Flight Mechanics Issues presentation
-
Upload
stephenmcparlin -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.632 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Flight Mechanics Issues presentation
APA Vehicle Aerodynamics Subcommittee:Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft, and underlying Fluid Dynamics Phenomena
Stephen McParlin APA TC ([email protected]) Robert Tramel APA TC ([email protected])
AIAA-2009-0744
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
2
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
3
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
4
Introduction
• This is a product of the APA TC• Identify/tackle capability gaps in CFD for aircraft
Evolution of the concept from ‘moment prediction’– Increased emphasis on understanding fluid dynamics
Lessons learned from the DPW series– Increased role for experimental analysis– Case for ‘Building Block’ approach
• Review historical evidence Flight, wind tunnel test experience Consider flow control successes
• Recommend workshop topics/structure Engage Fluid Dynamics community in/outside AIAA
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
5
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
6
Design drivers for aircraft
• The basis for our consideration and prioritisation of issues is driven by application pull, rather than technology push Impact on the design and operation of aircraft
– Civil transports– Combat aircraft
Based on meeting end user requirements while containing:– Cost– Complexity– Risk
Looking to establish industrial-strength processes and tools• Where do we need to mature CFD methods to make an impact?
Focus on aircraft performance, stability and control
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
7
Airworthiness requirements (1)
• Military requirements for flying qualities “The aircraft shall be…resistant to departure from controlled
flight, post-stall gyrations and spins. Adequate warning of approach to departure shall be provided. The aircraft shall exhibit no uncommanded motion which cannot be arrested promptly by simple application of pilot control.” – US MIL-STD-1797A
“It is desirable that the specified flying qualities should be achieved by good aerodynamic and mechanical design. However automatic devices may be used where an overall benefit accrues provided that the system as a whole meets the requirements.” - UK DefStan 00-970
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
8
Airworthiness requirements (2)
• Civil requirements for flying qualities “It must be possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed
use of aileron and rudder controls, up to the time the aeroplane is stalled. No abnormal nose-up pitching may occur. The longitudinal control force must be positive up to and throughout the stall. In addition, it must be possible to promptly prevent stalling and to recover from a stall by normal use of the controls” (CS 25.203)
“Stall warning with sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent stalling with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position must be clear and distinctive to the pilot in straight and turning flight” (CS 25.207)
“The aeroplane must be demonstrated in flight to be free from any vibration and buffeting that would prevent continued safe flight in any likely operating condition” (CS 25.251)
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
9
Flying/Handling qualities
• Customers require: Predictable and consistent stability characteristics Well-defined departure boundaries Adequate warning of departure Easy recovery
• But, we have potential challenges: Abrupt, non-linear stability changes and divergent modes Lack of control power at or beyond departure
• Solutions are multidisciplinary, a blend of: Aerodynamic design Flight Control System design Flow Control, where necessary
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
10
Flight mechanics issues
• Longitudinal Static
– Pitch up, tuck under, Mach tuck Dynamic:
– unstable SPO and phugoid (‘Falling leaf’) – limit cycle behaviour
• Lateral/directional Static
– Wing drop, nose slice (“yaw off”) Dynamic
– unstable Dutch Roll/Wing Rock
• Classical linear stability modes become non-linear as the underlying aerodynamic forces become non-linear Prediction of non-linear changes in aerodynamics is the key
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
11
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
12
Taxonomy approach
• Identify causation of non-linear stability characteristics Which problem happens, to which classes of configuration, at
which operating condition Consider the nature of flows at these conditions Look at available experimental evidence Postulate driving Fluid Dynamics phenomena Investigate fundamental Fluid Dynamics Validate CFD against ‘building block’ experiments
• Use experimental knowledge base to inform CFD use
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
13
Factors considered in taxonomy
• Flight mechanics mode Longitudinal/lateral, static/dynamic
• Flight regime Low speed/subsonic/transonic/supersonic
• Manoeuvre type Cruise/steady-state/transient
• Configuration type Unswept/Swept/Slender/Hybrid/non-slender
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
14
Flight mechanics mode
• Evidence for Flight Mechanics Issues comes from: Real aircraft experience
– Flight test of prototype/production aircraft– Dynamic wind tunnel tests
Experimental programmes– Purpose-built and properly instrumented flight vehicles
Wind tunnels– Static test data need appropriate analysis
• Access to data for current aircraft is usually either proprietary, covered by security issues, or both Need to look in the archives
– Data need to be recorded and archived– A little Knowledge Management is very valuable
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
15
Flight regime
• Low speed M=0.3 and below
• Subsonic Up to onset of locally supersonic flow
• Transonic From local supersonic onset to peak drag rise
• Supersonic From the peak of the drag rise until Mmax
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
16
Manoeuvre type
• Cruise Constant , M, zero angular rates
• Steady-state Constant , M, constant angular rates
• Transient Varying , M, varying angular rates
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
17
Example flight envelope for air combat manoeuvres
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
18
Configuration type
• Unswept e.g. Sailplanes, U-2, turboprop-powered transports
• Swept e.g. B-47, F-86, turbojet/fan-powered transports
• Slender e.g. F-106, SR-71, Concorde, SSBJ concepts
• Hybrid swept/slender e.g. F-16, F/A-18, F-22, MiG-29, Su-27
• Non-slender e.g. F-4, Avro Vulcan, Eurofighter Typhoon
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
19
Effect of design Mach number on configuration type
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
20
Nature of the taxonomic matrix
• The matrix is not dense: Factors interact
– Mach number drives configuration shape– Mach number drives manoeuvre type– Configuration shape drives flight mechanics modes
Mach number vs. configuration matrix – Approximately triangular
Mach number vs. manoeuvre type matrix:– Higher Mach: thrust and/or structural limits– Low Mach: lift and control power limits at low q
• Preliminary analysis indicates areas of interest
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
21
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Fluid Dynamics phenomena
• Boundary-layer transition• Flow separation (no shock waves)• Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions• Vortex stability, bursting and interactions• Mixed-flow regions: spanwise segmentation of attached and
separated flow regions• Flow control
22
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Boundary layer transition
• Streamwise (Tollmien-Schlichting) transition• Attachment-line contamination, instability and transition on swept wings and
slender fuselage noses at high angle of attack• Relaminarization (and cessation of relaminarization) of turbulent attachment
line flow • Crossflow transition on wings (and fuselage) with sufficient sweep (body angle
of attack)• Taylor-Görtler instability / transition on concave surfaces• Shear-layer instability, transition and reattachment in laminar separation
bubbles in steady and unsteady flows
23
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
2/1
0
ee
e
dsdUVR
s
dsdQ
QK e
2e
e
ATTACHMENT LINE
REYNOLDS NUMBER RELAMINARIZATION
PARAMETER
LAMINAR TURBULENTDEPENDS240R 560R ReR
Re1K
RELAM NOT LIKELY RELAM POSSIBLE
-63.0x10K
Attachment-Line Contamination, Transition and Relaminarization
24
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Swept wing CLmax: leading-edge scale effects (Yip,1993)
Chord Reynolds number25
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Crossflow transition for swept wings and non-axisymmetric body flows
• First discovered in flight in 1952 Instability waves propagating spanwise Impose maximum sweep limit on natural laminar flow
• Have subtle but significant effects on the flow topology for swept leading edges Postulated as a factor in flow separation from
rounded wing leading edges and slender bodies• Hot topic in the laminar flow control world
26
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Boundary layer flow separation (no shock waves)
• Smooth surface versus “sharp-edged” shear layer separation• Leading edge or trailing edge separation (switchover depending mostly on
geometry of airfoil and wing sweep as well as Reynolds number)• Laminar or turbulent state of boundary layer upon separation • Laminar separation bubble and bubble “bursting”: steady and unsteady
separation• 2D vs. 3D type separation; open vs. closed separation topologies (vortex vs.
bubble)• Junction and secondary flow separations• Off-surface flow reversal (in wake flows over multi-element airfoils).
Impingement of wake-like flows on downstream lifting surfaces• Separation in periodic flow field, including hysteresis effects• “Unsteady” and “quasi-steady” separation
27
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions
• Laminar boundary and turbulent boundary layer approaching the shock wave• Smooth surface vs. discontinuous surface (e.g. transonic shock vs. corner
shock at supersonic onset Mach number)• Interactions on swept wings and non-swept wings• Separation bubble near the foot of the shock is closed or open (or local vs.
global separation)• Instability of flow field (‘steady’ vs. ‘unsteady’ interaction)• Buffet onset (global instability of the turbulent flow field that forces the (flexible)
wing and fuselage structure)
28
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Shockwave categories on supersonic slender wings
• Miller plot
29
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Vortex stability, bursting and interactions
• LEX/Chine vortex bursting and resulting fin buffet on hybrid and slender wings• Forebody vortices from slender bodies interacting with downstream wing or
empennage.• Foreplane tip vortex over downstream wing/empennage• Vortex from nacelle chine/strake flowing over unswept/swept wing with highly
deflected flap settings• Shock/vortex interactions at transonic and supersonic conditions
30
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Mixed flow regions – spanwise segmentation of flow separation
• Using geometric or flow control devices, the flow on wings can be segmented into regions of attached and separated flow. Often the presence of a strong vortex can allow suitable segmentation of wing flow.
• Some possible segmentation examples: Strake/swept wing with strong vortex on inboard strake and unswept type flow
further outboard Küchemann type tip flow field, where a stable vortical flow is generated on the
outboard aft-swept wing tip, while the flow further inboard may be separated Spanwise discontinuities in leading-edge geometry to affect span loading and
formation of local vortices to provide spanwise containment of separated flow (drooped outboard leading edge, leading-edge notches, fences etc.)
31
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
32
Flow control – successful or otherwise
Gloster Javelin with Vortex Generatorshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gloster.javelin.xh903.arp.jpg
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
33
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
34
Causality – which flow phenomena?
• Sources of data: Compendia of real aircraft experience
– AGARD studies into buffet and manoeuvre limits– Abrupt Wing Stall program
Experimental flight/wind tunnel test programmes– Numerous X-types– Collaborative testing/analysis programmes
Historical sources are important (incl. people) Examples of successful (and otherwise) flow control
• Which are the most significant problems? Relevance to operational use hugely important
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
35
Causality – preliminary conclusions
• Non-linear flight mechanics are driven by development of flow separations Rapid changes in flow topology represent highest risk
• Predicting flow separation onset is key What fluid dynamics phenomena do we need to
capture? • Operational relevance:
Most transport/combat aircraft operate predominantly at high subsonic/transonic conditions
– Transport aircraft cruise/cruise-climb– Core of combat aircraft manoeuvre envelope
Low-speed high-lift for launch/recovery
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
36
• Different types of flow separation• Significant configuration dependencies
'Designed' shapes have more subtle pressure gradients than simple models
– Simple geometries may produce unrepresentative physics Combat aircraft are more prone to leading edge flow separation
– Thin wings, high adverse pressure gradients near l.e.– Large impact on drag over whole flight envelope
Transport aircraft are more prone to trailing edge flow separation
– Thicker wings, strong adverse pressure gradient in recovery to trailing edge
Shock-induced flow separations are common to both– Buffet margin is a design/certification issue– Frequently the source of abrupt wing stall
Predicting flow separation at transonic conditions
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
37
Flow separation at low-speed and high-lift
• Leading edge flow separation is the predominant issue for thin or highly swept wings Problem common to that at transonic manoeuvre conditions Loss of leading edge thrust produces significant drag penalty Changes in flow topology have consequences for stability
characteristics ‘Real’ aircraft have designed leading edges or high lift systems
• Trailing edge separations are the predominant issue for thick or low sweep wings Cumulative momentum loss under the influence of pressure
gradients Less problematic for drag and stability than leading edge
separations Complex viscous flows on high-lift systems
– Major design area for transport aircraft wings
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
38
Contents
• Introduction• Design drivers for aircraft
Airworthiness requirements Flight Mechanics issues
• Taxonomy approach and factors considered• Fluid Dynamics phenomena• Causality
Sources of data Preliminary conclusions
• The way forward Suggested areas of interest Working group definition
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
39
The way forward (1)
• Suggested areas of interest: Transonic buffet prediction
– Relevant to most relevant classes of air vehicle– 'Building block' experimental data available (UFAST)– Potential for investigation on a full configuration (CRM)
Flow separation onset from rounded leading edges– Very high impact for military configurations– Configuration-level activity starting in RTO– Candidate for developing 'building block' experimental
program to support configuration-level activity elsewhere Trailing edge flow separation
40
New Common Research Model (AIAA 2008-6919)
•Common Research Model is a potential geometry to support transonic buffet and trailing edge separation activities
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
41
The way forward (2)
• Establish Working Group across APA/FD TCs:• Develop basis for AIAA predictive workshops
Focus on specific issues identified Invite participation of topic specialist “Greybeards” Develop understanding of experimental evidence
– Identify necessary level of flow modelling Engage with CFD community
– Determine best practice Demonstrate CFD capability against model problems Refine methods/guidance to users
Summary
• Provided an initial taxonomy of Fluid Dynamics causation for Flight Mechanics problems
• Suggested three areas of primary interest Prioritised on Operational Impact
• Applied Aerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics TCs are forming a joint Working Group to develop a strategy to improve industrial capability
• Invited sessions by topic specialists and a workshop are planned for the next two years
Acknowledgements
• Thanks are due to the current and past members of the APA TC who contributed feedback: Darren Grove, Jeff Slotnick and particularly Paul Vijgen
• External comments gratefully received from: Bram Elsenaar, John Fulker and Frank Lynch
• N.b. Feedback and revision of the proposed activities is an ongoing process Contributions gratefully received for consideration by the Working Group
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
44
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
45
Proposed framework for workshops
• Propose Topic of Workshop to relevant TC’s• Identify experiments that exhibit relevant fluid-mechanics feature• Identify available (publishable) experimental and CFD data for this geometry• Provide geometry (and available test data) to community together with flow
conditions for analysis • Obtain list of participants to conduct CFD (and possible experiments). • Obtain CFD results• Collect CFD results and prepare initial Workshop with results (invited papers etc.)• Define need for additional CFD and experiments in follow-on Workshops
46
Common Research Model (CRM) – see AIAA 2008-6919
• CRM (Common Research Model) is defined within NASA’s a Subsonic Fixed Wing project (SFW) by Aerodynamics Technical Working Group (TWG) TWG representatives from Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman,
Gulfstream,Cessna, Hawker-Beechcraft, Pratt and Whitney, Air Force, Navy, and NASA
SFW CRM (Common Research Model) geometry to be released in public by Fall 2008. Boeing design
– Mach 0.85 design– Modern airfoils– With horizontal tail to allow trim
Wind-tunnel data (NTF-cryo and Ames 11-ft pressure tunnel) to be taken in Spring – Fall 2009
Flight Mechanics Issues for Aircraft: AIAA-2009-0744
47
Transonic Buffet and Trailing-Edge Separation Data from CRM
Planned CRM data may be suitable for first Workshop on topics suggested in White Paper
• Planned test data (AIAA 2008-6919): Mach 0.7 to 0.92 Angles of attack into pitch up and buffet onset Rec = 5 million (Ames 11-ft TPT) and Rec = 3 – 30 million (Langley NTF) Measurements:
– Balance (6-component), surface pressures, wing-shape under loading (Ames and Langley)
– PIV and skin-friction interferometry (Ames)– Flush wing-mounted Kulites in outboard wing