Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:30:02.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of stores on the flow inside UCAV weapon bays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

S. J. Lawson  and
G. N. Barakos
S. J. Lawson
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
G. N. Barakos*
Affiliation:
CFD Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Detached-eddy simulations for the 1303 UCAV geometry are undertaken aiming to investigate the flow physics of the interaction of a store with the flow inside a UCAV weapons bay. Advanced multi-block topologies had to be used to properly represent the planform of the UCAV and all the details of the weapon bay, including doors and hinges, while sliding meshes were needed to insert the store into the UCAV configuration. Results with an empty bay were encouraging for such complex configurations. Flow visualisation revealed the added turbulent content due to the door leading edges and hinges. The addition of a store in between the doors had little effect close to the front wall of the bay. However averaged flow-fields showed that the proximity of the shear layer to the apex of the store deflected it downwards into the bay and restricted its growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1176 , February 2012 , pp. 199 - 215
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. Roshko, A. Some measurements of flow in a rectangular cut-out, August 1955, Technical report, NACA Technical Report 3488, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
2. Krishnamurty, K. Acoustic radiation from two-dimensional rectangular cutouts in aerodynamic surfaces,, August 1955, Technical Report Technical Note 3487, National Advisor Committee For Aeronautics.Google Scholar
3. Rossiter, J.E. Wind tunnel experiments on the flow over rectangular cavities at subsonic and transonic speeds, October 1964, Technical Report 64037, Royal Aircraft Establishment.Google Scholar
4. Larchevêque, L., Sagaut, P., Lê, T.-H and Comte, P. Large-eddy simulation of a compressible flow in a three-dimensional open cavity at high Reynolds number, J Fluid Mechanics, 2004, 516, pp 265–301.Google Scholar
5. Nayyar, P., Barakos, G.N. and Badcock, K.J. Numerical study of transonic cavity flows using large-eddy and detached-eddy simulation, Aeronaut J, 2007, 111, (1117), pp 153–164.Google Scholar
6. Barakos, G.N., Lawson, S.J., Steijl, R. and Nayyar, P. Numerical simulations of high-speed turbulent cavity flows, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, December 2009, 83, (4), pp 569–585, doi:10.1007/s10494-009-9207-1.Google Scholar
7. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Assessment of passive flow control devices for transonic cavity flows using detached-eddy simulation, J Aircr, May-June 2009, 46, (3), pp 1009–1029, doi:10.2514/1.39894.Google Scholar
8. Wong, M.D., McKenzie, G.J., Ol, M.V., Petterson, K. and Zhang, S. Joint TTCP CFD studies into the 1303 UCAV performance: First year results, 2006, AIAA-2006- 2984, 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamic Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5-8 June 2006.Google Scholar
9. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. DES for UCAV weapon bay flow, 2009, Third Symposium on Hybrid RANS-LES Methods, 10-12 June 2009, Gdansk, Poland.Google Scholar
10. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Evaluation of DES for flows around UCAVs, 2009, Paper 3572, CEAS 2009 European Air and Space Conference, 26-29 October 2009, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
11. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Evaluation of DES for weapons bays in UCAVs, 2010, AIAA-2010-1425, 48th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 4-7 January 2010, Orlando, FL, USA.Google Scholar
12. Lawson, S.J. and Barakos, G.N. Evaluation of DES for weapons bays in UCAVs, Aerospace Sci and Tech, 2010, (article in press), doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2010.04.006.Google Scholar
13. Hill, A.C. and Lawson, S.G. Tests conducted in the ARA 2·74m × 2·44m transonic wind tunnel on the release of a generic MK82/GBU-30 JDAM store model from a generic UCAV model using the ARA two sting rig, November, 2004, Technical Report, ARA.Google Scholar
14. Bruce, R.J. and Mundell, A.R.G. Low speed wind tunnel tests on the 1303 UCAV concept, March 2003, Technical Report QINETIQ/FST/TR025502/1.0, QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK.Google Scholar
15. Bruce, R.J. High speed wind tunnel tests on the 1303 UCAV concept, June 2003, Technical Report QINETIQ/FST/TR030214/1.0, QinetiQ, Farnborough, UK.Google Scholar
16. Nightingale, D.A., Ross, J.A. and Foster, G.W. Cavity unsteady pressure measurements — Examples from windtunnel tests, November 2005, Technical Report Version 3, Aerodynamics & Aeromechanics Systems Group, QinetiQ.Google Scholar
17. Steijl, R. and Barakos, G.N. Sliding mesh algorithm for CFD analysis of helicopter rotor-fuselage aerodynamics, Int J for Numerical Methods in Fluids, October 2008, 58, (5), pp 527–549, doi:10.1002/fld.1757.Google Scholar
18. Steijl, R., Barakos, G. and Badcock, K. A framework for CFD analysis of helicopter rotors in hover and Forward flight. Int J Numerical Methods in Fluids, 2006, 51, (8), pp 819–847, doi:10.1002/fld.1086.Google Scholar
19. Jameson, A. Computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design, Applied Numerical Mathematics, 13(5):383–422, 1993.Google Scholar
20. Badcock, K.J., Richards, B.E. and Woodgate, M.A. Elements of computational fluid dynamics on block structured grids using implicit solvers, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 36, (5-6), pp 351–392, July 2000.Google Scholar
21. Morvant, R., Badcock, K.J., Barakos, G.N. and Richards, B.E. Aerofoil-vortex interaction using the compressible vorticity confinement method. AIAA J, January 2005, 43, (1), pp 63–75.Google Scholar
22. Spentzos, A., Barakos, G.N., Badcock, K.J., Richards, B.E., Wenert, P., Schreck, S. and Raffel, M. Investigation of three-dimensional dynamic stall using computational fluid dynamics, AIAA J, May 2005, 43, (5), pp 1023–1033.Google Scholar
23. Barakos, G.N., Steijl, R., Badcock, K.J. and Brocklehurst, A. Development of CFD capability for full helicopter engineering analysis, 2005, 31st European Rotorcraft Forum, September 2005, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
24. Osher, S. and Chakravarthy, S. Upwind schemes and boundary conditions with applications to Euler equations in general geometries, J Computational Physics, 1983, 50, pp 447–481.Google Scholar
25. Spalart, P.R., Jou, W-H., Strelets, M. and Allmaras, S.R. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach, 1997, 1st AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, Columbus, OH, USA, 4-8 August 1997.Google Scholar
26. Jeong, J. and Hussain, F. On the identification of a vortex, J Fluid Mech, 1995, 285, pp 69–94.Google Scholar