Design Study of a Supersonic Business Jet with Variable Sweep Wings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. This following requirements: includes a design study of the hinge and the wing drive system. Mission and environmental Cabin dimensions Falcon 50 with standard 8 performance of the design are presented. A passenger seating short discussion concerning certification issues Design range 4000 nm (supersonic mission) is included. Cruise Mach number 1.6 to 1.8 Initial cruise altitude at least 39000 ft Fig.1 shows an artist impression of the design Ops from 6500 ft runways (SL, ISA) Max approach speed 140 kts Certification noise levels ICAO ch IV, preferably ch. IV -10dB. 1 E.Jesse, J.Dijkstra One research area was the possible application the wing leading edges stay well within the of variable sweep wings, or “swing wings”. This Mach cone. Alternatively the wings may be was covered by a separate task, led by ADSE supersonic: the wing leading edges are swept with partners SCA (Sukhoi Commercial less than the Mach cone and have very sharp Aircraft), TsAGI, and Dassault Aviation. wing leading edges. Such wings will have a drag penalty as the leading edge suction is This task aimed to provide the following: eliminated this way, but the wing span may be The effect of the application of swing wings increased for improved low speed performance. on the efficiency of the design At its extreme this philosophy may result in a To provide a baseline geometry to laminar flow supersonic wing, which was subject of a separate HISAC study project. investigate problems and certification issues Area ruling dictates a low cross sectional area, typical for variable sweep wings smoothly varying from nose to tail, and this favours slender wings like those of Concorde. Based on data provided by the partners ADSE created a conceptual design of a swing wing In all cases the maximum lift coefficient of aircraft architecture, as well a s a reference supersonic wing planforms is quite low. “conventional” supersonic business jet. This Increasing the maximum lift coefficient by was based on the same design philosophy and means of high lift devices is possible, but the data were calculated with the same design tools, potential is limited, and it will increase the lift in order to be able to draw meaningful dependent drag rapidly due to the high span conclusions from the emerging differences. loading usual for supersonic wings. After this the swing wing conceptual design was As a result the maximum lift will be lower and further developed. Trade off studies were the drag at low speed will be much higher incorporated, the drag estimation was upgraded compared to conventional transport aircraft. and the design tools were calibrated on the For the same field performance a fixed results of the designs of other HISAC partners. geometry wing will therefore be larger and the This resulted in a new concept design: AD1107. installed takeoff thrust will be higher for a given takeoff mass. Concorde used afterburners in takeoff, leading to very high noise levels. 3 Fundamentals of variable sweep wings for supersonic transport aircraft With a relatively large wing and large engines the opimum cruise altitude is much higher than There are basic differences in wings of transport for subsonic transport aircraft. Concorde cruises aircraft designed for subsonic or supersonic roughly 15000 ft higher than conventional flight, as a comparison of Concord with the transport aircraft. current generation of high subsonic transport aircraft shows. Subsonic transport aircraft have With a variable sweep wing the configuration is high aspect ratio moderately swept wings, essentially conventional when the wings are equipped with high lift devices over most of the swept forward. This means that wing loading span. The objective being to minimise the lift and thrust loading may be comparable for the dependent drag both in cruise and the low speed same field performance. For supersonic flight regime, and provide high lift at low speed. the wing sweepback can be set for the required Mach number, typically 60° at the leading edge To achieve a reasonably low drag in supersonic for M 1.6, without being compromised for low flight the wings should be highly swept back, speed conditions. and as a consequence have a small wing span. This assumes a “subsonic leading edge”, where Compared to fixed supersonic wing designs this leads to much less wing area and much less 2 DESIGN STUDY OF A SUPERSONIC BUSINESS JET WITH VARIABLE SWEEP WINGS thrust required for a given takeoff mass. For 4 Design Study Variable Sweep wing cruise flight this leads to a lower optimum cruise altitude; in supersonic flight both the lift of the wings and the thrust of the engines are 4.1 Design tools basically proportional to the air density, and as For the development of the design concept the air density at the altitudes of interest reduces ADSE in-house tools have been used, by about 15% for every km higher cruise supplemented by open literature tools. In the altitude, large reductions in engine size and early phase, intended only to identify wing area can be compensated by relatively characteristic differences between variable modest reductions in cruise altitude. sweep and fixed wing configurations relatively basic design tools were used. They are This is illustrated by fig.2. discussed in [1] and are briefly described here. engine MCL thrust vs altitude 19 The friction drag is calculated based on the 18 Model#13 wetted area of the different components, 17 including shape factors and interference factors, 16 taking account of the Reynolds number at the 15 actual cruise altitude. The zero lift wave drag is 14 calculated using the classical linear method of ALtitude (km) ALtitude 13 Model#1 +60% 12 Jones [2], with the Jumper area rule method [3]. 11 Engine Model#1 The lift dependent drag was calculated as a part Model#1+30% 10 vortex drag and a part lift dependent wave drag. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 The vortex drag is calculated with an ADSE in- FN (daN) house method (parameters aspect ratio and CL2), the lift dependent wave drag was Fig. 2 HISAC engine models thrust level at M 1.6 calculated with the method of RT Jones [2]. In fig 2 the max climb thrust of HISAC engine models at M 1.6 is plotted against altitude. The maximum lift has been estimated with an These engine models are scaled versions of a ADSE in-house model. The method has been reference model, engine model #1 and a larger calibrated a.o. on a windtunnel test of a NASA engine, model #13. This example shows that if variable sweep wing design as reported in the engine could be scaled down by a factor of NASA TN-D8380 [4]. A simplified vortex 1.6 due to the improved performance of a lattice model provides induced drag variable sweep wing in takeoff, a reduction of characteristics. cruise altitude by about 3 km would recover the climb/cruise thrust loss. The structural mass is estimated with ADSE in- house analytical methods. The method has been On the other hand, the installation of the wing calibrated on modern conventional transport hinge, a heavier high lift system and a high aircraft and on a design concept of a Mach 2 effective aspect ratio will lead to a wing which airliner. For determination of the mass of the will be much heavier per unit area. Mechanical hinge and surrounding structure a simple complexity is increased and the area of the wing structural model has been set up, based on around the hinge will have a drag penalty. estimated loads. This showed that the hinge fits within the room available. In order to bring these effects in mutual perspective a swing wing design and a fixed For determination of the shift of the wing design have been developed to meet the aerodynamic centre and for a first sizing of the same requirements using the same design tools. horizontal tail surfaces a vortex lattice program This will be discussed in the next paragraphs.