep
    Section 7, Lecture 3: Effects of Wing Sweep • All modern high-speed aircraft have swept wings: WHY? 1 MAE 5420 - Compressible Fluid Flow • Not in Anderson Supersonic Airfoils (revisited) • Normal Shock wave formed off the front of a blunt leading g=1.1 causes significant drag Detached shock waveg=1.3 Localized normal shock wave Credit: Selkirk College Professional Aviation Program 2 MAE 5420 - Compressible Fluid Flow Supersonic Airfoils (revisited, 2) • To eliminate this leading edge drag caused by detached bow wave Supersonic wings are typically quite sharp atg=1.1 the leading edge • Design feature allows oblique wave to attachg=1.3 to the leading edge eliminating the area of high pressure ahead of the wing. • Double wedge or “diamond” Airfoil section Credit: Selkirk College Professional Aviation Program 3 MAE 5420 - Compressible Fluid Flow Wing Design 101 • Subsonic Wing in Subsonic Flow • Subsonic Wing in Supersonic Flow • Supersonic Wing in Subsonic Flow A conundrum! • Supersonic Wing in Supersonic Flow • Wings that work well sub-sonically generally don’t work well supersonically, and vice-versa à Leading edge Wing-sweep can overcome problem with poor performance of sharp leading edge wing in subsonic flight. 4 MAE 5420 - Compressible Fluid Flow Wing Design 101 (2) • Compromise High-Sweep Delta design generates lift at low speeds • Highly-Swept Delta-Wing design … by increasing the angle-of-attack, works “pretty well” in both flow regimes but also has sufficient sweepback and slenderness to perform very Supersonic Subsonic efficiently at high speeds. • On a traditional aircraft wing a trailing vortex is formed only at the wing tips.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the Application of the Nasa Supercritical Airfoil to a Variable-Wing-Sweep Fighter Airplane*
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19830002758 2020-03-21T06:36:16+00:00Z NASA TECHNICAL NASA TM X-2759 MEMORANDUM CS >< DOTOTGIUDED BY AUTHORITY O CHAJSTGE NOTICES NO. IESII N0. CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFIED BY SUBJECT TO G USSIFICATION SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTOMATICALLY DOWNGRADED AT TWO YEAR INTI DECLASSIFIED ON DEC 31 1979 A WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE NASA SUPERCRITICAL AIRFOIL TO A VARIABLE-WING-SWEEP FIGHTER AIRPLANE s : I.. by Theodore G. Ayers Langley Research Center Hampton, Va. 23365 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • JULY 1973 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NASA TM X-2759 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A WIND-TUNNEL INVESTIGATION OF THE APPLICATION OF July 1973 THE NASA SUPERCRITICAL AIRFOIL TO A VARIABLE-WING - 6. Performing Organization Code SWEEP FIGHTER AIRPLANE (U) 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Theodore G. Ayers L-8689 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 760-64-01-05 NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Hampton, Va. 23665 13.'Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Memorandum National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20546 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract An investigation was conducted in the Langley 8-foot transonic pressure tunnel and the Langley Unitary Plan wind tunnel to evaluate the effectiveness of three variations of the NASA supercritical airfoil as applied to a model of a variable-wing-sweep fighter airplane. Wing panels incorporating conventional NACA 64A-series airfoil with 0.20 and 0.40 camber were used as bases of reference for this evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Supercritical Airfoils for Increasing Critical Mach Number for Subsonic Aircrafts
    IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN) www.iosrjen.org ISSN (e): 2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719 PP 01-05 Analysis of Supercritical Airfoils for Increasing Critical Mach number for Subsonic Aircrafts K.Soundarya1,K.Sriram2,M.Divya3,G.Muralidharan4 1(Department of Aeronautical Engineering,Surya Group of Institutions/Anna university,India) 2(Department of Aeronautical Engineering,Surya Group of Institutions/Anna university,India) 3(Department of Aeronautical Engineering,Surya Group of Institutions/Anna university,India) 4(Department of Aeronautical Engineering,Surya Group of Institutions/Anna university,India) Abstract: The aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil plays a vital role in terms of design aspects and experimental valuation This led to increasing of critical Mach Number with the help of comparing various performance characteristics of supercritical airfoils at cruising conditions .The main objective of this project is to carry out design and analysis of various supercritical airfoils with same cruising local velocity along with the study of aerodynamic characteristics such as drag co-efficient and critical Mach number.The objective is to improve the Mach number of a subsonic aircraft at transonic Mach speeds. The design profile chosen is based upon existing airfoils used in Airbus A380-800 . Keywords – Supercritical airfoils, Critical Mach number, Co-efficient of drag,Cruising Speed Velocity I. Introduction A flow over a supercritical airfoils is very from the flow over an cambered airfoils Airbus A380-800 fly at maximum speed of 0.83 Mach number at the local velocity reaches sonic velocity somewhere over the wing and compressibility effects start of two grow up the free stream Mach number at which local sonic velocities develop is called critical Mach number.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing BAE AV8B HARRIER II
    Boeing BAE AV8B HARRIER II Overview The Harrier, informally referred to as the Harrier Jump Jet, is a family of military jet aircraft capable of vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) operations. The Harrier II Plus (AV-8B), manufactured by BAE Systems and Boeing, is a VSTOL fighter and attack aircraft operational with the US Marine Corps (USMC), the Spanish Navy and the Italian Navy. The Harrier II Plus extends the capabilities of the Harrier with the introduction of a multi-mode radar and beyond-visual-range missile capability. The Harrier was developed in Britain to operate from ad-hoc facilities, such as car parks or forest clearings, avoiding the need for large air bases vulnerable to tactical nuclear weapons. Later, the design was adapted for use from aircraft carriers. Exercise Role The AV8B Harrier II is being deployed in the Air Defense (Interceptor) and Fighter Bomber (light bomber in tactical bombing and ground attack) roles. The AV8B Harrier II will be deployed in the Air Defense and Figh ter Bomber roles by the Spanish Navy from the Juan Carlos I Aircraft Carrier. It will also be deployed in the Fighter Bomber role by the Italian Navy from the Cavour Aircraft Carrier. General characteristics Performance Crew: 1 pilot Max speed : Mach 0.9 (585 knots, 1,083 km/h) Length: 46 ft 4 in (14.12 m) Range : 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) Airfoil : supercritical airfoil Combat radius : 300 nmi (350 mi, 556 km) Ferry range : 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km) Loaded weight : 22,950 lb (10,410 kg) Max.
    [Show full text]
  • Transonic Aerodynamics
    Transonic Aerodynamics • Critical Pressure Coefficient and Critical Mach Number • Drag Divergence • Mitigating the Drag Problem – The supercritical airfoil – Sweep – The Area Rule Limit of the Compressibility Correction NACA 0012 AT 8 DEGREES M∞ -10 -9 C M=0 -16 -8 p1 0.1 C p -14 Cp -7 2 0.2 min 1 M 0.3 -12 -6 040.4 -10 -5 0.5 0.6 -8 -4 0.7 -Cp -6 -3 M∞ 080.8 0.9 -4 -2 -2 -1 0 0 00.51 1 M∞ 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8x/c 1.0 Critical Pressure Coefficient PRESSURE COEFFIENT WHERE THE LOCAL MACH NUMBER IS 1 Critical Pressure Coefficient PRESSURE COEFFIENT WHERE THE LOCAL MACH NUMBER IS 1 1 1 1 ( 1)M 2 1 Cp 2 1 CR 1 2 1 2 M 2 ( 1) -16 -14 CpCR -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 00.20.40.60.81 M∞ Critical Mach Number Cp1min Cpmin 1 M 2 1 1 1 ( 1)M 2 1 Cp 2 1 CR 1 2 1 2 M 2 ( 1) M∞ -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 MCR -6 -4 -2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 M∞ Critical Mach Number MCR Cp1min Cpmin 1 M 2 1 1 1 ( 1)M 2 1 Cp 2 1 CR 1 2 1 2 M 2 ( 1) -16 -14 -12 0012 at 8 deg. -10 -8 MCR MCR 0012 at 4 deg. -6 -4 -2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 M∞ M=0.5 Drag Divergence INVISCID CALCULATION M065M=0.65 M=0.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Assessment of the Flutter Stability of a Laminar Airfoil in Transonic Flow
    International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics IFASD 2017 25-28 June 2017 Como, Italy EXPERIMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FLUTTER STABILITY OF A LAMINAR AIRFOIL IN TRANSONIC FLOW Anne Hebler1 1DLR - German Aerospace Center Institute of Aeroelasticity Bunsenstr. 10, 37073 Gottingen,¨ Germany [email protected] Keywords: Flutter Boundary, Experiment, Laminar Airfoil, Transonic Flow, Aeroelastic Sta- bility Abstract: First results of a flutter experiment in transonic flow are presented. A wind tunnel model with the laminar CAST 10-2 airfoil was mounted elastically with heave and pitch degrees of freedom in the Transonic Wind Tunnel Goettingen. Laser triangulators and acceleration sensors were used to record the motion of the model. Measurements were taken with free and fixed boundary layer transition in a Mach number range of 0:5 ≤ Ma ≤ 0:85 and for chord 6 6 Reynolds numbers of 1:0 · 10 ≤ Rec ≤ 3:5 · 10 . For free transition flutter and limit cycle oscillations occurred both when the model degrees of freedom were structurally coupled and when the degrees of freedom were only aerodynamically coupled. However when the boundary layer transition was fixed at 7:5% chord, flutter occured only in the case of structurally coupled degrees of freedom. 1 INTRODUCTION Laminar flow technologies have moved into the focus of current research, because they provide an opportunity for the design of more environmental-friendly and eco-efficient aircraft. The lower gradient of the boundary layer velocity profile under laminar flow conditions results in less skin friction and thereby less drag than under comparable turbulent flow conditions. The potential of drag reduction for the whole aircraft due to laminar flow on the wing is estimated at 11%.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 Lecture 10 Drag Polar
    Flight dynamics-I Prof. E.G. Tulapurkara Chapter-3 Chapter 3 Lecture 10 Drag polar – 5 Topics 3.2.18 Parasite drag area and equivalent skin friction coefficient 3.2.19 A note on estimation of minimum drag coefficients of wings and bodies 3.2.20 Typical values of CDO, A, e and subsonic drag polar 3.2.21 Winglets and their effect on induced drag 3.3 Drag polar at high subsonic, transonic and supersonic speeds 3.3.1 Some aspects of supersonic flow - shock wave, expansion fan and bow shock 3.3.2 Drag at supersonic speeds 3.3.3 Transonic flow regime - critical Mach number and drag divergence Mach number of airfoils, wings and fuselage 3.2.18 Parasite drag area and equivalent skin friction coefficient As mentioned in remark (ii) of the previous subsection, the product C x S is Do called the parasite drag area. For a streamlined airplane the parasite drag is mostly skin friction drag. Further, the skin friction drag depends on the wetted area which is the area of surface in contact with the fluid. The wetted area of the entire airplane is denoted by S . In this background the term ‘Equivalent skin wet friction coefficient (Cfe)’ is defined as: C x S = C x S Do fe wet S S Hence, C C x and C= C wet (3.47) fe = Do DO f e Swet S Reference 3.9, Chapter 12 gives values of Cfe for different types of airplanes. Dept. of Aerospace Engg., Indian Institute of Technology, Madras 1 Flight dynamics-I Prof.
    [Show full text]