Scribd
Upload
5 views

244 Assign 3

Uploaded by

Ayush Jha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

244 Assign 3

Uploaded by

Ayush Jha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

AE 244

Assignment – 3

Ayush Jha
22B0051
1. Wing Design

3
2
1

1.1
Total sections in airfoil = 3
Section 1 2 3 (winglet)
Airfoil NACA 5411 NACA 5411 NACA 5411
Span 7m 4.3 m 0.7 m
Root chord 1.2 m 1.08 m 0.97 m
Tip chord 1.08 m 0.97 m 0.25 m
Taper 0.9 0.9 0.31
sweep 0 deg 0 deg 45 deg
dihedral 2 deg 3.07 deg 50 deg
twist 3 deg 1.5 deg 0.2 deg

Aspect Ratio = 21.51


1.2 CL vs α for the wing according to OpenVSP and Lifting Line theory
CL vs α for wing using Lifting Line theory

1.3 Induced vs α for the wing according to OpenVSP and Lifting Line theory
Induced vs α
Parasite drag estimation for wing:
0.2𝑡
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 2 (1 + ) 𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑
𝑐
𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔,
𝑡
= 0.10 , 𝑆𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 20 𝑚2
𝑐
∴ 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 2(1 + 0.02)20 = 40.8 𝑚2
∵ 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 = 40.8 𝑚2
𝑅𝑒 = 107 (𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑉𝑆𝑃)
0.455 1700
∴ 𝐶𝑓 = (log 2.58 − = 0.002833
10 𝑅𝑒) 𝑅𝑒

For my wing (sweep = 0 degrees) and t/c = 0.1, we get K=1.2


𝐾𝐶𝑓 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 1.2(0.002833)(40.8 𝑚2 )
∴𝐶𝐷𝑜 = = = 0.004032
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓 35 𝑚2

∴ 𝐶𝐷𝑜 = 0.003360 (Parasite drag from calculations)

Using OpenVSP to Calculate Parasite Drag:


Parasite drag from OpenVSP
CDo = 0.00252 (from OpenVSP)
Hence There is a significant error in Parasite drag calculated by OpenVSP

Now, we can plot the final Total drag vs α for both plots (I’m adding calculated
parasite drag with calculated induced drag using Lifting Line theory and Parasite
drag by OpenVSP with Induced drag with OpenVSP)
CD vs α (After Induced Drag + estimated Parasite Drag)

1.4 CL vs α of wing and CL vs α of NACA-5411 on the same plot


CL vs α (Wing and 2D NACA-5411)
1.5 Main Observation and Interpretation
• Stall is not accounted by Lifting Line theory or OpenVSP, Hence in 1.2 we
can see two parallel curves.
• However in 1.4, I’ve used the Results from Ansys simulation back in
assignment-1 hence we can see a curved region near 10 degrees for the
2D airfoil but this curve is not seen in plot generated by OpenVSP.
• Induced drag calculated by OpenVSP is fairly accurate upto 8 degrees,
after 8 degrees Drag from OpenVSP suddenly shoots up, This is because
effect on induced drag near the stall region.
• Lifting Line theory does not assume flow separation hence its drag
continues to only grow linearly also near the stall, hence induced drag
generated by OpenVSP and Lifting Theory are almost similar upto 8
degrees, after that difference continues to grow due to flow seperation.
• Total drag increases with angle of attack because of increase in induced
drag.

P.T.O
2. Fuselage Design
2.1 CAD of Fuselage

Side view

Isometric view Top view

2.2 Lift and Drag Estimates from OpenVSP


CL vs α
CD vs α

2.3 Parasite drag estimates based on empirical methods


𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑅𝑒 = 107
0.455 1700
∴ 𝐶𝑓 = (log − = 0.002833
10 𝑅𝑒)2.58 𝑅𝑒

𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 = 0.75𝜋𝐷𝐿𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 = 0.75𝜋(2)(1.58) = 7.44


𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 = 𝜋𝐷𝐿𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 = 𝜋(2)(3.85) = 24.19
𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 = 0.72𝜋𝐷𝐿𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 = 0.72𝜋(2)(5.75) = 26.02
𝐾𝐶𝑓 𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡
∴𝐶𝐷𝑜 =
𝑆𝑟𝑒𝑓

Considering M = 0.5 (given slides)


𝐾𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 = 1.81 for nose (Approximated)
𝐾𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 = 1.63 for body
𝐾𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙 = 1.49 for tail
𝐶𝐷𝑜 = 𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑛𝑜𝑠𝑒 + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 + 𝐶𝐷𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙
𝐶𝐷𝑜 = 0.0074

Calculating Parasite drag using OpenVSP

2.4 Comparison from drag results

• Induced drag Calculated by OpenVSP turns out to be zero for every


angle of attack which is a fault from the side of software
• Parasite drag from OpenVSP is 0.00068
• Empirically calculated value of Parasite drag is 0.0074
• Error associated with parasite drag calculation using OpenVSP is
too large, it is almost 1/10th of the original value
• In actual simulations, Induced drag increases with angle of attack

P.T.O
3. Stabilizer Design

3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Stabilizer Design


Horizontal Stabilizer Vertical Stabilizer
Parameters Vertical Stabilizer Horizontal Stabilizer
airfoil NACA 0016 NACA 1211
span 3 m2 4.2 m2
Root chord 1.86 m 2m
Tip chord 0.67 m 0.88 m
Sweep 22.5 deg 35 deg
Area 3.80 m2 6.05
Aspect Ratio 2.36 2.91

3.2 CL vs α curves for both stabilizers from α = -3 to 3 deg


Vertical Stabilizer

Horizontal Stabilizer
3.3 CD vs α curves for both stabilizers from α = -3 to 3 deg
Vertical Stabilizer

Horizontal Stabilizer
3.4 Comments on 3.2 and 3.3
Lift:
• 3.2 is Lift coefficient, for Horizontal stabilizer we’re varying the
pitch angle whereas for vertical stabilizer we’re varying yaw angle.
• Because Airfoil used for vertical stabilizer is symmetric it generates
a symmetric lift when deviated around the zero angle of attack
• Cl vs α for Horizontal stabilizer has a straight line more tending
towards positive, that is it generates more lift for positive angle of
attack because of little camber.
Drag:
• Due to symmetric wing, induced drag is also symmetric about the
y axis.
• With increasing angle of attack Total drag increases because of
increasing induced drag.
• For a given angle of attack, total drag for vertical stabilizer is more
than horizontal stabilizer even at zero angle of attack because of
more thickness of vertical stabilizer and cambered horizontal
stabilizer.
4. Overall Glider design

4.1 Overall glider design

Placement of Fuselage
Distance of Fuselage from Nose (Nose mult) = 1.58
Distance between Wing and horizontal stabilizer (Aft mult) = 3.85 m
Diameter of Fuselage at intersection of Nose and Aft mult = 2m

2m

1.58 m 3.85 m
m
4.2 Performance of Glider on OpenVSP
CL vs α

CD vs α
4.3 Glider Weight Estimate
𝐿𝑒𝑡 ′ 𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 165 𝑘𝑔𝑚−3
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 85 𝑘𝑔𝑚−3

∴ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑡 = 1434 𝑘𝑔

P.T.O
5. Design Validation
5.1 Optimal speed, Glide Angle, descent rate
L/D vs alpha

(L/D) max = 46 (at α = -2 degrees)


1. Calculating Glide Angle
𝐷
𝜃 = tan−1
𝐿

∴ 𝜃 = 1.24 degrees
∴ Hence the glide angle is 1.24 degrees

2. Calculating Optimal velocity


𝐿 = 𝑊 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
1 2
𝜌𝑣 𝐶𝐿 = 𝑊 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃
2
2(𝑊 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜃 )
𝑣= √
𝜌 𝐶𝐿
𝜌 = 1.225 𝑘𝑔𝑚−3 , 𝑊 = 1434 𝑘𝑔 , 𝜃 = 1.24 𝑑𝑒𝑔, 𝐶𝐿 = 0.61
cos(1.24)
∴ 𝑣 = √2 × 1434 ×
1.225 × 0.61
∴ 𝑣 = 61.88 𝑚/𝑠
∴ 𝑂𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 61.88 𝑚/𝑠

3. Calculating descent rate


𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 61.88
𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = =
𝐺𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝐿/𝐷

∴ 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 1.3452 𝑚/𝑠

5.2 Comment on Glider Performance

• The glider’s weight is 1434 kg which is within the typical range for
gliders, which indicates glider is not very heavy
• glide angle of 1.24 is quite shallow, glider can cover a bit more longer
distance for a given vertical descent.
• L/D ratio of 46 is quite too large, Due to large L/D ratio glider will be
efficient but it will also be prone to stall.
• Descent rate of glider is 1.3452 m/s, that means glider is descending
at 1.3452 meters each second, It is generally safe to have descent rate
less than 1.1 m/s, Hence these are some parts of aircraft requiring
improvement.
6. Acknowledgement
Chaitanya Keshri (22B2472)
Jugal Shah (22B0043)
Ayush Singh (22B0672)

7. References

https://youtu.be/XNwGII55PgQ?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/ilOXnWJNsDc?feature=shared

https://vspu.larc.nasa.gov/training-content/chapter-3-model-analysis-in-openvsp/vspaero-basics/

You might also like