Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:51:23.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systems and certification issues for civil transport aircraft flow control systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. C. Liddle ,
M. Jabbal  and
W. J. Crowther
S. C. Liddle
Affiliation:
stephen.liddle@manchester.ac.uk
M. Jabbal
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
W. J. Crowther
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of flow control (FC) technology on civil transport aircraft is seen as a potential means of providing a step change in aerodynamic performance in the 2020 time frame. There has been extensive research into the flow physics associated with FC. This paper focuses on developing an understanding of the costs and design drivers associated with the systems needed and certification. The research method adopted is based on three research strands:

1. Study of the historical development of other disruptive technologies for civil transport aircraft,

2. Analysis of the impact of legal and commercial requirements, and

3. Technological foresight based on technology trends for aircraft currently under development.

Fly by wire and composite materials are identified as two historical examples of successful implementation of disruptive new technology. Both took decades to develop, and were initially developed for military markets. The most widely studied technology similar to FC is identified as laminar flow control. Despite more than six decades of research and arguably successful operational demonstration in the 1990s this has not been successfully transitioned to commercial products. Significant future challenges are identified in cost effective provision of the additional systems required for environmental protection and in service monitoring of FC systems particularly where multiple distributed actuators are envisaged. FC generated noise is also seen as a significant challenge. Additional complexity introduced by FC systems must also be balanced by the commercial imperative of dispatch reliability, which may impose more stringent constraints than legal (certification) requirements. It is proposed that a key driver for future successful application of FC is the likely availability of significant electrical power generation on 787 aircraft forwards. This increases the competitiveness of electrically driven FC systems compared with those using engine bleed air. At the current rate of progress it is unlikely FC will make a contribution to the next generation of single-aisle aircraft due to enter service in 2015. In the longer term, there needs to be significant movement across a broad range of systems technologies before the aerodynamic benefits of FC can be exploited.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 113 , Issue 1147 , September 2009 , pp. 575 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2009 

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. Bushnell, D., Application frontiers of ‘designer fluid mechanics’ — Visions versus reality or an attempt to answer the perennial question ‘why isn’t it used’?, 1997, AIAA-1997-2110, 28th Fluid Dynamics Conference, 29 June-2 July 1997, Snowmass Village, CO.Google Scholar
2. Arguelles, P., Bischoff, M., Busquin, P., Droste, B.A.C., Evans, R., Kroll, W., Largardere, J-L., Lina, A., Lumsden, J., Ranque, D., Rasmussen, S., Reutlinger, P., Robins, R., Terho, H. and Wittlov, A. European Aeronautics: A vision for 2020, January 2001, EU report.Google Scholar
3. Peeters, P.M., Middle, J. and Hoolhorst, A., Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: an overview of historical and future trends, 2005, NLR-CR-2005-669.Google Scholar
4. Green, J.E., Civil aviation and the environment — the next frontier for the aerodynamicist, Aeronaut J, August 2006, 110, (1110), pp 469–486.Google Scholar
5. Soderman, P.T., Kafyeke, F., Boudreau, J., Burnside, N.J, Jaeger, S.M. and Chandrasekharan, R., Airframe noise study of a Bombardier CRJ-700 aircraft model in the NASA Ames 7-10 foot wind tunnel, Aeroacoustics, 2004, 3, pp 1–42.Google Scholar
6. ANON. Certification Specifications for large aeroplanes, October 2006, EASA CS-25, EASA.Google Scholar
7. Joslin, R.D., Aircraft laminar flow control, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1998, 30, pp 1–29.Google Scholar
8. Rudolph, P.K.C., High-lift systems on commercial subsonic civil transport aircraft, September 1996, NASA CR 4746.Google Scholar
9. Green, J.E., (ED). Air Travel — Greener by Design, mitigating the environmental impact of aviation: opportunities and priorities, July 2005, Royal Aeronautical Society report.Google Scholar
10. McLean, J.D., Crouch, J.D., Stoner, R.C., Sakurai, S., Seidel, G.E., Feifel, W.M. and Rush, H.M., Study of the application of separation control by unsteady excitation to civil transport aircraft, June 1999, NASA CR-1999-209338.Google Scholar
11. ANON (McDonnell Douglas Corporation). Evaluation of laminar flow control system concepts for subsonic commercial transport aircraft, 1983, NASA-CR-159251 final report.Google Scholar
12. Renaux, J., Overview on drag reduction technologies for civil transport aircraft, 2004, European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, 24-28 July 2004, Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
13. Wallis, R.A., Wind tunnel studies of leading edge separation phenomena on a quarter scale model of the outer panel of the Handley Page Victor wing, with and without nose droop, January 1965, ARC R&M 3455.Google Scholar
14. Butler, S.F.J. Low-speed wind-tunnel tests on a sweptback wing model (Buccaneer Mark I) with blowing at the wing leading edge and blowing over the flaps and drooped ailerons, 1971, ARC R&M 3655.Google Scholar
15. Crook, A. and Wood, N.J., Measurements and visualisations of synthetic jets, 2001, 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 8-11 January 2001, Reno, Nevada, AIAA 2001-0145.Google Scholar
16. Glezer, A. and Amitay, M., Synthetic jets, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2002, 34, pp 503–529.Google Scholar
17. Bridges, A. and Smith, D.R., Influence of orifice orientation on a synthetic-jet boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 2003, 41, pp 2394–2402.Google Scholar
18. Rusovici, R. and Lesieutre, G.A., Design of a single-crystal piezoce-ramic-driven synthetic-jet actuator, 2004, Proceedings of the SPIE — Smart Structures and Materials, 5390, pp 276–283.Google Scholar
19. Dearing, S., Lambert, S. and Morrison, J., Flow control with active dimples, 2006, Active methods in aerospace applications seminar, IMechE, BAWA, Filton, 25 October 2006.Google Scholar
20. Engert, M. and Nitsche, W., Active cancellation of tollmien schlichting instabilities up to M = 0 40, 2008, ICAS paper 2008-3.10.2, 26th ICAS conference, Anchoridge, Alaska, 14-19 September 2008.Google Scholar
21. Moreau, E., Airflow control by non-thermal plasma actuators, J Physics. D, Applied Physics, 40, (3), 2007, pp 605–636.Google Scholar
22. Gomes, L.D., Crowther, W. and Wood, N.J., Towards a practical piezoceramic diaphragm based synthetic jet actuator for high subsonic applications — effect of chamber and orifice depth on effectiveness and efficiency, 2006, IUTAM Symposium on Flow Control and MEMS, London.Google Scholar
23. Liddle, S.C., The Use of Synthetic Jet Actuators to Enhance Deflected Surface Controls, 2007, PhD thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
24. Yahathugoda, I., Crowther, W.J., Dupere, I. and Liddle, S.C., Application of synthetic jet actuators for undercarriage noise reduction, 2008, 14th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, 5-7 May 2008, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
25. Ballal, D.R. and Zelina, J., Progress in aeroengine technology (1939-2002), J Aircr, January-February 2004, 41, (1).Google Scholar
26. Kingsley-Jones, M., Tomorrow can wait as Airbus and Boeing leave next generation narrowbody development on the back burner, Flight Int, 9 July 2008, www.flightglobal.com Google Scholar
27. Sutcliffe, P.L., The Boeing 7J7 advanced technology airplane, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, February 1987.Google Scholar
28. Sloof, J.W., Subsonic transport aircraft — New challenges and opportunities for aerodynamic research, 2002, 36th Lanchester lecture, Royal Aeronautical Society, NLR-TP-2002-376.Google Scholar
29. Rea, J., Boeing 777 high lift control system, IEEE AES Systems Magazine, August 1993.Google Scholar
30. Joslin, R.D., Overview of laminar flow control, October 1998, NASA/TP-1998-208705.Google Scholar
31. Wagner, R.D., Maddalon, D.V. and Fisher, D.F., Laminar flow control leading edge systems in simulated airline service, 1988, Proceedings 16th ICAS congress, 28 August-2 September 1988, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
32. Lockheed-Georgia Co, Marietta. Evaluation of laminar flow control system concepts for subsonic commercial transport aircraft, September 1980, Summary Report Lockheed No. LG80ER0149; NASA CR-159254.Google Scholar
33. Crowther, W.J., Control of separation on a trailing edge flap using air jet vortex generators, J Aircr, 2006, 43, (5), pp 1589–1592.Google Scholar
34. ANON, Delta Air Lines. Boeing 727-232, N473DA, 31 August 1988, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, September 1989, NTSB report NTSB/AAR-89/04.Google Scholar
35. Geoghegan, P.P., Crowther, W.J. and Wood, N.J., Measurement of boundary layer velocity profiles by ultrasonic tomography for the prediction of flow separation, June 2006, AIAA 2006-2805, 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, 5-8 June 2006, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
36. Bar-Cohen, Y, Xue, T., Joffe, B., Lih, S.-S, Shahinpoor, M., Simpson, J., Smith, J. and Willis, P., Electroactive polymers (EAP) low mass muscle actuators, 1997, SPIE International Conference, Smart Structures and Materials Symposium, Enabling Technologies: Smart Structures and Integrated Systems, 3-6 March 1997, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
37. Green, J.E. 2003 Greener by design, 2003, Proceedings AAC-Conference, 30 June-3 July 2003, Friedrichshafen, Germany, pp 334–342.Google Scholar
38. Magill, J.C. and McManus, K.R., Exploring the feasibility of pulsed jet separation control for aircraft configurations, J Aircraft, 2001, 38, pp 48–56.Google Scholar
39. ANON. (Boeing commercial airplanes), Boeing commercial airplanes communication 206-766-2949, April 2007.Google Scholar
40. Bineid, M. and Fielding, J.P., Development of a civil aircraft dispatch reliability prediction methodology, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2003, 75, (6), pp 588–594.Google Scholar
41. Moir, I. and Seabridge, A., Aircraft Systems, 2008, Third edition, J Wiley.Google Scholar
42. Van Dam, C.P., The aerodynamic design of multi-element high-lift systems for transport aeroplanes, Prog in Aerospace Sci, 2002, 38, pp 101–144.Google Scholar
43. Barrie, D., Norris, G. and Wall, R., Open rotor poses maturity dilemma for next-gen narrow body, Av Week and Space Tech, 22 October 2007.Google Scholar
44. Norris, G. and Wall, R., Boeing goes back to drawing board for 737 follow on, Av Week and Space Tech, 19 May 2008.Google Scholar