Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T14:07:55.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robustness of the subsonic doublet lattice method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

L. H. van Zyl
L. H. van Zyl*
Affiliation:
Defence Aeronautics Programme, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The subsonic doublet lattice method (DLM) has been the industry standard method for the calculation of unsteady air loads for the past three decades. A recent comparison between the DLM and the subsonic constant pressure panel code ZONA6 suggested that the DLM lacked robustness. However, the DLM code used in the comparison was flawed and not representative of the DLM as such. Results from a contemporary DLM code are presented for the same test cases that were used in the misleading comparison. These new results show that the DLM can produce valid results for all the test cases considered. Where feasible, a comparison is made between results from the present DLM code and the published ZONA6 results.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 107 , Issue 1071 , May 2003 , pp. 257 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2003 

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. Albano, E. and Rodden, W.P., A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic flows, AIAA J, 1969, 7, (2), pp 279–285.Google Scholar
2. Rodden, W.P., Giesing, J.P. and Kalman, T.P., New developments and applications of the subsonic doublet-lattice method for nonplanar configurations, AGARD Conference Proceedings, CP-80-71, Part II, No 4, 1971.Google Scholar
3. Rodden, W.P., Taylor, P.F. and Mcintosh, S.C., Further refinement of the nonplanar aspects of the subsonic doublet-lattice lifting surface method, ICAS Conference Proceedings, Paper 96-2.8.2, 1996.Google Scholar
4. Rodden, W.P., Taylor, P.F., Mcintosh, S.C. and Baker, M.L., Further convergence studies of the enhanced subsonic doublet-lattice oscillatory lifting surface method, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Rome, June 1997.Google Scholar
5. Rodden, W.P., The development of the doublet-lattice method, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Rome, June 1997.Google Scholar
6. Liu, D.D., Chen, P.C., Yao, Z.X. and Sarhaddi, D., Recent advances in lifting surface methods, Aeronaut J, October 1996, 100, (998), pp 327–339.Google Scholar
7. Chen, P.C., Lee, H.W. and Liu, D.D., Unsteady subsonic aerodynamics for bodies and wings with external stores including wake effect, J Aircr, 1993, 30, (5), pp 618–628.Google Scholar
8. Van Zyl, L.H., Convergence of the subsonic doublet lattice method, J Aircr, 1998, 35, (6), pp 977–979.Google Scholar
9. Theodorsen, T., General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter, NACA Report No 496, 1935.Google Scholar
10. Miles, J.W. Potential Theory of Unsteady Supersonic Flow, Cambridge University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
11. Van Zyl, L.H., Application of the subsonic doublet lattice method to delta wings, J Aircr, 1998, 36, (3), pp 609–610.Google Scholar
12. Woodward, F.A., An improved method for the aerodynamic analysis of wing-body-tail configurations in subsonic and supersonic flow, NASA CR-2228, 1973.Google Scholar