Refine
Year of publication
Institute
Language
- English (67) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (35)
- Article (26)
- Part of a Book (6)
Keywords
- Obstacle avoidance (3)
- UAV (3)
- Aeroelasticity (2)
- Path planning (2)
- 1P hub loads (1)
- Actuator disk modelling (1)
- Aircraft design (1)
- Aircraft sizing (1)
- Automotive safety approach (1)
- Autonomy (1)
This paper presents a novel method for airfoil drag estimation at Reynolds numbers between 4×10⁵ and 4×10⁶. The novel method is based on a systematic study of 40 airfoils applying over 600 numerical simulations and considering natural transition. The influence of the airfoil thickness-to-chord ratio, camber, and freestream Reynolds number on both friction and pressure drag is analyzed in detail. Natural transition significantly affects drag characteristics and leads to distinct drag minima for different Reynolds numbers and thickness-to-chord ratios. The results of the systematic study are used to develop empirical correlations that can accurately predict an airfoil drag at low-lift conditions. The new approach estimates a transition location based on airfoil thickness-to-chord ratio, camber, and Reynolds number. It uses the transition location in a mixed laminar–turbulent skin-friction calculation, and corrects the skin-friction coefficient for separation effects. Pressure drag is estimated separately based on correlations of thickness-to-chord ratio, camber, and Reynolds number. The novel method shows excellent accuracy when compared with wind-tunnel measurements of multiple airfoils. It is easily integrable into existing aircraft design environments and is highly beneficial in the conceptual design stage.
Next-generation aircraft designs often incorporate multiple large propellers attached along the wingspan (distributed electric propulsion), leading to highly flexible dynamic systems that can exhibit aeroelastic instabilities. This paper introduces a validated methodology to investigate the aeroelastic instabilities of wing–propeller systems and to understand the dynamic mechanism leading to wing and whirl flutter and transition from one to the other. Factors such as nacelle positions along the wing span and chord and its propulsion system mounting stiffness are considered. Additionally, preliminary design guidelines are proposed for flutter-free wing–propeller systems applicable to novel aircraft designs. The study demonstrates how the critical speed of the wing–propeller systems is influenced by the mounting stiffness and propeller position. Weak mounting stiffnesses result in whirl flutter, while hard mounting stiffnesses lead to wing flutter. For the latter, the position of the propeller along the wing span may change the wing mode shapes and thus the flutter mechanism. Propeller positions closer to the wing tip enhance stability, but pusher configurations are more critical due to the mass distribution behind the elastic axis.
The number of case studies focusing on hybrid-electric aircraft is steadily increasing, since these configurations are thought to lead to lower operating costs and environmental impact than traditional aircraft. However, due to the lack of reference data of actual hybrid-electric aircraft, in most cases, the design tools and results are difficult to validate. In this paper, two independently developed approaches for hybrid-electric conceptual aircraft design are compared. An existing 19-seat commuter aircraft is selected as the conventional baseline, and both design tools are used to size that aircraft. The aircraft is then re-sized under consideration of hybrid-electric propulsion technology. This is performed for parallel, serial, and fully-electric powertrain architectures. Finally, sensitivity studies are conducted to assess the validity of the basic assumptions and approaches regarding the design of hybrid-electric aircraft. Both methods are found to predict the maximum take-off mass (MTOM) of the reference aircraft with less than 4% error. The MTOM and payload-range energy efficiency of various (hybrid-) electric configurations are predicted with a maximum difference of approximately 2% and 5%, respectively. The results of this study confirm a correct formulation and implementation of the two design methods, and the data obtained can be used by researchers to benchmark and validate their design tools.