Aerodynamics of a Blended Wing Body Aircraft with Close-Coupled Tail: Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations of Two Different Tail Sweep Angle Cases

 
 
 
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract


    This paper presents the aerodynamic performance of Baseline V blended wing-body aircraft via Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) simulation. Baseline V has a set of close-coupled tail plane that can change its incidence and tilt angle for pitch and yaw control. Based on previous research, Baseline V has insufficient longitudinal stability in term of pitch moment at zero angle of attack which is negative value at zero tail incidence angles. When tail incidence is set at −10°, the moment coefficient at zero angle of attack is zero thus not sufficient for trim flight with stable pitch moment slope. This leads to the idea of sweeping the tail of the aircraft to increase moment arm. In this paper, two cases are considered which is 0° (case I) and 30° (case II) tail sweep angle in which both cases have tail incidence at −10°. NUMECA suit is used as computational tool for this simulation. The simulated environment consists of half-model Baseline V BWB in domain 20 times the length of the aircraft with body centre plane acts as a mirror. The angle of attack used for this simulation is between -10° to +17° while airspeed is fixed at 15m/s or Mach 0.05. Due to aircraft’s small mean chord and low airspeed flight, its Reynold number is low at 1.0 x 105 even at its body chord. Therefore, Laminar Navier-Stoke Equation is used for the computational simulation. Lift, drag and pitch moment coefficients with respect to angle of attack for both tail cases are computed from the simulation. The results from the CFD simulation is then compared with wind tunnel experiment results measured at AEROLAB, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The result shows that the trends of lift, drag and moment coefficients against angle of attack obtained from CFD simulations are similar to plots obtained from wind tunnel experiment for both tail sweep angle cases. It is found that tail sweep angle case of 30° has slightly less lift but higher drag coefficients compared with 30° tail sweep angle case while its pitch moment coefficient at zero angle of attack has now improved to allow positive trim angle of attack. However, the former has much lower maximum lift-to-drag ratio than the latter.

     

     


  • Keywords


    Aerodynamics, Blended Wing Body, Computational Fluid Dynamic.

  • References


      [1] Z. Lyu and J. R. R. a. R. A. Martins, “Aerodynamic Design Optimization Studies of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft,” J. Aircr., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1–14, Sep. 2014.

      [2] R. E. M. Nasir, F. Mohamed, R. Ramly, A. M. I. Mamat, W. Wisnoe, and W. Kuntjoro, “Flight Performance of Various Blended Wing- Body Small UAV Designs,” J. Teknol., vol. 5, pp. 103–109, 2015.

      [3] R. H. Liebeck, “Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport,” J. Aircr., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 10–25, 2004.

      [4] P. Okonkwo and H. Smith, “Review of evolving trends in blended wing body aircraft design,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 82, Pergamon, pp. 1–23, 01-Apr-2015.

      [5] T. Ikeda and C. Bil, “Aerodynamic performance of a blended-wing-body configuration aircraft,” Congr. Int. Counc.of Aeronaut. Sc., pp. 1–10, 2006.

      [6] P. Dehpanah and A. Nejat, “The aerodynamic design evaluation of a blended wing-body configuration,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 43, pp. 96–110, Jun. 2015.

      [7] Z. Lyu and J. R. R. A. Martins, “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a BlendedWing-Body Aircraft,” in 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 2013, no. June, pp. 1–17.

      [8] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, A. Le Moigne, M. Laban, K. Hackett, and P. Weinerfelt, “Aerodynamic considerations of blended wing body aircraft,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 40, no. 6. Pergamon, pp. 321–343, 01-Aug-2004.

      [9] C. M. Boozer, M. J. Van Tooren, and A. Elham, “Multidisciplinary Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Composite Blended Wing Body Aircraft,” 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct. Struct. Dyn. Mater. Conf., 2017.

      [10] N. Qin, A. Vavalle, and A. Le Moigne, “Spanwise Lift Distribution for Blended Wing Body Aircraft.,” J. Aircr., vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 356–365, 2005.

      [11] Dan D. Vicroy, “Blended-Wing-Body Low-Speed Flight Dynamics :,” pp. 1–10, 2009.

      [12] J.-Y. T. Ammar Sami, Clément Legros, “Conceptual design, performance and stability analysis of a 200 passengers Blended Wing Body aircraft,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., Sep. 2017.

      [13] P. P. C. Okonkwo, “Conceptual Design Methodology for Blended Wing Body Aircraft,” Sch. Aerospace, Transp. Manuf., vol. Ph.D., 2016.

      [14] N. B. Kuntawala, J. E. Hicken, and D. W. Zingg, “Preliminary Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Of A Blended-W ing-Body Aircraft Conguration,” AIAA-2011-642, January, 2011.

      [15] T. A. Reist and D. W. Zinggy, “Aerodynamic design of blended wing-body and lifting-fuselage aircraft,” in 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2016, 2016.

      [16] T. Reist and D. W. Zingg, “Aerodynamically Optimal Regional Aircraft Concepts: Conventional and Blended-Wing-Body Designs,” 52nd Aerosp. Sci. Meet., no. January, pp. 1–13, 2014.

      [17] N. B. Kuntawala et al., “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of a Blended-wing-body Aircraft Configuration,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, p. 111, Apr. 2011.

      [18] L. I. Peifeng et al., “Aerodynamic design methodology for blended wing body transport,” Chinese J. Aeronaut., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 508–516, 2012.

      [19] R. E. M. Nasir, N. S. C. Mazlan, Z. M. Ali, W. Wisnoe, and W. Kuntjoro, “A blended wing body airplane with a close-coupled, tilting tail,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 152, p. 012021, 2016.

      [20] W. Wisnoe, R. E. Mohd Nasir, W. Kuntjoro, and A. Mohd, “Wind Tunnel Experiments and CFD Analysis of Blended Wing Body ( BWB ) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ( UAV ) at Mach 0.1 and Mach 0.3,” 13th Int. Conf. Aerosp. Sci. Aviat. Tech., 2009.

      [21] Wisnoe, W., Kuntjoro, W., Mohamad, F., Mohd Nasir, R. E., Reduan, N. F., & Ali, Z. (2010). Experimental results analysis for UiTM BWB baseline-I and baseline-II UAV running at 0.1 mach number. International Journal of Mechanics, 4(2), 23-32.

      [22] Nasir, R. E. M., Kuntjoro, W. , Wisnoe, W., Ali, A., Reduan, N.F., Mohamad, F. and Suboh, S. 2010. Preliminary Design of “Baseline-II” Blended Wing-Body (BWB) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV): Achieving Higher Aerodynamic Efficiency Through Planform Redesign and Low-Fidelity Inverse Twist Method. Proceedings of 3rd Engineering Conference on Advancement in Mechanical and Manufacturing for Sustainable Environment (EnCon2010), Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. April 14-16, 2010.

      [23] R. E. M. Nasir, W. Kuntjoro, and W. Wisnoe, “Aerodynamic, Stability and Flying Quality Evaluation on a Small Blended Wing-body Aircraft with Canard Foreplanes,” Procedia Technol., vol. 15, pp. 783–791, Jan. 2014.

      [24] Z. M. Ali, W. Kuntjoro, and W. Wisnoe, “The Effect of Canard to the Aerodynamic Behavior of Blended Wing Body Aircraft,” Appl. Mech. Mater., vol. 225, no. 5, pp. 38–42, 2012.


 

View

Download

Article ID: 22416
 
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.25.22416




Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.