Happy New Year for All

 Thanks for the all guest of this blog, and Happy New Year !!

 

Short Clip for V-280 Prototype

 Short video summary of Bell's V-280 prototype.

 Although V-280 is experimental prototype, based on experience of V-22, V-280 already achieve various flight attitude and region in early phase of the flight test. 

LRASM is now on EOC status

 LM's LRASM based on JASSM-ER is now on operational status.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-12-18-Lockheed-Martins-Long-Range-Anti-Ship-Missile-Reaches-Early-Operational-Capability-EOC-Status-on-U-S-Air-Force-B-1B

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/usaf-b-1b-conducts-dual-missile-test-using-lockheed-lrasms/

 Stealth, Sensor, and Complex attack planning capability is emphasized on this video, and it is interesting to watch 'USAF's Anti-Ship capability is now in development phase. 

 Probably rise of China Navy could affect the development of that kind of missiles in USAF. 

 Ramjet missiles mostly developed in Russia, China, and India emphasize their short-reaction-time or charging capability against Aegis ships while US' new missile tactics is in stealth. 

 Some report shows missile should be more than Mach 5 or subsonic-stealth to survive from modern air-defense system. Indeed, US' next high speed anti-ship missile is probably more than high supersonic, and it take more time than current LRASM. 

 So, this missile can be stop-gap solution before the silver-bullet type missile will being active. 

Maneuver demonstration of JF-17

Demo of Chinese JF-17 jets, enjoy it 

2. Prediction of Minimum Drag of Combat Aircraft : 2.2.3

2. Prediction of Minimum Drag

2.3 Analytic estimations / Numerical simulations

 PART A Analytic Estimation

 One of the oldest, however still useful for preliminary estimation, method was provided by Hoerner [1]; his semi-empirical form of equations covers various form of already-exist designs as shown in Fig. 2.51. Marino [4] evaluated various drag reduction technique for subsonic transport aircraft which is very sensitive to skin-friction drag. Indeed, most of the technique focused on delay of transition using wall-jet or other momentum addition techniques. 

Fig. 2.51. Drag estimation of various form of tails, strut, pylon, and cooler inlets [1]

Fig. 2.52. Drag estimation of viscous drag reduction techniques for subsonic transport [4]

Fig. 2.53. Drag estimation of viscous drag reduction techniques for subsonic transport. CONTINUED [4]

Other than semi-empirical ones, Page [28] uses transonic small-disturbance equations to evaluate the wave drag. While the conventional linear theory underestimates the drag, modified one shows better result. However, both methods still have discrepancy for the experiment result as shown in Fig. 2.54. Fig. 2.55 presents another analytic estimation result for the drag related to the nose shape [29]. In order to evaluate drag efficiently, harmonic transform had conducted [30]. Lomax [31] proposed linearized theory which represent drag in terms of areas and oblique planes while similarity laws, specially used for hypersonic condition, were proposed by Miele [32]. Adams [33] determines drag of boattail bodies for minimum wave drag based on these theories. 

Fig. 2.54. Drag estimation of various wing-body combination for experiment, linear, modified theory [28]

Fig. 2.55. Drag estimation of nose shape change [29]

Fig. 2.56. Drag estimation theory in terms of harmonic analysis [30]

Fig. 2.57. Drag estimation theory in terms of linearized flow [31]

Fig. 2.58. Determination of boattail drag for minimum wave drag [33]

PART B Numerical Simulation (CFD)

 Recently, usage of CFD for the drag estimation is in rapid growth [34] as shown in Fig. 2.59. Kulfan’s [35] hybrid approach using both CFD(panel) and far-field method is used to optimize the drag of the supersonic transport aircraft as shown in Fig. 2.60. More specifically, sting correction of wind-tunnel experiment [36] had been conducted which is importantly considered in the previous part. 

 In jet fighter’s case, sting should be installed at the nozzle part, then it makes hard that engineer measures precise drag evaluation of thrust-drag book-keeping. Willhite et al. [37] used CFD for the correction of the sting; they evaluated pressure distortion of sting and nozzle propulsion. Wing-tip mounted sting was used to simulate the mass flow of nozzle as shown in Fig. 2.62-63. With proper correction, difference among the method is about few counts (~0.0001) which is reasonable range of drag prediction. 

Slator [38] proposed general design and analysis tool for external compression supersonic inlets in given shapes as shown in Fig. 2.64. He organized inlet as types, mass-flow, and other few parameters to analyze it, and CFD method is well used to design it. Now, even the effect of aero-elastic for the minimum drag prediction is introduced [39] as shown in Fig. 2.65; FSI (fluid-structure-interaction) method is now available as computational power is significantly increased. Gregg [40] summarized these recent efforts of CFD for aerodynamic design. 

From now on, I will talk about ramjet/scramjet or hypersonic topic as next one. In that topic, method or approach is basically same as high AoA or CDmin prediction. Indeed, I will not repeat the review of the method as shown in these Chap. 1 and 2. With the connection of Missile-SIM, I practically design some missiles with ramjet/scramjet while I naturally introduce the background of the ramjet/scramjet or hypersonic issues. 

Fig. 2.59. CFD analysis for supersonic jet [34]

Fig. 2.60. Hybrid approach using far-field and CFD method for drag optimization of supersonic transport [34]

Fig. 2.61. Wind-tunnel experiment sting correction via CFD [36]

Fig. 2.62. Wind-tunnel experiment sting correction via CFD [37]

Fig. 2.63. Wind-tunnel experiment sting correction via CFD. CONTINUED [37]

Fig. 2.64. Inlet design framework [38]

Fig. 2.65. Aero-elastic effect considered CFD for transport aircraft [39]

Fig. 2.66. Summary of CFD usage on airliner design [40]

Fig. 2.67. Summary of CFD usage on airliner design. CONTINUED [40]

* Reference

[1] Hoerner, S. F., 1965, Fluid-Dynamic Drag: Theoretical, Experimental, and Statistical Information

[2] Mason, W. H., 2006, ConfigAeroDrag

[3] Jobe, C. E., 1984, Prediction of Aerodynamic Drag, AFWAL-TM-84-203

[4] Marino, A ., et al., 1975, Evaluation of Viscous Drag Reduction Schemes for Subsonic Transport, NASA CR-132718

[5] Sawyer, R. H., and Trant, Jr. J. P., 1950, Effect of Various Modifications on Drag and Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics at Tansonic Speeds of a Model of the XF7U-1 Tailess Airplanes, NACA RM SL50D18

[6] Edwards, J. B. W., 1964, Free-Flight Measurements of the Zero-Lift Drag of a Slender Ogee Wing at Transonic and Supersonic Speeds, Ministry of Aviation, Aeronautical Research Council

[7] Katz, E., 1949, Flight Investigation from high subsonic to supersonic speeds to determine the zero-lift drag of a transonic research vehicle having wings of 45 deg sweepback, aspect ratio 4, taper ratio 0.6, and NACA65A006 airfoil sections, NACA RM L9H30

[8] Leiss, A., 1952, Flight Measurement at Mach Numbers from 1.1 to 1.9 of the Zero-Lift Drag of a Twin-Engine Supersonic Ram-Jet Configuration, NACA RM L52D24

[9] Hoffman, S., and Chaubin, L. T., 1961, Aerodynamic Heat Transfer and Zero-Lift Drag of a Flat Windshield Canopy on the NACA RM-10 Research Vehicle at High Reynolds Numbers for a Flight Mach Number Range from 1.5 to 3.0, NACA RM L56G05

[10] Piland, R. O., and Putland, L. W., 1957, Zero-Lift Drag of Several Conical and Blunt Nose Shapes Obtained in Free Flight at Mach Numbers of 0.7 to 1.3, NACA RM L54A27

[11] Piland, R. O., 1957, Preliminary Free-Flight Investigation of the Zero-Lift Drag Penalties of Several Missile Nose Shapes for Infrared Seeking Devices, NACA RM L52F23

[12] Edwards, J. B. W., 1964, Free-Flight Measurements of the Zero-Lift Drag of a Slender Ogee Wing at Transonic and Supersonic Speeds, Ministry of Aviation, Aeronautical Research Council

[13] Egger, A. J., et al., 1956, Bodies of Revolution having Minimum Drag at High Supersonic Airspeeds, NACA TN 3666

[14] Stoney Jr, W. E., 1953, Some Experimental Effects of Afterbody Shape on the Zero-Lift Drarg of Bodies for Mach Numbers between 0.8 and 1.3, NACA RM L53I01

[15] Ulman, E. F., and Dunning, R. W., 1954, Normal Force, Center of Pressure, and Zero-Lift Drag of Several Ballistic-Type Missiles at Mach Number 4.05, NACA RM L54D30a

[16] Stoney, W. E., and Royall, J. F., 1956, Zero-Lift Drag of a Series of Bomb Shapes at Mach Numbers from 0.6 to 1.1, NACA RM L56D16

[17] Hoffman, S., 1959, Zero-Lift Drag of a Large Fuselage Cavity and a Partially Submerged Store on a 52.5 deg Sweptback-Wing-Body Configuration as Determined from Free-Flight Tests at Mach Numbers of 0.7 to 1.53, NACA RM L56L21

[18] Whitcomb, R. T., 1956, A Study of the Zero-Lift Drag-Rise Characteristics of Wing-Body Combinations near the Speed of Sound, NACA Report 1273

[19] Howell, R. R., and Braslow, A. L., 1957, Experimental Study of the Effects of Scale on the Absolute Values of Zero-Lift Drag of Aircraft Configurations at Transonic Speeds, NACA RM L56J29

[20] Shrout, B. L., 1965, Zero-Lift Drag at Mach 1.42, 1.83, and 2.21 of a series of wings with variations of thickness ratio and chord, NASA TN D-2811

[21] Henderson Jr. A., 1955, Experimental Investigation of the Zero-Lift Wave Drag of Seven Pairs of Delta Wings with Constant and Varying Thickness Ratios at Mach Numbers of 1.62, 1.93, and 2.41, NACA RM L55D13

[22] Merlet, C. F., 1955, The Effect of Inlet Installation on the Zero-Lift Drag of a 60 deg Delta-Wing-Body Configuration from Flight Tests at Mach Numbers from 0.8 to 1.88, NACA RM L55I09

[23] Smith, R. C., et al., 1987, Summary of Studies to Reduce Wing-Mounted Profan Installation Drag on an M = 0.8 Transport, NASA Technical paper 2678

[24] Moraes, C. A., and Nowitzky, A. M., 1954, Experimental Effects of Propulsive Jets and Afterbody Configurations on the Zero-Lift Drag of Bodies of Revolution at a Mach Number of 1.59, NACA RM L54C16

[25] Kulfan, R. M., 1979, Prediction of Nacelle Aerodynamic Interference Effects at Low Supersonic Mach Numbers, NASA CP-2108

[26] Mackay, M., 1993, A Review of Sting Support interference and Some Related Issues for the Marine Dynamic Test Facility, AD-A271 806

[27] Chima, R. V., 2012, Analysis of Buzz in a Supersonic Inlet, NASA/TM-2012-217612

[28] Page, W. A., 1957, Influence of the Body Flow Field on the Zero-Lift Wave Drag of Wing-Body Combinations Modified in Accordance with the Transonic Area Rule, NACA RM A55K10

[29] Fuller, F. B., and Briggs, B. R., 1951, Minimum Wave Drag of Bodies of Revolution with a Cylindrical Section, NACA TN 2325

[30] Holdaway, G. H., and Mersman, W. A., 1956, Application of Tchebichef Form of Harmonic Analysis to the Calculation of Zero-Lift Wave Drag, NACA RM A55J28

[31] Lomax, H., 1955, The Wave Drag of Arbitrary Configurations in Linearized Flow as Determined By Areas and Forces in Oblique Planes, NACA RM A55A18

[32] Miele, A., 1966, Similarity Laws for Lifting Wings of Minimum Drag at Hypersonic Speed, NASA CR70729

[33] Adams, M. C., 1951, Determination of Shapes of Boattail Bodies of Revolution for Minimum Wave Drag

[34] Llorca, I. B., 2015, CFD Analysis and Assessment of the Stability and Control of a Supersonic Business Jet, KTH

[35] Kulfan, B., 2009, New Supersonic Wing Far-Field Compsite Element Wave-Drag Optimization Method, J. Aircraft

[36] Cartieri, A., and Boyet, M. G., 2010, Study of Support Interference Effects at S1MA Wind Tunnel within the “SAO” Project, ICAS 2010

[37] Willhite, P., et al., 1995, A Critical Evaluation of CFD Predictions of Full Aircraft Drag Increments, 26th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA 95-2289

[38] Slater, J. W., 2012, Design and Analysis Tool for External-Compression Supersonic Inlets, NASA/TM-2012-217660

[39] Keye, S., and Gammon, M. R., 2017, Development of Deformed Computer-Aided Design Geometries for the Sixth Drag Prediction Workshop, J. Aircraft

[40] Gregg, R., 2014, CFD and Aircraft Design, Boeing