Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:25:15.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aerodynamic studies over a manoeuvring UCAV 1303 configuration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

M. S. Chandrasekhara  and
B. K. McLain
M. S. Chandrasekhara*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, USA
B. K. McLain
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, USA
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The flow past an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) 1303 was investigated in a water tunnel in an effort to understand the complex flow field. The UCAV 1303 is characterised by a non slender, 47° swept-leading-edge delta wing, with a cranked trailing edge, a cropped wing tip and a fuselage. It also has no vertical tail. Dye visualisation pictures and five-axis strain gage load data were obtained on a 1:72 scale model in both steady flow and while the model executed preprogrammed manoeuvres. From the strain gage data, body axis force and moment data were derived. In addition to some similarities, comparison of the flow features observed with those of more well known slender delta wing flows showed some remarkable differences such as tip-stall, the presence of two like-sense vortices on the same side of the wing, their simultaneous spiral and bubble bursting. This paper predominantly discusses the flow visualisation results and attempts to correlate the load data to some of the observed flow features.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1190 , April 2013 , pp. 445 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

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. Cummings, R.M., Morton, S.A. and Siegel, S.G. Numerical prediction and wind tunnel experiment for a pitching unmanned combat air vehicle, Aerospace Science and Technology J, December 2008, 12, pp 355–364.Google Scholar
2. Gursul, I., Gordnier, R. and Visbal, M. Unsteady aerodynamics of non slender delta wings, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2005, 41, pp 515–557.Google Scholar
3. Yaniktepe, B. and Rockwell, D. Flow structure on a delta wing of low sweep angle, AIAA J, March 2004, 3, pp 513–523.Google Scholar
4. Taylor, G.S. Schnorbus, T. and Gursul, I. An investigation of vortex flows over low sweep delta wings, AIAA 2003-4021, June 2003.Google Scholar
5. Ol, M.V. Water Tunnel Velocimetry Results for the 1303 UCAV Configuration, AIAA-2006-2990, June 2006.Google Scholar
6. Ghee, T.A. and Hall, D.R. Experimental and numerical investigation of vortex shedding of a representative UCAV configuration for vortex flow control, Proc. RTO AV T Symposium on Advanced Flow Management: Part A- Vortex Flows and High Angle-of-Attack Military Vehicles, Loer, Norway, RTO-MP-069(I), May 2001.Google Scholar
7. McParlin, S.C., Bruce, R.J., Hepworth, A.G. and Rae, A.J. Low speed wind tunnel tests on the 1303 UCAV concept, AIAA 2006-2985, June 2006.Google Scholar
8. Petterson, K. CFD analysis of the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of a UCAV, AIAA 2006-1259, January 2006.Google Scholar
9. Wong, D.W., McKenzie, G.J., Ol, M.V., Petterson, K. and Zhang, S. Joint TTCP CFD Studies into the 1303 UCAV Performance, AIAA 2006-2984, 2006.Google Scholar
10. Cunningham, A.M. Jr., and Bushlow, T. AIAA-90-2815-CP, 1990.Google Scholar
11. McLain, B.K. Steady and Unsteady Aerodynamic Flow Studies over a 1303 UCAV Configuration, MS Thesis, US Naval Postgraduate School, September 2009.Google Scholar
12. Chua, W.H. Flow visualization studies over a UCAV 1303 model, M.S. Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, 2009.Google Scholar
13. Carr, L.W. and Chandrasekhara, M.S. Compressibility effects on dynamic stall, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1996, 32, pp 523–576.Google Scholar
14. Kramer, B. and Kerho, M. Five-component balance system for water tunnel Applications: General Instructions and User’s Manual Rolling Hills Research Corporation, February 2001.Google Scholar