Bronze Wing Trading’s Success – Trade Finance Providers in Dubai
Wing Trade Study
description
Transcript of Wing Trade Study
Wing Trade Study
Wing Process Flowchart
Test at CruiseConditions
Does design meetcruise requirements?
Test slow flightperformance
Test design withnew high lift
devices
Design a new plainflap
Design a newflapperon
Design a newFowler flap
Does the bestavailable option meet
requirements?
Can the overalldesign beimproved?
Yes
No
Create a newdesign
Begin Testing Process
No
No - Start Over
Yes
Complete Design Meetsrequirements
Yes
CFD (In)Validation
Cruise Wing Optimization
Cruise wing optimization Guidelines
• Maintain the same or lower drag
• Increase lift by 300 pounds
• Maintain the same or lower surface area, and maintain the same or lower wingspan
So, improve lift to drag ratio and wing loading of the baseline wing. Note, only considering cruise conditions at the moment.
Airfoil Selection
Two different airfoil shapes were investigated in xfoil in order to determine the effect of camber on L/D and maximum Cl.
Airfoil Selection
Curves made in x-foil. Both plots are of airfoil 1 with varying cambers at Re=6 million
Airfoil selection
Curves made in x-foil. Both plots are of airfoil 2 with varying cambers at Re=6 million
Optimized wing
Plain Flaps/Slats Study
Deep Chamber-High Lift-Low Speed-Thick Wing Section-Good For Transport, Freighters and Bomber Planes.
Root: ARA-D 6%
Tip: N-14
AOA LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
2 7880.44 524.86 2.23358 36.9293
3 7989.5 721.219 0.514376 29.2791
4 9079 250.788 2.74131 42.5362
AOA LIFT DRAG
2 7857.322 799.5637
3 7940.805 1138.369
4 9039.39 883.4961
Lift and Drag vs AOA
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
AOA
Lif
t/D
tag
Lift
Drag
Airfoil:Root: ARA-D 6% Tip: N-14 Actual
Root: ARA-D 10%
Tip: N-14
Actual
AOA LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
2 3924.37 305.341 0.675845 21.9988
3 4240.54 362.769 0.484363 17.5863
4 4685.58 156.189 2.20958 29.2097
AOA LIFT DRAG
2 3911.323 442.1135
3 4215.743 584.2046
4 4663.271 482.6581
Lift and Drag vs AOA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
AOA
Lif
t/D
rag
Lift
Drag
Airfoil:Root: ARA-D 10% T: N-14
Root: GOE 619AT18.5
Tip:S8035 for RC aerobatic 14% thick
AOA LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
0 2814.83 329.742 -0.19212 12.4791
1 3321.04 362.867 -0.15592 10.1702
2 3777.61 150.541 0.600329 23.3197
3 3999.73 327.162 -0.02157 11.9194
4 4443.91 77.991 1.16475 24.4702
Lift and Drag vs AOA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1 2 3 4 5
AOA
Lif
t/D
rag
Lift
Drag
Airfoil:Root: GOE 619 Tip: S8035 for RC aerobatic 14% thick
AOA LIFT DRAG
0 2814.83 329.742
1 3314.201 420.7719
2 3770.055 282.286
3 3977.126 536.0433
4 4427.644 387.7925
ACTUAL
Root: FX 66-182
Tip: FX 63-137 13.7%
ActualAOA LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
0 2784.55 300.95 -0.12042 11.8663
1 3519.3 120.135 -0.15958 20.1406
2 4051.86 87.3311 0.547624 25.4323
3 4310.62 161.712 -0.00846 14.9382
4 4698.07 -29.0639 0.370025 23.3039
AOA LIFT DRAG
0 2784.55 300.95
1 3516.667 181.537
2 4046.344 228.6858
3 4296.249 387.0908
4 4688.653 298.7277
Lift and Drag vs AOA
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1 2 3 4 5
AOA
Lif
t/D
rag
Lift
Drag
Airfoil:Root: FX 66-182 Tip: FX 63-137 13.7%
Actual
AOA LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
2 3127.13 312.689 -0.74498 30.7693
3 3441.45 81.1619 -0.24132 31.2829
4 3888.9 117.683 -0.06713 31.6899
AOA LIFT DRAG
2 3114.312 421.6338
3 3432.486 261.1622
4 3871.218 388.6723
Lift and Drag vs AOA
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
AOA
Lif
t/D
rag
Lift
Drag
Airfoil 2:Root: FX 66-182 Tip: FX 63-137 13.7%
Leading edge slats accelerate the air in the funnel shaped slot (venturi effect) and blow the fast air tangentially on the upper wing surface through the much smaller slot. This "pulls" the air around the leading edge, thus preventing the stall up to a much higher angle of attack and lift coefficient (approximately 30 degrees). It does this by picking up a lot of air from below, where the slot is large, the disadvantage of the leading edge slat is that the air accelerated in the slot requires energy which means higher drag. As the high lift is needed only when flying slowly (take-off, initial climb, and final approach and landing) the temptation for the designer is to use a retractable device which closes at higher speeds to reduce drag.
Changing from a plain airfoil to an airfoil with flaps we have created an increase of curvature of the airfoil which gives part of the extra lift, but we have also created a depression, a low pressure near the trailing edge, which sucks the air over the upper part of the airfoil and helps it to overcome the centrifugal forces present when the air flow has to come around the nose of the wing. It is like a pull acting from the trailing edge and pulling the air around the leading edge, thus preventing separation
Plain Flaps
Actual
FLAP ANGLE LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
30 660.962 24.1119 0.047339 1.03629
35 663.971 41.4389 0.025018 1.03319
40 767.984 -12.5116 0.084433 1.51058
FLAP ANGLE LIFT DRAG
30 638.5976 172.178
35 637.6317 189.7378
40 751.1151 160.5679
Lift and Drag vs Flap Angle
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Flap Angle
Lif
t/D
rag
Lift
Drag
Plain Flap at AOA of 13
And
Stats
Plain
Flaps
Modified Stat
Modified StatFLAP ANGLE LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
30 591.342 -1.9466 0.143694 1.66964
35 599.448 1.05206 0.124249 1.19405
40 630.246 13.7779 0.129761 0.973575
Lift and Drag vs Flap Angle
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Flap Angle
Lift/
Drag
lift
Drag
Lift and Drag vs Flap Angle
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Flap Angle
Flip/D
rag
Lift
Drag
FLAP ANGLE LIFT DRAG SHEAR Y SHEAR X
30 508.992 31.6069 0.115304 1.08775
35 488.247 31.2781 0.118123 1.25778
40 566.021 41.672 0.135978 1.05862
Fowler Flap Study
Fowler flap study
1 non-slotted fowler design
•Need track system
•Most increase in lift
2 slotted fowler flap designs
•Can use offset hinge
•Less increase in lift
Non-slotted fowler flap
• Provides the highest increase in surface area
• Requires largest movement of flap
Slotted fowler flap
• Doesn’t provide as much increase in wing area
• Doesn’t require as much movement
Non-slotted flap design
from “AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF A WING WITH FOWLER FLAPS INCLUDING FLAP LOADS, DOWNWASH, AND CALCULATED EFFECT ON TAKEOFF”, Platt, Robert C, Langley Research Center, 1936, document ID: 19930091607
Non-slotted flap design
• Optimum position of leading edge of flap is
X=c, Y=-.025c
• Optimum flap deflection angle is 40 degrees for Reynolds number of 300,000
Note: optimum position is generally true for most airfoil shapes, but optimum angle isn’t as general, as it also depends on the flap shape too.
Non-slotted flap design
30% of the chord at all stations104 inches long, which is 48% span of wing (including the portion inside fuselage)30 degrees deflection, hedging on safety against uncertainty in flow separationResults using sea level conditions at 60 knots:AOA 10, Cl = .55, produces 844.2 pounds of liftAOA 13, Cl = .52, produces 899.8 pounds of lift, has severe flow seraration
Slotted flap design guidelines• Optimum position of flap leading edge depends
primarily on the shape of the slot, and is best determined by experiment
• In general, moves inward when lip is increased but is generally about .01c forward of lip
• Usually a slot opening on the order of .01c or slightly more is best.
• Best Cl’s are achieved using flaps with a wing shape. Avoid flaps with blunt leading edge.
from “Theory of wing sections”, Ira H. Abbott and Albert E. von Doenhoff, p. 212-213. Dover Publications, NY, 1959.
Slotted flap design
Two different shapes of slots with different flap shapes. The one on the right has a small lip with max cl=2.57, the one on the left is a smooth slot with max cl=2.35.
Slotted flap design
On the left is a slot with a larger lip and with a maximum Cl=2.65. On the right is a plot of the effect slot entry radius has on maximum Cl.
from “Wind-tunnel investigation of an NACA 23012 airfoil with various arrangements of slotted flaps”, Wenzinger, Carl J; Harris , Thomas A, Langley Research Center, 1939, ID: 19930091739
Slotted flap design 1
30% of the chord at all stations104 inches long, which is 48% span of wing (including the portion inside fuselage)30 degrees deflectionResults using sea level conditions at 60 knots:AOA 10, Cl = .6, produces 840.5 pounds of liftAOA 13, Cl = .7, produces 980.5 pounds of lift
Slotted flap 1 with slot in flap
30% of the chord at all stations104 inches long, which is 48% span of wing (including the portion inside fuselage)30 degrees deflectionResults using sea level conditions at 60 knots:AOA 10, Cl = .6, produces 841.5 pounds of liftAOA 13, Cl = .8, produces 1125.4 pounds of lift
Slotted flap design 2
30% of the chord at all stations104 inches long, which is 48% span of wing (including the portion inside fuselage)30 degrees deflectionResults using sea level conditions at 60 knots:AOA 10, Cl = .63, produces 883 pounds of liftAOA 13, Cl = .75, produces 1050 pounds of lift
Slotted flap 2 with slot in flap
30% of the chord at all stations104 inches long, which is 48% span of wing (including the portion inside fuselage)30 degrees deflectionResults using sea level conditions at 60 knots:AOA 10, Cl = .65, produces 916 pounds of liftAOA 13, Cl = .654, produces 921 pounds of lift
Comparison
• Non-slotted flap was calculated to have the least lift.
• Slotted flap 1 produced more lift with a slot in the flap at AOA 13 than slotted flap 2.
• Slotted flap 2 produced more overall lift without a slot in the flap than slotted flap 1.
• Conclusion: Design 2 is better, but the slot on the flap isn’t optimized.
Flapperon Study
FLAPPERON DESIGN
DIMENSIONS OF FLAPPERON
COSTS / BENEFITS
• COSTS– Increased drag when compared to non-
deployed flapperons. Possibly caused by flow separation due to gap between wing and flapperon when deployed.
– Could be difficult to work mechanically with the pulley system in place now.
– Hard to control during landing due to adverse yaw effects.
• BENEFITS– Increase camber during landing. – Increase lift due to increased camber.
• Optimal position is with flapperons deployed 40°
Cargo Pod Design
Front Fairing (2)
Rear Fairing
Attachment Method Design
Attachment Brackets
Rough Solid Works Models
Front Attachment to Longerons
Plugs for Non-use
Rear Longeron Attachment
Example of floor with Longerons
Screw holes
• Screw Holes are 3/8 in. in diameter.
• Plug screw in to holes when Pod is not attached
Attachment from Belly to Pod
Piece from Pod to Belly
Belly/Pod attachment
• The Belly to Pod piece screws into front longeron attachment.
• Pod to belly piece is embedded into Fiberglass Pod.
• Belly/Pod pieces bolt together
Pod Size Goals
• Two golf bags with clubs
• Two pares of downhill skis
• Minimize drag
• Clear ground on fully loaded landing
• Clear ground on tail strike
• Easy to remove
03:52 AM
Solid works attached Pod model
03:52 AM
Clearance
03:52 AM
Solid Works model
03:52 AM
Pod Ground Clearance
03:52 AM
Pod wheel Clearance
03:52 AM
Golf Bag
Width 10 in
Height Bag 34 in
Height with clubs 50 in
Golf Bag Size
03:52 AM
Golf Bag Clearance
03:52 AM
SkisLength (cm) 173 180
Side cut tip(mm) 130 135
Waist (mm) 96 99
Tail (mm) 124 125
Weight (g for one ski) 1970 2210
http://www.salomonski.com/us/products/XW-Sandstorm-1-1-1-788918.html03:52 AM
Cody’s Stuff – Performance, weights, drag
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
Enviromental Impact
Problem Probability Severity Mitigation
High Lift Device Flutter due to failure Low High Pull Parachute.
High Lift Device Flutter due to aerodynamics Medium High Test for natural frequencies. Avoid frequencies of prop and install dampening.
Cable/Mechanical Failure Low High Pull Parachute.
High Lift Device Extension/Retraction Failure Low Low Install mechanical indicator to inform pilot.
Spin Entry Medium Medium Install warning placards and mandate anti-spin pilot training.
High Lift Device Detachment Low High Design fasteners to release when a partial failure occurs. Pull Parachute.
Icing High Varies Incorporate existing deicing equipment into new design.
Collision Damage Medium Medium Reinforce leading edge. Pull Parachute.
Wing Detachment Low Very High Pull Parachute.
Internal Fuel Leak Low MediumInstall fluid detector and warning device. Instruct pilot to deactivate electronics and land immediately.
External Fuel Leak Low Low Instruct pilot to land immediately.
Lightning Strike Medium Medium Install dissipating mesh in the wing and high lift devices.
Heat Damage Medium Low List warnings in Pilot's Operating Handbook.
Problem Probability Severity Mitigation
Pod hits the ground Medium Low Fasteners designed to shear off and release pod.
Partial Attachment Failure Low High Remaining attach points designed to shear off.
Foreign Object Collision Medium Low Reinforce the nose of the pod.
Front End Overheating High Medium Attach a metal heat sheild to the nose.
High G Failure Medium High Designed to withstand a 4G manuever.
CG Out of Balance Due to Loading High High Warn the pilot in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and install placards.