Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

AE 515 SPRING 2015

HW#4

CARLOS ALBERTO NUNES

UIUC

    Mean y alfa_ef         Strip Mean Chord [ft] [ft] [deg]
   

Mean y

alfa_ef

       

Strip

Mean Chord [ft]

[ft]

[deg]

Re

Area [ft2]

Cd strip

Cd*area [ft2]

1

8.49

5.03

2.70

1.09E+07

85.16

0.00657

0.560

2

7.13

14.59

2.85

9.15E+06

64.58

0.00673

0.435

3

5.97

22.72

2.80

7.66E+06

42.99

0.00626

0.269

4

5.12

28.63

2.48

6.58E+06

23.74

0.00566

0.134

5

4.68

31.74

2.05

6.01E+06

7.48

0.00566

0.042

 

Area total

223.96

 

Sum(Cd*area)

1.440

CD

0.00643

223.96   Sum(Cd*area) 1.440 CD 0.00643 The optimized wing has a tapered planform, where both chord

The optimized wing has a tapered planform, where both chord and geometrical incidence angle varies

linearly from the root to tip along the span.

Root airfoil Tip airfoil Wing geom. Incidence angle [deg] Root geom. Incidence angle [deg] Tip geom. Incidence angle [deg] Root chord [ft] Tip chord [ft] Dihedral angle [deg] Sweep angle [deg] backward sweep Wing area [ft²] Wing span [ft] AR CL_cruise Angle of attack [deg]

nlf0215f

nlf0215f

0

4.6

1.96

6.34

4.46

0

10

458.77

84.98

15.74

0.445

-6.691

  Mean Chord   alfa_ef       Cd*area Strip [ft] Mean y [ft] [deg]
 

Mean Chord

 

alfa_ef

     

Cd*area

Strip

[ft]

Mean y [ft]

[deg]

Re

Area [ft2]

Cd strip

[ft2]

1

6.05

6.62

-3.09

7.77E+06

79.42

0.00648

0.515

2

5.49

19.22

-3.71

7.05E+06

65.09

0.00692

0.450

3

5.01

29.93

-4.31

6.44E+06

47.23

0.00762

0.360

4

4.67

37.71

-5.09

6.00E+06

28.26

0.00939

0.265

5

4.49

41.81

-7.55

5.76E+06

9.36

0.03695

0.346

 

Area total

229.36

 

Sum(Cd*area)

1.936

CD

0.00844

229.36   Sum(Cd*area) 1.936 CD 0.00844 APPROACH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM In order to make the
229.36   Sum(Cd*area) 1.936 CD 0.00844 APPROACH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM In order to make the
229.36   Sum(Cd*area) 1.936 CD 0.00844 APPROACH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM In order to make the

APPROACH TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM

In order to make the design process faster define the geometry, input the data in AVL, set the simulation

parameters like mach number and

L required; a Matlab program was developed, this script has as inputs

the wing geometry parameters and then automatically generate the input file, run the AVL and then read

some of the outputs -

C

C

Di

,

i

,

ef

,

C

l

.

The first attempt to decrease the wing drag started by selecting the proper airfoils. We started by searching

for airfoils similar to the ones that are already being using on EMB-120 NACA 23012 and NACA 23012.

in cruise

We also used some NLF airfoils, mainly due its drag bucket and the low profile drag for the

C

L

condition (between 0.40 and 0.50). The polar drag and

Re 810

6 , are shown below.

C

l

vs for the airfoils that we selected, using

2.5 NACA23012 n633418 nlf1015 NLF(1)-0215F 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -10 0 10 20 30
2.5
NACA23012
n633418
nlf1015
NLF(1)-0215F
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-10
0
10
20
30
-0.5
Cl

angle of attack [deg]

Cl

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

NACA23012 n633418 nlf1015 NLF(1)-0215F 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 Cd
NACA23012
n633418
nlf1015
NLF(1)-0215F
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Cd

The NLF-0215F presented the lowest

coefficient than the NACA airfoils. Therefore we choose the NLF-0215F to be at root and tip, and if the aircraft present an undesirable stall characteristics a geometric twist may be the solution.

L range, and also has a higher lift

C

D

value for the expected

C

At this step we start changing the wing geometry in order to minimize the induced drag in the cruise condition. The first feature that we tried to implement was the winglets, but the design of this device did

D i reduction, and due the manufacturing complications that may result we

not end up with a considerable

skip to another approach.

In the second and third approach to decrease the induced drag we keep using the same NLF airfoil on root and tip and a tapered wing. This time we changed the both root and tip chord, and the geometrical incidence angle of the root and tip trying to make the lift distribution get closer to an elliptical wing. The following image shows the result of one attempt.

cCl

cCl [ unit ]

3.5 Calculated Elliptical 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10
3.5
Calculated
Elliptical
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
y

Using a simple tapered wing is not possible to match the curves, but if we introduce two tapered sections in each semi-span is possible to make the curves closer to each other, but again this may result in more difficult wing to be construct. This method also presented lower induced drag than the original EMB-120 plan form, the minimum value was around 270 lbs (the calculated induced drag for the initial EMB-120 wing geometry was 359 lbs).

The third attempt to decrease the induced drag was using the Matlab Genetic Algorithm. We implemented another Matlab function that receives as inputs the wing geometry parameters, run AVL and then calculated the induced drag. The GA will try minimize the output induced drag and changing the input parameters by itself. We set some upper and lower limit for the parameters the wing span should be lower than 85 ft, and the chord should not be higher than 13 ft, the incidence angles should be between -10 and 8 degrees.

The optimum wing, as expected, has almost the maximum wing span allowed (84.98 ft), and this result is in agreement with the theory, since the induced drag is proportional to the square of the span load. This

of 0.00386, but due the high span and AR this wing may result in a very

wing presented a very low

C

Di

robust structure to avoid aeroelastic effects, and we also have considered that the aircraft weight is the same of the EMB-120, what is not true and then the lift for the cruise condition is no longer the same. If one implements the same function to calculated the induced drag, but taking in account also the structural

effects, and the wing weight as costs, the final wing geometry will have a lower span, although the

increase.

D i may