Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T07:10:44.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DLR natural and hybrid transonic laminar wing design incorporating new methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

T. Streit ,
S. Wedler  and
M. Kruse
T. Streit*
Affiliation:
DLR, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Braunschweig, Germany
S. Wedler
Affiliation:
DLR, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Braunschweig, Germany
M. Kruse
Affiliation:
DLR, Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Braunschweig, Germany
*
th.streit@dlr.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present work natural laminar flow (NLF) and hybrid laminar flow (HLF) wing designs are presented which were obtained by combining new methodologies with experience and knowledge obtained with traditional laminar wing design methods. The NLF wing design is performed for wing-body configurations with backward swept wing (BSW) and forward swept wing (FSW). Initial aerofoil sections were obtained by using a new sectional conical wing method which allows the design of transonic wing sections, taking into account the effects of sweep and taper for the computational cost of a 2D method. Except for flow regions with strong 3D influence, wings constructed with these aerofoils showed an acceptably large region with laminar boundary layer and small shocks at design and specified off-design conditions. For regions close to the body and the tip a 3D inverse design method was further required. For the BSW case, due to cross flow a premature transition occurred. Therefore, a HLF panel was required to obtain a larger laminar region. A suction distribution was obtained using the suction distribution module of the automated target pressure generator (ATPG). This generator optimises the pressure distributions in terms of minimising drag while keeping certain boundary conditions constant, e.g. lift and momentum. Using the ATPG, the laminar extent of the BSW NLF design could be further improved for the inboard wing. With the new methodologies design work was reduced. They lead to a design with reserves that allow for acceptable off-design performance qualities by keeping the wing laminar over a wide range of flight conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1221 , November 2015 , pp. 1303 - 1326
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Seitz, A. and Horstmann, K.H.Design studies on NLF and HLFC applications at DLR, 27th International Congress on the Aeronautical Sciences, 19-24 September 2010, Nice, France.Google Scholar
2.Hansen, H.Laminar flow technology – the Airbus view, 27th International Congress on the Aeronautical Sciences, 19-24 September 2010, Nice, France.Google Scholar
3.Wong, P.W.C., Maina, M., Nayyar, P., Streit, T., Liersch C.M., , Salah El, Din I. and Arnal, D.Numerical analysis of natural laminar flow on forward swept wings, 45th 3AF Symposium on Applied Aerodynamics, 22-24 March 2010, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
4.Cella, U., Quagliarella, D., Donelli, R. and Imperatore, B.Design and test of the UW5006 Transonic Natural Laminar Flow Wing, J Aircr, 2010, 47, (3), pp 783–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kruse, M., Wunderlich, T. and Heinrich, R.A conceptual study of a transport NLF aircraft with forward swept wings, AIAA Paper 2012-3208, 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 25-28 June 2012, New Orleans/LA, USA.Google Scholar
6.Frfr von Geyr, J.>, Knoblauch zu Hatzbach, F., Seitz, A., Streit, Th And Wichmann, G.Wing design based on a tapered wing natural laminar flow aerofoil catalog, In: New results in numerical and experimental fluid mechanics IX, Contributions to the 18th STAB/DGLR Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany, 2012, Series: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, 2014, 124, pp. 183–191.Google Scholar
7.Crouch, J.D., Sutano, M.I., Witkowski, D.P., Watkins, A.N., Rivers, M.B. and Campbell, R.L.Assessment of the National Transonic Facility for Laminar Flow Testing, AIAA Paper 2010-1302, 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4-7 January 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
8.Streit, T., Horstmann, K.H., Schrauf, G., Hein, S., Fey, U., Egami, Y.>, Perraud, J., Salah El Din, I., Cella, U. and Quest, J.Complementary numerical and experimental data analysis of the ETW Telfona Pathfnder Wing transition tests, AIAA Paper 2011-0881, 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 4-7 January 2011, Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
9.http://www.cleansky.eu/content/page/sfwa-smart-fixed-wing-aircraft Clean Sky SFWA (Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft), 2012.Google Scholar
10.Redecker, G. and Wichmann, G.Forward sweep – a favourable concept for laminar flow, J Aircr, 1991, 28, (2), pp 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Streit, T., Wichmann, G., Campbell, R.L. and von Knoblauch zu Hatzbach, F.Implications of conical fow for laminar wing design and analysis, AIAA Paper 2011-3808, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 27-30 June 2011, Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
12. FLOWer Installation and User Manual, Release 2007, Doc-Nr Flower1-2007.1, Institut Für Aerodynamik Und Strömungstechnik, DLR.Google Scholar
13.Bartelheimer, W.An inverse method for the design of transonic aerofoils and wings, Inverse Probl Eng, 1996, 4, (1), pp 21–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Kroll, N., Radespiel, R. and Rossow, C.C. Accurate and effcient flow solvers for 3D applications on structured meshes, 1995, AGARD R-807, 4.1-4-59.Google Scholar
15.Kroll, N. and Fassbender, J.K. MEGAFLOW – Numerical flow simulation for aircraft design, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design (NNFM)89, Springer Verlag Closing Presentation DLR Project MEGAFLOW Braunschweig (de), 10-11.1.2002, ISBN 3 540-24383-6.Google Scholar
16.Wichmann, G.Untersuchung zur Flügel-Rumpf-Interferenz durch Anwendung eines Eulerverfahrens für kompressible Strömung, 1993, Dissertation, Institut für Strömungstechnik, Technische Universität Braunschweig, ZLR-Forschungsbericht 93-06.Google Scholar
17.Streit, Th., Wichmann, G. and Rohardt, C.-H.Nachrechnung Und Entwurf Von Transsonischen Tragfügeln Für Die Do-728/Do-928, 1999, Technical Report, DLR Ib 129-99/13, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
18.Lock, R.C. An Equivalence law relating three- and two-dimensional pressure distribution, RAE R&M 3346, 1962.Google Scholar
19.Risse, K.SchuelTKe, F., Stumpf, E. and Schrauf, G.A conceptual wing design methodology for aircraft with hybrid laminar control, 2014, AIAA Paper 2014-0023, 52nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meetings, National Harbor, MD, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Schrauf, G.LILO 2.1 – User’s guide and tutorial, 2006, Bericht, Technical Report, GSSC 6, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
21.Kaups, K. and Cebeci, T.Compressible laminar boundary layers on swept tapered wings, J Aircr, July 1977, 14, (7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Kreuzer, P.MEGADRAG Installations und Benutzerhandbuch (für FLOWer 114), 1999, BMBF Projekt Widerstandanalyse, Technische Universität Darmstadt.Google Scholar
23.Campbell, R.L., Campbell, M.L. and Streit, Th.Progress toward effcient laminar flow analysis and design, AIAA Paper 2011-3527, 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 27-30 June 2011, Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
24.Campbell, R.L.An approach to constrained aerodynamic design with application to aerofoils, 1992, Technical Report, NASA TP 3260, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
25.Obayashi, S. and Takanashi, S.Genetic optimization of target pressure distributions for inverse design methods, AIAA J, 1996, 34, (5), pp 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Horstmann, K.H. and Schröder, W.A simplified suction system for a HLFC L/E box of an A320 fin, 2001, Technical Report, DLR ALTTA TR 23, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
27.Rowan, T.H.Functional Stability Analysis of Numerical Algorithms, 1990, Dissertation, University of Texas of Austin, Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
28.Brezillon, J. and Abu-Zurayk, M.Aerodynamic inverse design framework using discrete adjoint, In: New results in numerical and experimental fluid mechanics VIII, Contributions to the 17th STAB/DGLR Symposium, Berlin, Germany 2010, Series: Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, 2013, 121, pp 489–496.Google Scholar
29.Inger, G.R.Application of Oswatitsch’s Theorem to supercritical aerofoil drag calculation, J Aircr, 1993, 30, (3), pp 415–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Oswatitsch, K.Der Verdichtungsstoß bei der stationären Umströmung facher Profile, Z. angew. Math Mech, 1949, 29, (5), pp 129–141.Google Scholar
31.Squire, H.B. and Young, A.D.The calculation of the profile drag of aerofoils, 1937, Technical Report, Aeron Res Com R&M 1838, London, UK.Google Scholar
32.Lock, R.C. Prediction of the drag of wings at subsonic speeds by viscous/inviscid interaction techniques, 1986, AGARD-R-723.Google Scholar
33.Schlichting, H. and Gersten, K.Boundary Layer Theory, 2000, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Moran, J.An Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Aerodynamics, 1984, Dover Publications Incorporated.Google Scholar
35.Head, M.R.Entrainment in the turbulent boundary layer, 1960, Technical Report, Aeron Res Council R&M 3152, London, UK.Google Scholar
36.Cebici, T. and Bradshaw, P.Momentum Transfer in Turbulent Boundary Layers, 1977, Hemisphere Publishing.Google Scholar
37.Ludwieg, H. and Tillmann, W.Untersuchungen über die Wandschubspannung in turbulenten Reibungsschichten, Ing Arch, 1949, 17, (4), pp 288–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Seitz, A. and Rohardt, C.-H.Feasibility study on the design of a natural laminar flow wing and a hybrid laminar fow control wing, 1991, Technical Report, Dlr Ib 129-91/29, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
39.Arnal, D., Habiballah, M. and Coustols, E.Laminar instability theory and transition criteria in two and three-dimensional flow, Rech Aerosp, 1984, (2), pp 45–63.Google Scholar
40.Granville, P.S.The calculation of the viscous drag of bodies of revolution, 1953, Technical Report, Dept of the Navy, David Taylor Model Basin, Report 849, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
41.Arnal, D. and Archambaud, J.-P.Practical Transition prediction methods: subsonic and transonic flows, 2008, AVT-151 RTO AVT/VKI Lecture Series – Advances in Laminar-Turbulent Transition Modelling, 9-12 June 2008, Rhode St Genèse, Belgium.Google Scholar
42.Beasley, J.A.Calculation of the laminar boundary layer and prediction of transition on a sheared wing, 1976, Technical Report, Aeron Res Council R&M 3787, London, UK.Google Scholar
43.Mayle, R.E. and Dullenkopf, K.More on the turbulent-strip theory for wake-induced transition, J Turbomach, 1991, 113, (3), pp 428–433.Google Scholar
44.Schrauf, G.Large-scale laminar flow tests evaluated with linear stability theory, J Aircr, 2004, 41, (2), pp 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar