LinPAC Ver. 2.0 1 Version 2.0 March 2010.. LinPAC Ver. 2.0 2 Method Combined semi-empirical and potential, based on published data collected from western.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Aerodynamic Characteristics of Airfoils and wings
Advertisements

Timothy Burkhard - Phil Barat - John Gyurics
International Planetary Probe Workshop 10
Lecture # 3 Airfoil Aerodynamics.
KEEL TRIM TAB AOE 3014 TAKE-HOME COMPUTER PROBLEM HONOR SYSTEM PLEDGE - NO AID GIVEN OR RECEIVED EXCEPT FOR PART 1 Part 1 DUE October 17, 2008;
AAE 451 Aircraft Design Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review #2 Team Members Oneeb Bhutta, Matthew Basiletti, Ryan Beech, Mike Van Meter.
Nose Cone & Fin Optimization
Rocket Aerodynamics and Stability
Effect of Different Nose Profiles on Subsonic Pressure Coefficients
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR II Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review II “The 20 Hour Marathon” October 19, 2000 Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis.
PREPARED BY: JANAK GAJJAR SD1909.  Introduction  Wind calculation  Pressure distribution on Antenna  Conclusion  References.
MAE 1202: AEROSPACE PRACTICUM Lecture 12: Swept Wings and Course Recap April 22, 2013 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department Florida Institute.
AE 1350 Lecture Notes #8. We have looked at.. Airfoil Nomenclature Lift and Drag forces Lift, Drag and Pressure Coefficients The Three Sources of Drag:
Lift and Drag Review and Renew
1 Alex Woods March 20 Aerothermodynamics Group Force Model Walkthrough.
Wind Tunnel Analysis Presented by: Mary Elizabeth Pozydaev ME 498 November 16, 2004.
Flow Over Immersed Bodies
AME 441: Conceptual Design Presentation
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
ME 388 – Applied Instrumentation Laboratory Wind Tunnel Lab
Research & Development  Wind Tunnel Testing –Needs to be applicable for subsonic, transonic, and supersonic velocities –Scaled down model Associated costs.
Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level 1.
Team 5 Aerodynamics QDR Presented By: Christian Naylor Charles Reyzer.
March 1, Aerodynamics 3 QDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason Tang Joe.
March 10, Dynamics & Controls 2 PDR Michael Caldwell Jeff Haddin Asif Hossain James Kobyra John McKinnis Kathleen Mondino Andrew Rodenbeck Jason.
Lesson 13 Airfoils Part II
Data Fitting A Development of Dynamic Wind Tunnel Testing Technique with Magnetic Suspension and Balance System Workshop on Next Generation Transport Aircraft.
Team 5 Aerodynamics PDR Presented By: Christian Naylor Eamonn Needler Charles Reyzer.
1 CFD Analysis Process. 2 1.Formulate the Flow Problem 2.Model the Geometry 3.Model the Flow (Computational) Domain 4.Generate the Grid 5.Specify the.
Wind Turbine Project Recap Wind Power & Blade Aerodynamics
Engineering Models 1 By: Ross King & Daniel Luddeke.
Computational Modelling of Unsteady Rotor Effects Duncan McNae – PhD candidate Professor J Michael R Graham.
FLIGHT DYNAMICS OF THE FLEXIBLE AIRCRAFT INCLUDING UNSTEADY AERODYNAMIC EFFECTS Grégori Pogorzelski (1,2), Roberto G. A. da Silva (1) and Pedro Paglione.
Towers, chimneys and masts
Introduction Aerodynamic Performance Analysis of A Non Planar C Wing using Experimental and Numerical Tools Mano Prakash R., Manoj Kumar B., Lakshmi Narayanan.
Prof. Galal Bahgat Salem Aerospace Dept. Cairo University
If you Can't Get a Bigger Target... NDIA Guns & Ammo SPINNER-2004 SPINNER 2004 A New Version (It’s about time) Jeff Siewert Bob Whyte.
Recent and Future Research for Bird-like Flapping MAVs of NPU Prof. B.F.Song Aeronautics School of Northwestern Polytechnical University.
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
AAE 450 Spring 2008 Aerothermal 1 Brian Budzinski March 27, 2008 Aerothermal Group Contact Lifting Body Overview.
Group 10 Dimitrios Arnaoutis Alessandro Cuomo Gustavo Krupa Jordan Taligoski David Williams 1.
Wind Engineering Module 4.2 WT_PERF Analysis Lakshmi Sankar
2D Airfoil Aerodynamics
1 Lecture 4: Aerodynamics Eric Loth For AE 440 A/C Lecture Sept 2009.
MAE 3241: AERODYNAMICS AND FLIGHT MECHANICS
AAE 451 Aircraft Design First Flight Boiler Xpress November 21, 2000
Bridget Fitzpatrick Patrick Dempsey Heather Garber Keith Hout Jong Soo Mok Aerodynamics Preliminary Design Review #2 October 23, 2000.
DR2 Aerodynamic PDR Aerodynamic Preliminary Design Review October 3, 2000 German National Holiday Presented By: Loren Garrison Team DR2 Chris Curtis Chris.
DLR Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology 1 Simulation of Missiles with Grid Fins using an Unstructured Navier-Stokes solver coupled to a Semi-Experimental.
AAE 450 Spring Brian Budzinski February 21, 2008 Aerothermal Group Contact Lifting Bodies / Pitching Moment and Shear Assistance from: Alex Woods.
1 Alex Woods February 21st Aerothermodynamics Group Aerodynamic Forces Code.
AAE 450 Spring 2008 Aerothermal 1 Brian Budzinski March 6, 2008 Aerothermal Group Contact History of the Drag Model Assistance from: Jayme Zott & Alex.
1 Aerodynamic theories. 2 DLM Reference AIAA Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, February 1969, pp
Aerodynamic Design of a Light Aircraft
High Speed Flight Chapter 7.
© 2009 Aviation Supplies & Academics, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Pilot’s Manual – Ground School Aerodynamics Chapter 1 Forces Acting on an Airplane.
MAE 3241: AERODYNAMICS AND FLIGHT MECHANICS
The concept of the airfoil (wing section)
P M V Subbarao Professor Mechanical Engineering Department
Aerodynamic Force Measurement
Aerodynamics PDR AAE451 – Team 3 October 21, 2003
MAE 3241: AERODYNAMICS AND FLIGHT MECHANICS
Aether Aerospace AAE 451 September 27, 2006
Aerodynamic Analysis of Airplane Winglet to Maximize Design Efficiency Cooper Gould   Texas Christian University 2901 Stadium Drive TCU Box Fort.
Team “Canard” September 19th, 2006
UAV Wing Design For Efficiency At Low Reynolds Numbers
Alex Woods January 24th Aerodynamics Determination and Influences of Center of Pressure AAE 450 Spring 2008.
Steady-State Aerodynamics Codes for HAWTs
Eulerization of Betz theory: Wind Turbines
Multi-degree-of-freedom systems
Presentation transcript:

LinPAC Ver Version 2.0 March 2010.

LinPAC Ver Method Combined semi-empirical and potential, based on published data collected from western and eastern countries. Capability Calculation of the derivatives of aerodynamics coefficients of the classical projectiles, rockets and missiles, with one, two or three wing sections and body alone for small angles of attack. Purpose Quick estimation of aerodynamics coefficients of projectiles, preliminary aerodynamic design, estimation of loads on projectiles and their components. Uncertainty Depends on configuration, up to 10 % for typical aerodynamic shapes.

LinPAC Ver Ranges of basic input quantities  Mach number: 0÷5  Body of revolution with maximum three different diameter  Body nose shape: cone, parabola, ogive, ellipse, and combination with spherical and truncated tip  Boat-tail shape: cone, parabola  Maximum three wing sections (“++”, “+x” and “x+” combinations)  Wing shape: trapezoidal flat, trapezoidal wraparound  Number of fins: flat, cruciform, six and up to twelve fins  Wing aspect ratio 0÷inf, taper ratio 0÷1, thickness ratio 0÷0.5  Wing airfoil shape: double wedge, modified double wedge, double sinusoid, flat plate  Ailerons, flaps on one wing section only  Symmetric and differential deflection of fins (all sections)

LinPAC Ver Main menu

LinPAC Ver Mach and Reynolds number

LinPAC Ver Body data

LinPAC Ver First wing section

LinPAC Ver Third wing section

LinPAC Ver Wing parameters calculation

LinPAC Ver Ailerons (flaps) geometry

LinPAC Ver Results Files with calculated aerodynamic derivatives Sketch of projectile and diagrams of basic aerodynamic derivatives vs. Mach number

LinPAC Ver Aerodynamic scheme of projectile

LinPAC Ver CA0 - derivative

LinPAC Ver CNa - derivative

LinPAC Ver Cma - derivative

LinPAC Ver Cl0 - derivative

LinPAC Ver Clp - derivative

LinPAC Ver CNq - derivative

LinPAC Ver CMq - derivative

LinPAC Ver Xcp/lref

LinPAC Ver Output files

LinPAC Ver Output files - explanation The following output files are formed upon the running the LinPAC program. File NameShort Description Summary.dat - File contains input data and calculated aerodynamic coefficients. Basic_AC.dat - File contains main aerodynamics coefficients. SixDOF_AC.dat - File contains aerodynamics coefficients in the format to be input file for the program Six degree of freedom motion calculation. CA_Comp.dat - File contains components of aerodynamics coefficients of axial force. CNa_Comp.dat - File contains derivatives of aerodynamics coefficients of normal force for projectile components. Cmq_Comp.dat - File contains damping derivatives coefficients of projectile and its components. Load_AC.dat - File contains coefficients of loads on projectile components. Loads.dat - File contains forces and moments on the projectile (loads), and forces and moments on all projectile components. Flaps.dat - File contains aerodynamic coefficients of ailerons and flaps. Interf._Coeff.dat - File contains interference coefficients according the slender body theory, coefficient of wing-tail vortex interference, and down wash angles. Restart.dat - File contains input data to start (restart) program. Messages.dat - File contains program run time messages.

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments On the next diagrams comparison of the calculation with experiment is shown for the following projectiles/models: 1.AGARD-B test model, 2.SPARROW III missile 3.Army-Navy FINNER test model In calculation Reynolds number is adjusted to match the experimental values.

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments For the AGARD-B model data were taken from: Piland, R.: "The zero-lift drag of a 60 degree delta- wing-body combination (AGARD model 2) obtained from free-flight tests between Mach numbers of 0.8 and 1.7", NACA-TN-3081, Bromm, F. Jr.: "Investigation of lift, drag, and pitching moment of a 60deg delta-wing_Body Combination (AGARD Calibration Model B) in the Langley 9-inch Supersonic Tunnel", NASA TN 3300, Damljanović, D., Vitić, A., Vuković, Dj.: Testing of AGARD-B Calibration Model in the T-38 Trisonic Wind Tunnel, Scientific-Technical Review,Vol.LVI,No.2,2006.

LinPAC Ver Sketch of AGARD-B Test model Comparison with experiments – AGARD-B

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – AGARD-B

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – AGARD-B

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – AGARD-B

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – AGARD-B

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III For the Sparrow model data were taken from: Monta, W. J.: "Supersonic aerodynamic characteristics of an air-to-air missile configuration with cruciform wings and in-line tail controls", NASA-TM-X-2666, Monta, W. J.: “Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Sparrow III Type Missile Model With Wing Controls and Comparison With Existing Tail-Control Results”, NASA, TP 1078, Nov "Tail Control Sparrow Wind Tunnel Test at NASA/Ames Research Center", Raytheon Co., Raytheon Rept. BR- 9105, Final Rept., Bedford, MA, April 1976.

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III Sketch of Sparrow III missile

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III Notation on diagrams: Subscript “W” – “Wing” Subscript “T” – “Tail”

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – SPARROW III

LinPAC Ver Sparrow III – Body alone AC Drag components of Sparrow III body alone with boattail d b / d =0.85 and l bt / d = Data are printed in output file CA_comp.dat Re=0.2*10 6 = const to mach wind tunnel data.

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner For the Basic finner model data were taken from: MacAllister, L. C.: “The Aerodynamic Properties of a Simple Non- Rolling Finned Cone-Cylinder Configuration Between Mach Number 1.0 and 2.5”, BRL Report No. 934, May Shantz, I. and Graves, R.T.: "Dynamic and Static Stability Measurements of the Basic Finner at Supersonic Speeds", NAVORD Report 4516, Regan, F. J.: "Roll Damping Moment Measurements for the Basic Finner at Subsonic and Supersonic Speeds," NAVORD Rept. 6652, June Murthy, H.S.: "Subsonic and Transonic Roll Damping Measure- ments on Basic Finner" AIAA Journal of Space-craft and Rockets, VOL. 19, NO. 1, Jan.-Feb , pp

LinPAC Ver Sketch of the Army-Navy Basic Finner test model Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner

LinPAC Ver Comparison with experiments – Basic Finner