DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Study of a Supersonic Business Jet with Variable Sweep Wings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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.
Recommended publications
  • Critical Mach Number, Transonic Area Rule

    Critical Mach Number, Transonic Area Rule

    Critical Mach number - Compressibility Effects on Lift The design parameter that influences compressibility effects on lift is the Critical Mach number (Mcr). This is the free stream Mach number when sonic conditions (M = 1) is reached at some point on the airfoil surface The figure illustrates the same airfoil, at the same angle of attack at different free stream Mach numbers leading to the definition of the critical Mach number The critical Mach number can be obtained through the curve for the minimum pressure coefficient as a function of Mach number. It can be determined through the intersection of the two equations The lift coefficient correction for compressibility is The figure above illustrates that If you plan to fly at high free stream Mach number, you airfoil should be thin to (a) increase your critical Mach number as this will keep your drag rise small This will also result in lower minimum pressure: Therefore your lift coefficient will decrease Note that the minimum pressure coefficient on thick airfoil is high; this means that the velocity is also correspondingly high. Therefore the critical Mach number is reached for lower value of the free stream Mach number. Swept wing A B-52 Stratofortress showing wing with a large sweepback angle. A swept wing is a wing planform favored for high subsonic jet speeds first investigated in Germany from 1935 onwards until the end of the Second World War. Since the introduction of the MiG-15 and North American F-86 which demonstrated a decisive superiority over the slower first generation of straight-wing jet fighters during the Korean War, swept wings have become almost universal on all but the slowest jets (such as the A- 10).
  • Conceptual Design Study of a Hydrogen Powered Ultra Large Cargo Aircraft

    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.
  • University of Oklahoma Graduate College Design and Performance Evaluation of a Retractable Wingtip Vortex Reduction Device a Th

    University of Oklahoma Graduate College Design and Performance Evaluation of a Retractable Wingtip Vortex Reduction Device a Th

    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A RETRACTABLE WINGTIP VORTEX REDUCTION DEVICE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Mechanical Engineering By Tausif Jamal Norman, OK 2019 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF A RETRACTABLE WINGTIP VORTEX REDUCTION DEVICE A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BY THE COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF Dr. D. Keith Walters, Chair Dr. Hamidreza Shabgard Dr. Prakash Vedula ©Copyright by Tausif Jamal 2019 All Rights Reserved. ABSTRACT As an airfoil achieves lift, the pressure differential at the wingtips trigger the roll up of fluid which results in swirling wakes. This wake is characterized by the presence of strong rotating cylindrical vortices that can persist for miles. Since large aircrafts can generate strong vortices, airports require a minimum separation between two aircrafts to ensure safe take-off and landing. Recently, there have been considerable efforts to address the effects of wingtip vortices such as the categorization of expected wake turbulence for commercial aircrafts to optimize the wait times during take-off and landing. However, apart from the implementation of winglets, there has been little effort to address the issue of wingtip vortices via minimal changes to airfoil design. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of a newly proposed retractable wingtip vortex reduction device for commercial aircrafts. The proposed design consists of longitudinal slits placed in the streamwise direction near the wingtip to reduce the pressure differential between the pressure and the suction sides.
  • Airframe Integration

    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.
  • Electrically Heated Composite Leading Edges for Aircraft Anti-Icing Applications”

    Electrically Heated Composite Leading Edges for Aircraft Anti-Icing Applications”

    UNIVERSITY OF NAPLES “FEDERICO II” PhD course in Aerospace, Naval and Quality Engineering PhD Thesis in Aerospace Engineering “ELECTRICALLY HEATED COMPOSITE LEADING EDGES FOR AIRCRAFT ANTI-ICING APPLICATIONS” by Francesco De Rosa 2010 To my girlfriend Tiziana for her patience and understanding precious and rare human virtues University of Naples Federico II Department of Aerospace Engineering DIAS PhD Thesis in Aerospace Engineering Author: F. De Rosa Tutor: Prof. G.P. Russo PhD course in Aerospace, Naval and Quality Engineering XXIII PhD course in Aerospace Engineering, 2008-2010 PhD course coordinator: Prof. A. Moccia ___________________________________________________________________________ Francesco De Rosa - Electrically Heated Composite Leading Edges for Aircraft Anti-Icing Applications 2 Abstract An investigation was conducted in the Aerospace Engineering Department (DIAS) at Federico II University of Naples aiming to evaluate the feasibility and the performance of an electrically heated composite leading edge for anti-icing and de-icing applications. A 283 [mm] chord NACA0012 airfoil prototype was designed, manufactured and equipped with an High Temperature composite leading edge with embedded Ni-Cr heating element. The heating element was fed by a DC power supply unit and the average power densities supplied to the leading edge were ranging 1.0 to 30.0 [kW m-2]. The present investigation focused on thermal tests experimentally performed under fixed icing conditions with zero AOA, Mach=0.2, total temperature of -20 [°C], liquid water content LWC=0.6 [g m-3] and average mean volume droplet diameter MVD=35 [µm]. These fixed conditions represented the top icing performance of the Icing Flow Facility (IFF) available at DIAS and therefore it has represented the “sizing design case” for the tested prototype.
  • Self-Actuating Flaps on Bird and Aircraft Wings 437

    Self-Actuating Flaps on Bird and Aircraft Wings 437

    Self-actuating flaps on bird and aircraft wings D.W. Bechert, W. Hage & R. Meyer Department of Turbulence Research, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Berlin, Germany. Abstract Separation control is also an important issue in biology. During the landing approach of birds and in flight through very turbulent air, one observes that the covering feathers on the upper side of bird wings tend to pop up. The raised feathers impede the spreading of the flow separation from the trailing edge to the leading edge of the wing. This mechanism of separation control by bird feathers is described in detail. Self-activated movable flaps (= artificial bird feathers) represent a high-lift system enhancing the maximum lift of airfoils up to 20%. This is achieved without perceivable deleterious effects under cruise conditions. Several data of wind tunnel experiments as well as flight experiments with an aircraft with laminar wing and movable flaps are shown. 1 Movable flaps on wings: artificial bird feathers The issue of artificial feathers on wings, has an almost anecdotal origin. Wolfgang Liebe, the inventor of the boundary layer fence once observed mountain crows in the Alps in the 1930s. He noticed that the covering feathers on the upper side of the wings tend to pop up when the birds were on landing approach or in other situations with high angle of attack, like flight through gusts. Once the attention of the observer is drawn to it, it is comparatively easy to observe this behaviour in almost any bird (see, for example, the feathers on the left-hand wing of a Skua in Fig.
  • Some Supersonic Aerodynamics

    Some Supersonic Aerodynamics

    Some Supersonic Aerodynamics W.H. Mason Configuration Aerodynamics Class Grumman Tribody Concept – from 1978 Company Calendar The Key Topics • Brief history of serious supersonic airplanes – There aren’t many! • The Challenge – L/D, CD0 trends, the sonic boom • Linear theory as a starting point: – Volumetric Drag – Drag Due to Lift • The ac shift and cg control • The Oblique Wing • Aero/Propulsion integration • Some nonlinear aero considerations • The SST development work • Brief review of computational methods • Possible future developments Are “Supersonic Fighters” Really Supersonic? • If your car’s speedometer goes to 120 mph, do you actually go that fast? • The official F-14A supersonic missions (max Mach 2.4) – CAP (Combat Air Patrol) • 150 miles subsonic cruise to station • Loiter • Accel, M = 0.7 to 1.35, then dash 25nm – 4 ½ minutes and 50nm total • Then, head home or to a tanker – DLI (Deck Launch Intercept) • Energy climb to 35K ft., M = 1.5 (4 minutes) • 6 minutes at 1.5 (out 125-130nm) • 2 minutes combat (slows down fast) After 12 minutes, must head home or to a tanker Very few real supersonic airplanes • 1956: the B-58 (L/Dmax = 4.5) – In 1962: Mach 2 for 30 minutes • 1962: the A-12 (SR-71 in ’64) (L/Dmax = 6.6) – 1st supersonic flight, May 4, 1962 – 1st flight to exceed Mach 3, July 20, 1963 • 1964: the XB-70 (L/Dmax = 7.2) – In 1966: flew Mach 3 for 33 minutes • 1968: the TU-144 – 1st flight: Dec. 31, 1968 • 1969: the Concorde (L/Dmax = 7.4) – 1st flight, March 2, 1969 • 1990: the YF-22 and YF-23 (supercruisers) – YF-22: 1st flt.
  • Flexfloil Shape Adaptive Control Surfaces—Flight Test and Numerical Results

    Flexfloil Shape Adaptive Control Surfaces—Flight Test and Numerical Results

    FLEXFLOIL SHAPE ADAPTIVE CONTROL SURFACES—FLIGHT TEST AND NUMERICAL RESULTS Sridhar Kota∗ , Joaquim R. R. A. Martins∗∗ ∗FlexSys Inc. , ∗∗University of Michigan Keywords: FlexFoil, adaptive compliant trailing edge, flight testing, aerostructural optimization Abstract shape-changing control surface technologies has been realized by the ACTE program in which the The U.S Air Force and NASA recently concluded high-lift flaps of the Gulfstream III test aircraft a series of flight tests, including high speed were replaced by a 19-foot spanwise FlexFoilTM (M = 0:85) and acoustic tests of a Gulfstream III variable-geometry control surfaces on each wing, business jet retrofitted with shape adaptive trail- including a 2 ft wide compliant fairings at each ing edge control surfaces under the Adaptive end, developed by FlexSys Inc. The flight tests Compliant Trailing Edge (ACTE) program. The successfully demonstrated the flight-worthiness long-sought goal of practical, seamless, shape- of the variable geometry control surfaces. changing control surface technologies has been Modern aircraft wings and engines have realized by the ACTE program in which the high- reached near-peak levels of efficiency, making lift flaps of the Gulfstream III test aircraft were further improvements exceedingly difficult. The replaced with 23 ft spanwise FlexFoilTM variable next frontier in improving aircraft efficiency is to geometry control surfaces on each wing. The change the shape of the aircraft wing in-flight to flight tests successfully demonstrated the flight- maximize performance under all operating con- worthiness of the variable geometry control sur- ditions. Modern aircraft wing design is a com- faces. We provide an overview of structural and promise between several constraints and flight systems design requirements, test flight envelope conditions with best performance occurring very (including critical design and test points), re- rarely or purely by chance.
  • B-52, the “Stratofortress”

    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%
  • Feb. 14, 1939. E

    Feb. 14, 1939. E

    Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZA PARKA 2,147,360 AIRPLANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filed Feb. 16, 1933 7 Sheets-Sheet Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZA PARKA 2,147,360 AIRPLANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filed Feb. 16, 1933 7 Sheets-Sheet 2 &tkowys Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. zAPARKA 2,147,360 ARP ANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filed Feb. 16, 1933 7 Sheets-Sheet 3 Wr a NSeta ?????? ?????????????? "??" ?????? ??????? 8tkowcA" Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZA PARKA 2,147,360 AIRPLANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filled Feb. 16, 1933 7 Sheets-Sheet 4 Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZA PARKA 2,147,360 AIRPLANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filed. Feb. l6, l933 7 Sheets-Sheet 5 3. 8. 2. 3 Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZA PARKA 2,147,360 AIRPANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filled Feb. 16, 1933 7 Sheets-Sheet 6 M76, az 42a2/22/22a/7 ?tows Feb. 14, 1939. E. F. ZAPARKA 2,147,360 AIRPANE CONTROL APPARATUS Original Filled Feb. l6, l933 7 Sheets-Sheet 7 Jway/7 -ZWAZZ/JAZZA/ Juventor. Zff60 / Ze/7 384 ?r re? Patented Feb. 14, 1939 2,147,360 UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE AIRPLANE CONTRO APPARATUS Edward F. Zaparka, Baltimore, Md., assignor to Zap Development Corporation, Baltimore, Md., a corporation of Delaware Application February 16, 1933, serial No. 657,133 Renewed February 1, 1937 4. Claims. (CI. 244—42) My invention relates to aircraft construction, parting from the spirit and scope of the appended and in particular relates to the control of aircraft claims, equipped with Wing flaps which Operate in the In order to make my invention more clearly Zone of optimum efficency.
  • Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009) (Fixed Wing)

    Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009) (Fixed Wing)

    Amateur-Built Fabrication and Assembly Checklist (2009) (Fixed Wing) NOTE: This checklist is only applicable to Name(s) Team Tango fixed wing aircraft. Evaluation of other types of aircraft (i.e., rotorcraft, balloons, Address: 1990 SW 19th Ave. Williston, FL 32696 lighter than air) will not be accomplished Aircraft Model: Foxtrot / Foxtrot ER with this form. Date: 6/23/2010 National Kit Evaluation Team: Tony Peplowski, Steve Remarks: Buczynski, Mike Sloat, Joe Palmisano NOTE: This checklist is invalid for and will This evaluation contains two variants of the Foxtrot aircraft, the base not be used to evaluate an altered or Foxtrot and the extended range (ER) aircraft. The two aircraft are modified type certificated aircraft with the contained in the same parts list and builder's instructions. The ER intent to issue an Experimental Amateur- differences are covered in Appendix 5 of the document. The Foxtrot kit is built Airworthiness Certificate. Such action defined by the Foxtrot 4 Builder’s Manual, “Version 1.1 Dated 5/2010”, violates FAA policy and DOES NOT meet and the Foxtrot Parts List “Version 1.1. dated 5/25/2010.” the intent of § 21.191(g). NOTE: Enter “N/A” in any box where a listed task is not applicable to the particular aircraft being evaluated. Use the “Add item” boxes at the end of each section to add applicable unlisted tasks and award credit. ABCD FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY TASKS Mfr Kit/Part/ Commercial Am-Builder Am-Builder Component Assistance Assembly Fabrication Task Fuselage – 24 Listed Tasks # F1 Fabricate Longitudinal
  • Aircraft Collection

    Aircraft Collection

    A, AIR & SPA ID SE CE MU REP SEU INT M AIRCRAFT COLLECTION From the Avenger torpedo bomber, a stalwart from Intrepid’s World War II service, to the A-12, the spy plane from the Cold War, this collection reflects some of the GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS IN MILITARY AVIATION. Photo: Liam Marshall TABLE OF CONTENTS Bombers / Attack Fighters Multirole Helicopters Reconnaissance / Surveillance Trainers OV-101 Enterprise Concorde Aircraft Restoration Hangar Photo: Liam Marshall BOMBERS/ATTACK The basic mission of the aircraft carrier is to project the U.S. Navy’s military strength far beyond our shores. These warships are primarily deployed to deter aggression and protect American strategic interests. Should deterrence fail, the carrier’s bombers and attack aircraft engage in vital operations to support other forces. The collection includes the 1940-designed Grumman TBM Avenger of World War II. Also on display is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, a true workhorse of the 1950s and ‘60s, as well as the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and Grumman A-6 Intruder, stalwarts of the Vietnam War. Photo: Collection of the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum GRUMMAN / EASTERNGRUMMAN AIRCRAFT AVENGER TBM-3E GRUMMAN/EASTERN AIRCRAFT TBM-3E AVENGER TORPEDO BOMBER First flown in 1941 and introduced operationally in June 1942, the Avenger became the U.S. Navy’s standard torpedo bomber throughout World War II, with more than 9,836 constructed. Originally built as the TBF by Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation, they were affectionately nicknamed “Turkeys” for their somewhat ungainly appearance. Bomber Torpedo In 1943 Grumman was tasked to build the F6F Hellcat fighter for the Navy.