Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:51:19.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of flight test data with a computational fluid dynamics model of a Scottish Aviation Bulldog aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

N. J. Lawson ,
N. Salmon ,
J. E. Gautrey  and
R. Bailey
N. J. Lawson*
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
N. Salmon
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
J. E. Gautrey
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
R. Bailey
Affiliation:
National Flying Laboratory Centre, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The following paper presents detailed aerodynamic data of a Scottish Aviation Bulldog light aircraft. The data is taken from the pre-stall region of the aircraft flight envelope through two flight test methods and from a geometrically accurate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the full scale aircraft, which was meshed in Ansys ICEM CFD and solved in Ansys Fluent. The fidelity of the CFD model was achieved by development of a CATIA solid model with surfaces matching a spatial point cloud of the aircraft taken using a 3D laser scanner. Following a CFD verification process, a 3·4m hybrid mesh with a Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model was found to give the best overall lift and drag characteristics. Further detailed comparisons with the glide flight test data showed the CFD drag polar to have 63% lower zero lift drag, although this discrepancy was related to the simplification of the original CATIA surface model, which excluded the undercarriage, aerials and other protuberance drags. Inclusion of estimates of these sources of drag resulted in a match in zero lift drag to within 15% and a maximum lift to drag of 10:1 which was within 11% of the glide flight test result. The remaining drag discrepancy is attributed to other effects including trim drag and the surface finish of the actual aircraft.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1198 , December 2013 , pp. 1273 - 1291
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. Labrujere, T.E. and Slooff, J.W. Computational methods for the aerodynamic design of aircraft components, Ann Rev of Fluid Mech, 1993, 25, pp 183–214.Google Scholar
2. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Third Edition, 1999, AIAA Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
3. Argawal, R. Computuation fluid dynamics of whole body aircraft, Ann Rev of Fluid Mech, 1999, 31, pp 125–169.Google Scholar
4. Jameson, A. and Vassberg, J.C. Computational fluid dynamics for aerodynamic design: Its current and future impact, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-0538, 8-11 January 2001, Reno, NV, USA.Google Scholar
5. Bushnell, D.M. Scaling: Wind tunnel to flight, Ann Rev of Fluid Mech, 2006, 38, pp 111–128.Google Scholar
6. Barlow, J.B., Rae, W.H. and Pope, A. Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, Third Edition, 1999, Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
7. Stinton, D. Flying Qualities and Flight Testing of the Airplane, 1998 AIAA Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
8. Kimberlin, R.D. Flight Testing of Fixed Wing Aircraft, 2003, AIAA Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
9. Hui, K., Srinivasan, R., Auriti, L., Ricciardi, J., Blair, K. and Pokhariyal, D. King Air 350 Flight-test data gathering and Level-D Simulator aerodynamic model development, 2002, ICAS Paper 783.1-783.10, 23rd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences, 8-13 September 2002, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
10. Nicolosi, F., De Marco, A. and Vecchia, P.D. Flight tests, performances and flight certifcation of a twin-engine light aircraft, J Aircr, 2011, 48, (1), pp 177–192.Google Scholar
11. Jentink, H.W. and Bogue, R.K. Optical air flow measurements for flight tests and flight testing optical air flow meters, 2005, RTO-MP-SCI-162 — Flight Test — Sharing Knowledge and Experience, Research and Technology Organisation (NATO), France, 11.1 – 11.14.Google Scholar
12. Stack, J. and Moberg, R.J. Drag of several gunner’s enclosures at high speeds, 1941, NACA Special Report, SR-202.Google Scholar
13. Gordeyev, S. and Jumper, E. Fluid dynamics and aero-optics of turrets, Prog in Aerospace Sci, 2010, pp 388–400.Google Scholar
14. ÅKerlind, O. and Örtlund, H. Instrument Flight Procedures and Aircraft Performance, 2006, Hakan Ortlund Produktion HB, Molkom, Sweden.Google Scholar
15. Coiro, D.P. and Nicolosi, F. Design of low-speed aircraft by numerical and experiment techniques developed at DPA, Aircraft Design, 2001, 4, pp 1–18.Google Scholar
16. Leica Scanstation 2 specifications: Data Sheet, 2013, http://hds.leica-geosystems.com/en/Leica-ScanStation-2_62189.htm, Leica.Google Scholar
17. Encarnacao, J.L., Lindner, R. and Schlechtendahl, E.G. Computer Aided Design: Fundamentals and System Architectures, Second Edition, 1990, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
18. Ingle, K.A. Reverse Engineering, 1994, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
19. Anderson, J.D. Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications, 1995, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
20. Salmon, N. Reverse Engineering and Computational Aerodynamic Modelling of a Scottish Aviation Bulldog, 2012, MSc Thesis, Cranfield University, UK.Google Scholar
21. Vassberg, J.C., Tinoco, E.N., Mani, M, Rider, B., Zickuhr, T., Levy, D.W., Brodersen, O.P., Eisfeld, B., Crippa, S., Wahls, R.A., Morrison, J.H., Mavriplis, D.J. and Murayama, M. Summary of the Fourth AIAA CFD Drag Prediction Workshop, 2010, AIAA 2010-4547.Google Scholar
22. Anderson, J.D. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Fifth Edition, 2011, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.Google Scholar
23. ESDU. Undercarriage drag prediction methods, 1987, ESDU 79015.Google Scholar
24. Catalano, P. and Amato, M. An evaluation of RANS turbulence modelling for aerodynamic applications, Aero Sci and Tech, 2003, 7, (7), pp 493–509.Google Scholar
25. Roache, P.J. Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering, 1998, Hermosa.Google Scholar
26. ESDU. Lift and longitudinal forces on propeller/nacelle/wing/fap systems, 2009, ESDU 88031.Google Scholar
27. ESDU. Introduction to installation effects on thrust and drag for propeller-driven aircraft, 1985, ESDU 85015.Google Scholar
28. ESDU. Thrust and drag accounting for propeller/airframe interaction, ESDU 85017, 1985.Google Scholar
29. ESDU. Propeller/body interaction for thrust and drag, 1986, ESDU 86017.Google Scholar
30. ESDU. The mean skin friction coeffcient for a rough flat plate with a turbulent two-dimensional boundary layer in compressible adiabatic flow with application to wedges, cylinders and cones, 1973 ESDU 73016.Google Scholar