Aerodynamic aspects of engine-aircraft integration of transport aircraft

Hoheisel, H.

doi:10.1016/s1270-9638(97)90009-2

Cited by 41 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, the effect of engine installation for a typical conventional podded under-wing engine configuration is estimated to be in the order of 30 to 50 drag counts per two engines 4 although it is sensitive to the relative engine size and position on the wing. [4][5][6] The effect of engine size becomes significant for larger engine diameters. 7 The development of numerical tools and an increase in computational power led to a series of Drag Prediction Workshops, where the second series was dedicated to nacelle installation effects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamics of aero-engine installation

Stańkowski

MacManus

Sheaf

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes current progress in the development of methods to assess aero-engine airframe installation effects. The aerodynamic characteristics of isolated intakes, a typical transonic transport aircraft as well as a combination of a through-flow nacelle and aircraft configuration have been evaluated. The validation task for an isolated engine nacelle is carried out with concern for the accuracy in the assessment of intake performance descriptors such as mass flow capture ratio and drag rise Mach number. The necessary mesh and modelling requirements to simulate the nacelle aerodynamics are determined. Furthermore, the validation of the numerical model for the aircraft is performed as an extension of work that has been carried out under previous drag prediction research programmes. The validation of the aircraft model has been extended to include the geometry with through flow nacelles. Finally, the assessment of the mutual impact of the through flow nacelle and aircraft aerodynamics was performed. The drag and lift coefficient breakdown has been presented in order to identify the component sources of the drag associated with the engine installation. The paper concludes with an assessment of installation drag for through-flow nacelles and the determination of aerodynamic interference between the nacelle and the aircraft. KeywordsEngine-airframe integration, through-flow nacelle, aerodynamic interference, computational fluid dynamics, NASA Common Research Model

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamics of aero-engine installation

Stańkowski

MacManus

Sheaf

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More work, mostly on tractor configurations with unflapped wings at low speed, was done in the 1980s by means of analytical and experimental methods with a focus on spanwise lift distributions and polar curves [3,4]. Hoheisel [5] gives an overview of engine integration including high bypass turbofans as well as open rotors, emphasizing the importance of this topic for modern aircraft design. Although only conventional tractor configurations are considered in related work [6,7], early numerical studies give an idea of the unsteady aerodynamics [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamic Installation Effects of an Over-the-Wing Propeller on a High-Lift Configuration

Müller¹,

Heinze²,

Kožulović³

et al. 2014

Journal of Aircraft

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preliminary design studies indicate that a cruise-efficient short takeoff and landing aircraft has enhanced takeoff performance at competitive direct operating costs when using high-speed propellers in combination with internally blown flaps. The original tractor configuration is compared to an over-the-wing propeller, which allows for noise shielding. An additional geometry with partially embedded rotor similar to a channel wing is considered to increase the beneficial interaction. This paper shows the aerodynamic integration effects with a focus on climb performance and provides an assessment of the three aforementioned configurations for a simplified wing segment at takeoff conditions. Steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations have been conducted using an actuator disk model and were evaluated based on the overall design. Interacting with the blown flap, the conventional tractor propeller induces large lift and drag increments due to the vectored sliptream. Although this effect is much smaller for an overthe-wing configuration, by halving the lift augmentation, the lift-to-drag ratio and the propulsive efficiency are considerably improved. Besides a moderate lift gain, the main advantage of a channel wing design is the location of the thrust vector close to the center of gravity resulting in a smaller nosedown pitching moment due to thrust. A disadvantage of over-the-wing propellers is the inhomogeneous inflow at higher velocity, which leads to oscillating blade loads and reduced efficiency.lift coefficient of aircraft C M;y = M y ∕q ∞ · S ref · MAC, pitching moment coefficient of aircraft C P;s = shaft power coefficient C T = 2 · T∕q ∞ · S ref , thrust coefficient of aircraft c = chord length of rectangular wing segment c d = section drag coefficient c l = section lift coefficient c m = section pitching moment coefficient c p = p − p ∞ ∕q ∞ , pressure coefficient D P = propeller diameter p = static pressure q ∞ = dynamic pressure of freestream S ref = wing area of reference aircraft s = semispan of rectangular wing segment T = thrust of one engine T inst = T − ΔD, installed thrust t∕t max = relative blade element thrust V ∞ = freestream velocity α = angle of attack α e = effective angle of attack at blade element β 75= propeller blade pitch angle (at 75% radius) η P = propeller efficiency η Pro = propulsive efficiency ρ ∞ = density of freestream Subscripts x,y,z = Cartesian coordinates

show abstract

“…The studies indicated that the installation drag for two nacelles was in the order of 75 dc. Currently, the effect of engine installation for a typical conventional podded under-wing engine configuration is estimated to be in the order of 30 to 50 drag counts per two engines 4 . Moreover, it is sensitive to the relative position on the wing 4,5,6 and becomes more significant for larger engine diameters 7 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aerodynamic Interference for Aero-Engine Installations

Stańkowski

MacManus

Sheaf

et al. 2016

54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nomenclature b= wing span c = aircraft reference chord = aircraft reference chord dc = aircraft drag counts, based on aircraft reference area CD = drag coefficient based on aircraft reference chord Cf = skin friction coefficient CpVelocity x, y, z = Cartesian coordinate system for the aircraft ξ, η, ζ = Cartesian coordinate system for the engine ξ, R, Θ = Cylindrical coordinate system for the engine = force in the drag domain = force in the thrust domain Acronyms AoA = Angle of Attack CFD = Computational Fluid Dynamics CR = intake Contraction Ratio CRM = NASA Common Research Model MFCR = mass flow capture ratio TFN = Through Flow Nacelle WB = Wing Body WBNP = Wing Body with Nacelle and Pylon WBT0 = Wing Body with 0° inclined Tailplane WBT0NP = Wing Body Tail with Nacelle and Pylon

show abstract

Aerodynamic aspects of engine-aircraft integration of transport aircraft

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

Aerodynamics of aero-engine installation

Aerodynamics of aero-engine installation

Aerodynamic Installation Effects of an Over-the-Wing Propeller on a High-Lift Configuration

Aerodynamic Interference for Aero-Engine Installations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About