MBagg AAE415

MBagg AAE415 - Wing Strake Wing Strake Matthew Bagg AAE 415...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Wing Strake Wing Strake Matthew Bagg AAE 415 Overview Overview Introduction Purpose Procedure Results Conclusions Introduction Introduction What are They How Strakes Work Create Vortex Delays Separation Past Research Supersonic Flight High Angle of Attack Control Surface Purpose Purpose Reduce the wing area by adding a strake to the wing Reduce total lifting area Maintain total lifting area Use a base wing and four different Wing­ Strake combinations Procedure: Wing Geometry Procedure: Wing Geometry Base Wing modeled after F­16 wing Kept Aspect Ratio and Leading Edge Sweep the same Area (ft^2) Span (ft) Aspect Ratio Root Chord (ft) Tip Chord (ft) LE Sweep Base Wing 300 30 3.2 15 5 33.69006753 Wing 1 250 28.28427125 3.2 13.25825215 4.419417382 32.00538321 Wing 2 200 25.29822128 3.2 11.85854123 3.952847075 32.00538321 Wing 3 150 21.9089023 3.2 10.26979795 3.423265984 32.00538321 Wing 4 100 17.88854382 3.2 8.385254916 2.795084972 32.00538321 Strake 1 20 4.472135955 1 19.40179842 13.25825215 70 Strake 2 30 5.477225575 1 19.38281802 11.85854123 70 Strake 3 40 6.32455532 1 18.95808442 10.26979795 70 Strake 4 50 7.071067812 1 18.09905449 8.385254916 70 Procedure: Gambit Procedure: Gambit Important Airfoil Coordinates Create Wing Create Volume around wing Mesh the inside of the volume Export to Fluent Procedure: Fluent Procedure: Fluent Setup Solver Input 3D double precision Segregated Implicit solver Spalart­Allmaras Viscous Model Convergence Tolerance 1e­8 Total Velocity 100 ft/sec Velocity Components Take Lift and Drag Data Results: Lift vs. Alpha Results: Lift vs. Alpha Lift Vs Alpha 3000 2500 Lift (lbf) 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Alpha Base Wing WS 1 WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 14 16 Results: Lift vs. Drag Results: Lift vs. Drag Drag vs Lift 400 350 Drag (lbf) 300 250 200 150 100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Lift (lbf) Base Wing WS 1 WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 3000 Results Results Wing­Strake 1 Higher Lift curve slope Higher stall angle Lower Drag Conclusions Conclusions Wing­Strake 1 30 ft2 Area Reduction Increase performance Postponed Stall Higher Resolution Closing Closing Introduction Purpose Procedure Results Conclusions Procedure: Wing Geometry Procedure: Wing Geometry Base Wing modeled after F­16 wing Kept Aspect Ratio and Leading Edge Sweep the same Area (ft^2) Span (ft) Aspect Ratio Root Chord (ft) Tip Chord (ft) LE Sweep (degree) Base Wing 300 30 3.2 15 5 33.69006753 Wing 1 280 29.93325909 3.2 14.0312152 4.677071733 32.00538321 Wing 2 270 29.39387691 3.2 13.7783798 4.592793268 32.00538321 Wing 3 260 28.8444102 3.2 13.52081728 4.506939094 32.00538321 Wing 4 250 28.28427125 3.2 13.25825215 4.419417382 32.00538321 Strake 1 20 4.472135955 1 20.17476148 14.0312152 70 Strake 2 30 5.477225575 1 21.3026566 13.7783798 70 Strake 3 40 6.32455532 1 22.20910375 13.52081728 70 Strake 4 50 7.071067812 1 22.97205172 13.25825215 70 Results: Lift vs Alpha Results: Lift vs Alpha Lift Vs Alpha 2900 2700 2500 Lift (lbf) 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Alpha Base Wing WS 1 WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 14 16 Results: Drag vs Lift Results: Drag vs Lift Drag Vs Lift 360 350 340 330 Drag (lbf) 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Lift (lbf) Base Wing WS 1 WS 2 WS 3 WS 4 2800 3000 Problems Problems Similar Lift curve slopes Reduced Drag Wing­Strake combinations stall at same point as Base Wing with less lift Try reducing total lifting area instead of just wing area ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online