DOI: 10.15368/theses.2013.181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational and Experimental Comparison of a Powered Lift, Upper Surface Blowing Configuration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Further work will be performed on the k-� turbulence model, since it has been shown to over predict lift significantly 28 due to the assumptions it takes on 29 . This is caused by the over predicting of the turbulent kinetic energy production 30 and failure for the model to follow streamline turning during CC flows 26 .…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further work will be performed on the k-� turbulence model, since it has been shown to over predict lift significantly 28 due to the assumptions it takes on 29 . This is caused by the over predicting of the turbulent kinetic energy production 30 and failure for the model to follow streamline turning during CC flows 26 .…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Applications of curved wall jets -subject to the Coandă effect -have long been implemented in the aeronautical industry in obtaining higher lift -such as the USB Refs [1][2][3] Fig.1 a. or entrainment Refs [4][5][6][7] Fig.1 b. wings, or replacing the wing altogether Refs [8,9] Fig.1 c; other applications refer to replacing stability control devices such as the helicopter tail rotor with a Coandă-effect curved wall jet on the rotorcraft tail boom Ref [10][11] Fig. 1 Although analytical models were developed for estimating the flow fields over curved surfaces Ref [12], or dedicated turbulence models which compensate for wall curvature Ref [13] or [14], the semi-empirical models such as the ones described by Lewinsky and Yeh [15] or Seed [16] still offer the advantage of being experimentally validated in their design range.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The GTRI model was run at a wide range of thrust and moment coefficients. Some of the results from Marcos and Englar are shown in Figure 5.4 [10,42]. As can be seen above both turbulence models consistently over predict lift.…”
Section: -D Ccw and Engine Simulator Validation For Gtrimentioning
confidence: 72%
“…The mesh type and strategy can potentially Meshing approach can be seen in Blessing et al [37,7], Marcos et al [10,38] and Lichtwardt et al [39].…”
Section: Mesh Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%