and Radespiel R., “ Drag Reduction by Laminar Flow Control,” Energies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2018, p. 252. and Ender T., “ Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation,” Report of the High Level Group on Aviation Research TR, Vol. 98, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2011, p. 28. H., “ Aeronautical Fuel Conservation Possibilities for Advanced Subsonic Transports,” NASA TM X-71927, 1973, p. 16. Reneaux J., “ Overview on Drag Reduction Technologies for Civil Transport Aircraft,” ECCOMAS 2004-European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2004, pp. 24–28. Suction is also observed to improve the drag bucket at off-design conditions. Optimum suction onset location is predicted to be at 30% of the chord. On the other hand, without limiting the suction onset (scenario 2), a thinner airfoil with longer NLF on the bottom surface and lower total drag is obtained. The total drag reduces by one-third due to the effects of suction. The optimized airfoil for scenario 3, with suction onset at midchord, results in a thicker airfoil with natural laminar flow (NLF) on the upper surface comparable to NLF airfoils. The airfoil is designed for short-range subsonic conditions for three design lift-coefficient scenarios: 1) 0.4, 2) in the range of 0.3–0.7, and 3) in the range of 0.3–0.7 with suction onset at midchord. Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II is used with the aerodynamic load computations from XFOILSUC and transition prediction from the improved Van Ingen e N method. The overall airfoil shape, the suction velocity distribution, and its location are optimized for minimum total drag while sustaining laminar flow over 80% of the airfoil top surface. The present work incorporates the effects of boundary-layer suction in designing airfoils for hybrid laminar flow control application.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |