Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T01:46:42.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic and performance characteristics of a passive leading edge Kruger flap at low Reynolds numbers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

V. M. Moraris ,
N. J. Lawson  and
K. P. Garry
V. M. Moraris
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
N. J. Lawson*
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
K. P. Garry
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experimental and numerical study was performed on a Clark Y aerofoil with a 10% chord leading edge Kruger flap to examine its aerodynamic performance at Reynolds numbers of 0·6 × 106, 1 × 106, and 1·6 × 106, to help to identify the forces and moments acting on a basic configuration. A detailed comparison of the numerical and experimental data is presented in this paper. The leading edge flap was effective at high angles of attack with an increase in CL of up to 18% over a conventional no flap configuration and delayed separation by up to 3°. The moments around the Kruger flap rotation point were calculated from the numerical analysis as an initial stage in the design of a UAV passive flap system and they are also presented in the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1181 , July 2012 , pp. 757 - 767
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

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. Kruger, W. Systematic wind tunnel measurements on a laminar aerofoil with nose flap. M.A.P Volkenrode Ref: MAP-VG 123-224T, 1946.Google Scholar
2. Jones, A.R., Bakhtian, N. and Babinsky, H. Low Reynolds number aerodynamics of leading edge flaps, J Aircraft, 2008, 45, (1), pp 342–345 Google Scholar
3. Kruger, W. The nose flap as a means for increasing the maximum lift of high-speed aeroplanes, 1946, M.A.P Volkenrode Ref: MAP-VG 87-25T.Google Scholar
4. Kruger, W. Systematic wind-tunnel measurements on a laminar wing with nose flap, 1947, NACA-TM-1119.Google Scholar
5. Fullmer Felicien, F. Two-dimensional wind-tunnel investigation of the NACA 641-012 airfoil equipped with two types of leading-edge flap, 1947, NACA-TN-1277.Google Scholar
6. Fullmer Felicien, F. Two-dimensional wind-tunnel investigation of an NACA 64-009 airfoil equipped with two types of leading-edge flap, 1947, NACA-TN-1624.Google Scholar
7. Williams, A.L. A new and less complex alternative to the Handley Page slat, J Aircraft, 1986, 23, (3), pp 200–206.Google Scholar
8. Alexander, N. and Shepshelovich, M. Development of high-lift UAV wings, 2006, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 5-8 June 2006, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
9. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modelling for CFD, Second Edition, 1998, DWC Industries, La. Canada, CA, USA.Google Scholar
10. Spalart, P.R. Trends in turbulence treatments, AIAA Paper 2000-2306, June 2000.Google Scholar
11. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity models for engineering applications, AAIA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
12. SPALART, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R. A One-equation turbulence transport model for aerodynamic flows, 1992, AIAA-92-0439, 30th Aerospace Science Meeting & Exhibition, 6-9 January 1992, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
13. Wilcox, D.C. Multiscale model for turbulent flows, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1311–1320.Google Scholar
14. Menter, F.R. Influence of freestream values on k -ω turbulence model predictions, AIAA J, 1992, 30, (6), pp 1657–1659.Google Scholar
15. Catalano, P. and Amato, M. An evaluation of RANS turbulence modelling for aerodynamic applications, Aero Sci and Tech, 2003, 7, (7), pp 493–566.Google Scholar
16. Cebeci, T. Analysis of Turbulent Flows, Second revised and expanded edition, 2004.Google Scholar
17. Spalart, P.R. Trends in turbulence treatments, June 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-2306.Google Scholar
18. Roache, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, 1998, Hermosa.Google Scholar
19. Versteeg, H.K. and Malalasekera, W. An Introduction To Computational Fluid Dynamics, The Finite Volume Method, 1995, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
20. Silverstein, A. Scale effect on Clark Y airfoil characteristics from NACA full scale wind-tunnel tests, 1935, NACA report 502.Google Scholar
21. Shelton, A., Abras, J., Jurenko, R. and Smith, M. Improving the CFD predictions of airfoils in stall, 2005, AIAA-2005-1227, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition, 10-13 January 2005, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
22. Weick, F.E. and Shortal, J.A. The effect of multiple fixed slots and trailing edge flap on the lift and drag of a Clark Y airfoil, 1933, NACA report no 427.Google Scholar
23. Render, P.M. Aerofoil measurements at low Reynolds numbers, 1985, Cranfield University Report No 8508.Google Scholar
24. Pelletier, A. and Mueller, T.J. Effect of endplates on two-dimensional airfoil testing at low Reynolds numbers, J Aircr, 2001, 38, (6), pp 1056–1059.Google Scholar