Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T08:28:53.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

One CFD calculation to end point flight testing: (Has CFD finally replaced the wind tunnel?)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

A. Cenko
A. Cenko*
Affiliation:
Naval Air System Command, Patuxent River, MD, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Any time a new aircraft is introduced into service, or an old aircraft undergoes substantial modifications or needs to be certified to carry and employ new stores, the store separation engineer is faced with a decision about how much effort will be required to provide an airworthiness certification for the aircraft and stores. Generally, there are three approaches that have been used: wind-tunnel testing, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses and flight testing. During the past twenty years there have been considerable advances in all three areas. In particular, there has been a considerable improvement in the speed and validity of CFD results for store separation. The Holy Grail of CFD has long been the reduction/replacement of wind-tunnel testing. This would mean in store separation the ability to go from a CFD calculation to flight testing at the end point. The paper will describe how this was achieved for the F/A-18C/Litening pod program.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 110 , Issue 1109 , July 2006 , pp. 439 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2006 

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. Cenko, A., Tinoco, E.N., Dyer, R.D. and Dejongh, J., PAN AIR applications to weapons carriage and separation, J Aircr, February 1981, 18, pp 129–134.Google Scholar
2. Madson, M. ET AL. TranAir computations of the flow about a generic wing/pylon/finned-store configuration, January 1994, AIAA paper 94-0155.Google Scholar
3. Newman, J.C. and Baysal, O., Transonic solutions of a wing/pylon/finned store using hybrid domain decomposition, August 1992, AIAA paper 92-4571.Google Scholar
4. Madson, M. and Talbot, M., F-16/generic store carriage load predictions at transonic Mach numbers using TranAir, June, 1996, AIAA-96-2454.Google Scholar
5. Cenko, A. and Lutton, M., ACFD Applications to store separation — status report, Aeronaut J, October 2000, 104, (1040), pp 459–466.Google Scholar
6. Cenko, A., Niewoehner, R. and Ryckebusch, C., Evaluation of the capabilities of CFD to predict store trajectories from attack aircraft, September 2002, ICAS paper 2.6.1.Google Scholar
7. Noak, R., and Jolly, B., Fully time accurate CFD simulations of JDAM separation from an F-18C aircraft, January 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-0794.Google Scholar
8. Noack, R.W, Rizk, M., Ellison, S. and Jolly, B., Beggar — a store separation predictive tool, June 2002, AIAA Paper 2002-3190.Google Scholar
9. Cenko, A.T., Utilizing flight test telemetry data to improve store trajectory simulations, June 2003, AIAA Paper 2003-4225.Google Scholar
10. Stathopoulos, N., MK-84 store separation characteristics comparison between Litening and Nighthawk Pods, July 2004, BAES Report MAU-261-239.Google Scholar
11. Cenko, A. ET AL Integrated T&E approach to store separation — dim past, exciting future, September 1996, ICAS Paper 96-3.3.2.Google Scholar
12. Carron, T.J., Advanced targeting forward looking infrared (ATFLIR) Phases I and II adjacent stores separation testing on F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft, October 2003, NAVAIR Report #NAWCADPAX/RTR-2000/125.Google Scholar
13. Davids, S. and Cenko, A., Grid based approach to store separation, June 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-2418.Google Scholar
14. Hudson, M., External fuel tank trade study, 10 December 2003, Presentation to the Mission Systems Technical Management Board.Google Scholar
15. Leugers, J. ET AL Flight test demonstration of miniature munitions release from internal weapon bay — final test report, January 2000, AFRL-MN-EG-TR-2002-7011.Google Scholar
16. Cenko, A., Chen, D. and Turzanski, R., Influence function method applications to cavity flowfield predictions, J Aircr, August 1989, 26, (8).Google Scholar
17. Morton, S.A. and Cummings, R.M., Computing unsteady loads of fighter aircraft at high angles of attack and in maneuvering flight, 2005, RTO AVT-123 Symposium on Flow Induced Unsteady Loads and The Impact on Military Applications, April 2005.Google Scholar