Airplane flow-field measurements

Mechanical vs. phenomenological formulations to determine mean aerodynamic drag from stereo-PIV wake measurements

“…To put the current work in perspective with the existing litterature, the global drag predictions obtained here (whether using the mechanical or phenomenological method) appear to be at par with those published in earlier studies dealing with the same issue. Indeed, as far as wake surveys using the phenomenological decomposition fed with 5-hole probe measurements is concerned, Brune [2] reports a relative difference better than 1% with respect to balance measurements on the drag prediction of a 1.80 m long rectangular wing, while Crowder et al [3] reports a 13% difference between balance measurements and the wake drag prediction of civil aircraft model flying at M a = 0.86. In this case, the main source of error is attributed to the method not accounting for flow compressibility effects.…”

Conceptual Design of a Laser Light Sheet Flow Visualization System for a Pressurized, Low Speed Wind Tunnel

“…Additional research was also conducted by Rabe and Sabroske [ 1], in addition to that of Kaehler, on the effects of environmental conditions and fluid properties on aerosol generation. Kaehler, using DEHS, experimented with various fluid temperatures (viscosities) and recorded what effect it had on particle size distribution.…”

“…Additional flow visualization techniques like oil flows or fluorescent minitufts [1] can be employed to understand surface phenomena, but sometimes even that is not sufficient to help understand a difference. As such, it is desirable to have, in addition to the above, off-body flow field diagnostic capabilities.…”

Fiber-optic integrated aerodynamic three-hole vector probe for high-velocity flow field measurement

“…(Zachos et al, 2011;Ragni et al, 2011). Measurement techniques and instrumentation have been proposed for turbomachinery applications, either non-intrusively or intrusively, including particle image velocimetry (PIV) (Westerweel et al, 2013), laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) , laser two-focus method (L2F) (Mousavi and Fahimeh, 2020), hot-wire anemometry (HWA) (Bailey et al, 2010), and multi-hole pressure probes (MHPs) (Heckmeier et al, 2019;Telionis et al, 2009;Argu ¨elles Dı ´az et al, 2009;Crowder et al, 1997). In turbomachinery measurements, the lack of sufficient optical access prevents the use of PIV, LDV, and L2F which are mainly driven by free-space optical techniques.…”

“…Thus, the precise measurements of pressure and correct plotting of calibration maps are ll OPEN ACCESS crucial to realizing velocity vector analysis with high accuracy. Port pressures derived from the MHFs are traditionally guided by pressure tubes and then measured through the connection of remote pressure transducers, which may lead to the problems of pneumatic loss, long response time, and low efficiency (Crowder et al, 1997). When the airflow passes through a long transmission distance, internal fluid friction and wall friction generate a portion of energy loss due to the presence of viscous drag, intuitively expressed as pressure loss or pressure drop (White, 2011;Anderson, 2010).…”