Parametric Trade Study for Supersonic Bi-Directional Flying Wing

Gan, Jiaye; Lefebvre, Alexis; Espinal, Daniel; Zha, Gecheng

doi:10.2514/6.2014-2106

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally speaking, within the Mach cone, the smaller the sweep angle, the higher the L/D. For example, a design with varying sweep angle from 84 • to 68 • and cruise Mach number of 1.6 achieves L/D of 10.4, but the sonic boom ground loudness is also high at 95PLdB [25] . When the sweep angle and airfoil thickness are fixed, the streamwise lift distribution is critical to determine the shock strength and far-field compression wave coalescing.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 96%

“…An effective means to determine the streamwise lift distribution is to control the airfoil meanline angle distribution. The trade study in [25] shows that the SbiDir-FW configuration can achieve high aerodynamic efficiency without difficulties. Achieving low boom design appears to be much more challenging.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Wing (SBiDir-FW) [25,26,27,28,29], which has a great potential to mitigate sonic boom and airport noise, improve aerodynamic efficiency, and substantially reduce aircraft weight. The basic concept of the SBiDir-FW is to maximize the length of lift distribution by a diamond shape flying wing to mitigate sonic boom and wave drag.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since SBiDir-FW is a new concept, little prior knowledge on the correlation between the geometry and sonic boom and aerodynamic performance is available. A trade study is conducted in [25] to develop such a correlation. The trade study includes the variation of sweep and dihedral angle, meanline angle distribution, leading and trailing edge thickness, and angle of attack.…”

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The in house high order accuracy CFD code FASIP, which is intensively validated with various 2D and 3D steady and unsteady flows including sonic boom cases of bodies of revolution(NASA, Lockheed Martin) and NASA's delta wing configuration provided by the 2014 AIAA Sonic Boom Work Shop [25,34,26,35,36,37,38,39], is utilized for the CFD analysis. To accurately capture shock waves and sonic boom, high order shock capturing schemes, including 3rd order MUSCL scheme [40], 3rd, 5th and 7th order WENO schemes and a finite compact scheme combining a shock detector and 6th order Padé scheme, are utilized in the code [37,38,39,41].…”

Section: Numerical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Analysis of a Low Boom Supersonic Flying Wing Preliminary Design

Gan

Zha

2015

53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the numerical analysis of a low boom supersonic bi-directional flying wing (SBiDir-FW) preliminary design to demonstrate the advantages of the concept. The mission requirements include cruise Mach number of 1.6, cruise altitude around 50kft, payload of 100 passengers, and a range of 4000nm. The gross takeoff weight is about 197kLb. The configuration is a flying wing symmetric about both the longitudinal and span axes. The sweep angle varies from 82 • at the very leading edge to 78 • at the tip. Two designs with same sweep angles and planform shapes are presented by varying airfoil meanline angle distributions to achieve different overpressure signatures and L/D ratios. The first design D82-78.4 achieves an L/D of 8.16, C L of 0.54, and the ground sonic boom noise level of 71.7PLdB. The second design D82-78.8 increases the C L and L/D with C L =0.60 and L/D = 8.54, while keeping a low level of ground sonic boom at 71.9PLdB by cruising at a little higher altitude of 52kft. A typical near field overpressure signature has a strong shock wave followed by a strong expansion in the overall process of expansion. The strong shockexpansion is mostly canceled out by themselves during the process of the wave propagation to ground. The designs indicate that the overpressure signature and aerodynamic efficiency are very sensitive and controllable by the variation of meanline angle distributions of the airfoils. This is an important relationship between the geometry parameters and the sonic boom/aerodynamic efficiency so that a design optimization strategy can be developed. All the designs with varied meanline angle distributions in this paper are conducted manually. With the encouraging results achieved so far, it is believed that the NASA's N+2 and N+3 goal to have ground sonic boom below 70PLdB for a supersonic civil transport is close to reach if a systematic design optimization is conducted.

show abstract

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Sonic Boommentioning

confidence: 98%