Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:56:04.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future challenges for powerplant aerodynamic integration in combat aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

M. G. Philpot
M. G. Philpot*
Affiliation:
Propulsion and Performance Department, DERA Centre for Aerospace Technology, Farnborough, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The operational requirements of modern combat aircraft demand complex engine intake and exhaust systems, capable of working efficiently over a very wide range of flight conditions and throttle settings. In addition to high aerodynamic efficiency and avoidance of high distortion levels at the engine face, these systems must also meet rigorous radar and infra-red signature targets. This paper discusses the implications from the aerodynamics point of view. Examples of technical approaches which seek to balance the sometimes conflicting requirements of aerodynamics and signatures are outlined. The potential offered by in-flight thrust vectoring to enhance flight performance and/or safety is also reviewed and the aerodynamic implications considered. Overall, propulsion integration for combat aircraft presents several challenges to the aerodynamicist, not least the development and validation of improved theoretical design methods capable of analysing the highly complex flows involved.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1048 , June 2001 , pp. 335 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2001 

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. Lockheed Martin Corporation. System and method for diverting boundary layer air, 14 July 1998, US patent No. 5779189.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, B.H. and Gibb, J. Application of computational fluid mechanics to the study of vortex flow control for the management of inlet distortion, 1992T, AIAA-92-3177.Google Scholar
3. Hercock, R.G. and Williams, D.D. Aerodynamic response, AGARD lecture series on distortion induced engine stability, November 1974, AGARD-LS-72.Google Scholar
4. Peace, A.J. Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody/nozzle geometries including base effects, J Propulsion and Power, May-June 1991, 7, (4).Google Scholar
5. Wood, A.C.R. Integration of combat aircraft exhaust nozzles, RAeS conference on engine/airframe integration, October 1992, Royal Aeronautical Society, London.Google Scholar
6. Hodder, S.D. and Simm, S.E. The impact of advanced engine technology on combat aircraft performance, AGARD symposium on advanced aero-engine concepts and control, September 1995, PEP86. Seattle.Google Scholar
7.IHPTET descriptive brochure, 1995.Google Scholar
8. Fedespiel, J., Bangert, L., Wing, D. and Hawkes, T. Fluidic control of nozzle flow - some performance measurements, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ ASEE joint propulsion conference, San Diego, July 1995, Paper 95-2605.Google Scholar
8. Pinker, R.A. and Strange, P.J.R. The noise benefits of forced mixing, A1AA/CEAS 4th aeroacoustics conference, June 1998, Toulouse.Google Scholar
9. Mishler, R. and Wilkinson, T. Emerging airframe/propulsion integration technologies at General Electric, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, July 1992, Nashville, Paper A1AA 92-3335.Google Scholar
11.IHPTET descriptive brochure, 1999.Google Scholar
12. Ikaza, D. Thrust vectoring nozzle for military aircraft engines, 7th European Propulsion Forum, March 1999, Pau, France.Google Scholar
13. Moorhouse, D. An overview of the STOL and manoeuvre technology demonstration program, 1994, AIAA-94-2106-CP.Google Scholar
14. Bursey, R. The F15 active aircraft - the next step, AGARD symposium on advanced aero-engine concepts and control, September 1995, PEP86, Seattle.Google Scholar
15. Small, L. and Bonnema, K. F16 MATV program lessons learned, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, Indianapolis, June 1994. Paper AIAA 94-3362.Google Scholar
16. Loria, C.J., et al. X31A Quasi-tail-less evaluation, IEEE aerospace applications conference, Aspen, Colorado, Feb 1996, and IEEE proceedings, 1996, 4, pp 253–276.Google Scholar