TALLINN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

DOCTORAL THESIS
30/2019

New Technological Solutions to Improve

the Aerodynamic Characteristics of an
Aircraft Wing

PEEP LAUK
TALLINN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
School of Engineering
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
This dissertation was accepted for the defence of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
In Mechanical and Industrial Engineering on: 23.04.2019
Supervisors: PhD Toivo Tähemaa
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Tallinn University of Technology
Tallinn, Estonia

PhD Aleksander Kartušinski

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Tallinn University of Technology
Tallinn, Estonia
Oponents: Assoc Prof. Eduardas Lasauskas
Department of Aeronautical Engineering
Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
Vilnius, Lithuania

PhD Mart Enneveer

Estonian Aviation Academy
Tartu, Estonia

Defence of the thesis: 17.06.2019, Tallinn

Declaration: Hereby I declare that this doctoral thesis, my original investigation and
achievement, submitted for the doctoral degree at Tallinn University of Technology, have not
been previously submitted for doctoral or equivalent academic degree.

Peep Lauk
signature

Autoriõigus: Peep Lauk, 2019

ISSN 2585-6898 (publication)
ISBN 978-9949-83-437-2 (publication)
ISSN 2585-6901 (PDF)
ISBN 978-9949-83-438-9 (PDF)
 TALLINNA TEHNIKAÜLIKOOL
DOKTORITÖÖ
30/2019

Õhusõidukite tiiva aerodünaamiliste

omaduste parandamine uute
tehnoloogiliste lahenduste abil

PEEP LAUK

3
4
Contents
List of publictions 7
Author’s contribution to the publications 8
Introduction 9
Abbreviations 12
1 Influence of trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic performance of the
wing at low speeds 13
1.1 Impact of fixed angle miniflaps on sailplane flight performance 13
1.1.1 Types of miniflaps and their aerodynamic description 13
1.1.2 Design of the miniflaps to improve glider climbing performance 17
1.1.3 Methodology and tests 19
1.1.4. Flight test results 21
1.2 Impact of variable geometry miniflaps on glider flight characteristics 23
1.2.1 Aerodynamic design of a variable geometry miniflap 23
1.2.2 Technological design of a variable geometry miniflap 27
1.2.3 Flight test methodology 30
1.2.4 Flight test results 32
1.2.5 Conclusion 33
2 Impact of trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic performance of the wing at
high speed 35
2.1 Influence of trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic characteristics of a
supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds 35
2.1.1 High speed flight test results with miniTED-s 35
2.1.2 Aerodynamic performance of the supercritical wing 37
2.1.3. The effect of the cruise miniflap profiles on the aerodynamic performance of
the wing 39
2.1.4. The impact of cruise miniflap on the specific air range (SAR) 44
2.1.5. Conclusion 47
3 Advanced trailing and leading edge flap design for commercial aircraft 48
3.1 Development of the swivel beam system (SBS) 49
3.2 High lift system aerodynamic design by using SBS 51
3.3 Swivel beam systems kinematic solutions 53
3.4 Low drag leading edge devices 58
3.5 Conclusion 60
4 New leading edge flap solutions for use in natural laminar flow (NLF) wings 61

5
 4.1 The NLF wing and tail surface requirements 61
4.2 Slat solutions currently tested 62
4.3 New leading edge flap design 63
4.4 Novel slotless rotable nose leading edge solution for inboard section of the NLF
wing 67
4.5 Conclusion 68
5 Conclusion 70
References 72
Acknowledgements 77
Abstract 78
Lühikokkuvõte 80
Appendix 83
Curriculum vitae 183
Elulookirjeldus 185

6
List of publictions
The list of publications by the author, on the basis of which the thesis has been prepared.
The academic publications are referred to in the text as Paper I, Paper II, Paper III and
Paper IV.

I Lauk, P.; Unt, K-E. (2015). Influence of miniflaps on sailplane flight characteristics.
Aviation, 19 (3), 105−111. 10.3846/16487788.2015.1104793. ETIS classification 1.1
II Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2017). Impact of variable geometry
miniflaps on sailplane flight characteristics. Aviation, 21 (4), 119−125.
10.3846/16487788.2017.1415228. ETIS classification 1.1
III Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2018). The Influence of Variable Geometrical
Modifications of the Trailing Edge of Supercritical Airfoil on the Characteristics of
Aerodynamics. International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial,
Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 12 (4), 261−266. ETIS classification
1.2
IV Lauk, P.; Tähemaa, T.; Seegel, K-E. (2018) Advanced trailing edge flap design for
commercial Aircraft. Toulouse, AEGATS´18 Conference, France / 23 – 25 October
2018. ETIS classification 3.2

7
Author’s contribution to the publications
Contribution to the papers included in this thesis is following:
Paper Original Study Data Contribution Responsible
idea design collection to result for result
and and handling interpretation interpretation
methods and and
manuscript manuscript
preparation preparation
I PL PL PL PL, K-EU PL
II PL PL PL, KES PL, KES, TT PL
III PL PL PL PL, KES, TT PL
IV PL PL PL PL, TT, KES PL

PL - Peep Lauk
KES - Karl-Erik Seegel
TT - Toivo Tähemaa
KEU - Karl-Erik Unt

8
Introduction
The problem formulation. Carrying with commercial aircraft is the fastest type of
transport but at the same time causing the biggest environmental pollution. As of
October 2018, 37,400 commercial airplanes were used worldwide. The most common is
the single aisle, medium range aircraft, accounting for 28,550 which is over 76% of the
total number of commercial aircrafts. Extra large aircraft such as Boeing 777, Airbus 380,
etc. only form 4.25% of the total numbers of commercial aircraft. (Flaig, 2018) The
following example illustrates the environmental pollution caused by a commercial
aircraft. In 5,000 flight hours per year, one modern, medium-range aircraft consumes
around 12,900 t of aviation fuel and generates 40,663 t of CO2. On flights across the
Atlantic, burning fuel generates by more than three times more harmful waste than
commercial cargo weight. It is widely known that the burning of fuel leads to global
climate change and global average temperature increase. Thus, reducing the fuel
consumption of a medium-sized aircraft by only 1% can reduce CO2 emissions by 406.6 t
in 5000 flight hours per year. Also, at 700 EUR/t fuel price, this would allow the aircraft
operators to save a total of more than 2.5 billion Euros per year for all single aisle,
medium range aircrafts. (Flaig, 2018) Another problem is related to the increased
complexity of commercial aircraft systems. The development of new technologies that
reduce fuel burning should be designed with low complexity devices. This is necessary in
order to increase the reliability of the systems and to reduce the maintenance costs.
The object of research. The research object is an aircraft wing. The aerodynamic
characteristics of the wing have an important role in the overall performance of the
aircraft. Reducing the aerodynamic drag of a wing also reduces fuel consumption and the
emission of harmful pollutants to the environment. The reduction in fuel consumption
of aircraft will also reduce direct costs for aircraft operators. Reducing the weight of the
aircraft structure allows to increase the weight of commercial cargo or the flight range.
The aim of this doctoral thesis is to investigate and improve aircraft lift/drag ratio by
using new technological solutions of the wing.
The hypothesis. Based on various articles and background studies, a hypothesis was
made that using variable geometry modifications of the leading and trailing edge of the
wing and using innovative technologies can reduce the aerodynamic drag and increase
the lift. Initially, these assumptions had not been scientifically proven and needed a
proof.
The tasks of the thesis. In order to achieve the research objective, the following tasks
must be carried out.
● Apply computational and experimental methods to analyse the effect of the trailing
edge modifications of the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing. Based on the
results of the aerodynamic analysis, design the trailing edge devices for the glider.
The next step is to analyse the variable geometry trailing edge modification of the
wing and its kinematics design for the glider. Experimental tests are performed by
gliders. If the results are promising, the next step is to investigate the impact of
trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic characteristics of commercial aircraft
wing by using CFD software.
● Design a novel kinematic solution for actuating leading and trailing edge flap with less
complexity, higher reliability and lower maintenance cost.
● Design new wing leading edge flap kinematic solution for use with natural laminar
wing.

9
The methodology of research. The aerodynamic characteristics of the wing airfoil are
initially theoretically analysed using different computational methods and free flight
testing by using gliders. In experimental studies, tests are carried out on a glider in a free
flight using special equipment and improved methodology. XFLR5 simulation software
based on XFLR code was selected for computational modelling, however, mainly the
solving method of the Navier-Stokes equation was used at the transonic speeds.
Moreover, novel type of miniflaps with variable geometry are introduced and analysed
from flight optimization point of view. According to the forecast, the number of aircraft
is expected to double over the next twenty years. To keep the pollution load under
control, radical improvements should be undertaken in the aircraft design. The above
reasons determined the choice of the subject for this thesis.
The aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft wing mainly depend on airfoil
characteristics. The aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft and gliders are defined by
lift-drag polar, an aerodynamic coefficient indicating the dependency between the airfoil
drag coefficient and its lift coefficient. The main objective usually is to reduce the drag
coefficient and, if necessary, to increase the lift coefficient. In doing so, the use of gliders
in testing new technological solutions is very important. Typically, most of the
aerodynamic innovations are first tested on gliders and only after that on aircraft. For
example, gliders have been deployed to commercial aircraft in winglet, variable chamber
(VC) trailing edge flaps, natural laminar flow (NLF) airfoils, but also CFRP composite
structures. The development of both aircraft types also has a similar objective: increasing
the lift/drag (L/D) ratio at different required airspeeds.
The study focuses mainly on two aspects. First, the airflow behaviour is analysed near
to the trailing edge, depending of the profile, at higher Cl values. Sailplanes are
particularly interested in the Cl range from 1.2 to 1.7, whereas for commercial aircraft,
Cl values from 0.55 to 0.7 are of interest. For the small Re numbers (such as those of
glider and UAV wings), XFLR5 software based on the XFOIL code is used to analyse the
aerodynamic characteristics. The results of the analysis were also confirmed by the
results of the test flights.
Commercial aircraft wing trailing edge airflow behaviour at high Re and Mach numbers
is used in CFD simulation based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS).
The main analysis is performed on supercritical airfoil, as well as on the effect of the
various wing trailing edge modifications on aerodynamic parameters, using CFD software
STAR-CCM+. Based on the aerodynamic efficiency of the modifications and the loads
generated, technical solutions are designed. The strength analysis for the technical
solutions is performed mainly using Solid Works and Solid Edge softwares. Several
devices were built using selective laser sintering (3D printing) - a good example of this is
the variable geometry miniflap mechanism for glider LAK-17B made of stainless steel and
titanium alloys.
The second aspect of the study is developing a leading edge flap solution which is
particularly suitable for use with the natural laminar flow (NLF) airfoil. The technology
currently in use allows to maintain the laminar airflow only on the upper side of the wing.
On the lower side of the wing, the laminar flow is disturbed by the retracted Krueger flap.
According to the novel solution, the leading edge flap is located inside the wing during
the flight. To extend the leading edge flap, the lower wing panel is first bent so that the
flap can be actuated out of the leading edge of the wing. In the extended flap position,
the lower wing panel is closed. Also, the leading edge flap protects the wing from the
insect contamination and icing.

10
 High lift system aerodynamic drag and weight can be reduced by using the new swivel
beam system (SBS) kinematic solution for flap and slat movement. According to this
solution, there is no need for the flap track beams, the laminar flow on the lower side of
the wing is prolonged and its aerodynamic drag is reduced.
The novel aerodynamic and technological solutions developed for using commercial
aircraft would allow to save more than 10% fuel consumption, but the choice of solutions
depends on the size of the aircraft and the Re number of the wing. For example, the
leading edge flap solution developed on the NLF wing is suitable for small and medium-
sized regional aircraft with a Re number that does not exceed 30 x 106. On large airplanes,
the use of NLF airfoil is complicated due to the very high smoothness requirements of
the wing surface. At the same time, the trailing edge miniflap would be suitable for use
especially on large commercial aircraft due to its size. However, a trailing edge flap
movement SBS solution can be used from UAV-s to heavy transport aircraft.
The novel solutions shown in this thesis have been presented at various aviation
conferences, including at the Airbus Headquarters in Toulouse, France. The greatest
value of the new technological solutions presented in this thesis lies in their simple
design. As a result, these solutions can be used to improve the performance of different
types of aircraft.

11
Abbreviations
ADHF Advanced dropped hinge flap
AR Aspect ratio
AoA Angle of attack
CAS Calibrated airspeed (m/s)
Cd Drag coefficient
Cdi Induced drag coefficient
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
Cl Lift coefficient
Cl max Maximum lift coefficient
Cm Moment coefficient
CMF Cruise Miniflap
CFRP Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic
Cp Pressure coefficient
DSF Double slotted flap
FL Flight level (ft)
FM Fowler motion
ft Foot
GF Gurnay flap
IAS Indicated airspeed (m/s)
kN Kilonewton
L/D ratio Lift/drag ratio
MiniTED Mini trailing edge devices
M Mach number
NLF Natural laminar flow
NM Nautical mile
RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations
Re Reynolds number
SAR Specific Air Range (km)
SBS Swivel Beam System
SSF Single Slotted Flap
TAS True airspeed (m/s)
TE Trailing edge
TOW Takeoff weight (kg)
UAV Unmanned aerial vehicle
Vcas Calibrated airspeed (m/s)
VC flap Variable Chamber flap
VGMF Variable geometry miniflap
Vy Sink speed (m/s)
ʄ͖Z Aspect ratio

12
1 Influence of trailing edge modifications on the
aerodynamic performance of the wing at low speeds
To increase the L/D ratio at different Cl values, the simplest solution is deflecting the
trailing edge flaps. Unfortunately, the deflecting of the trailing edge flaps is in the optimal
range. It depends on the type of airfoil and the wing aspect ratio (AR). At the flap
deflecting angle higher than optimal, the airflow separation will start from the trailing
edge and the drag is increased. One of the most effective methods for increasing the L/D
ratio at higher Cl values than possible with a traditional flap solution, is by using different
trailing edge modifications, including the miniflaps, at the trailing edge of the wing.
These devices can be divided into fixed deflecting angle modifications and variable
deflecting angle solutions. For an aircraft with a narrow optimal range of speeds, fixed
modifications of trailing edge, such as the Gurnay flap, can be used. Many unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAV) fly most of their flight time (in loiter mode) in a narrow Cl range.
The fixed angle miniflaps were tested on a sailplane as described in the following chapter.
The purpose was to improve the L/D ratio of gliders and UAV-s to Cl>1.0 values.

1.1 Impact of fixed angle miniflaps on sailplane flight performance

Miniflaps can be divided into two classes: fixed deflection angle devices and variable
shape or angle devices. Fixed shaped devices can be fixed under the wing span, they are
lightweight and rigid, but the optimum range of flight speeds is narrow. Variable shape
devices are much more complicated, but the range of flight speeds used is much wider.
Below, the different types of miniflaps, their structure and the results of flight tests are
presented.
1.1.1 Types of miniflaps and their aerodynamic description
Miniflap (incl. mini TED, microflap) is a 0.5-4% at wing chord narrow flap of the trailing
edge, which is meant for increasing the lift coefficient and decreasing the wing airfoil
drag usually at higher lift coefficients. Miniflaps can be grouped into four types: Gurney
Flap (GF), Mini split flap, Divergent trailing edge (Figure 1) and mini plain flap

Figure 1. Miniature Trailing-Edge Devices (miniTEDs) (Richter et al., 2011).

(Figure 11). The first deflected angle is a 90° with the airflow. This device, increasing the
lift coefficient, was first used by the Formula 1 racer Dan Gurney and was introduced in
aviation after Prof. Robert Liebeck published his article in 1978 (Liebeck, 1978). Using a
1.25% high Gurney flap, the Newman airfoil maximum lift coefficient rose, but
surprisingly, at the same time the drag coefficient reduced. Unfortunately, at the GF
height over 2%, the lift coefficient increased but the drag began to grow faster.

13
Figure 2. Von Karman vortex street at the behind of the Gurney flap (Richter, 2010).

In his search for a solution to this paradox, Liebeck created a hypothesis according to
which the vortices behind the GF are accompanied by the diminishing of the thickness of
the trailing edge boundary layer, thus decreasing the growth of the drag and increasing
lift force (Figure 2). This hypothesis was corrected by Kai Richter in 2010 (Richter, 2010).
According to this, instead of two stationary vortexes, a vortex row (von Karman vortex
street) is formed behind the miniflap. Dimensions of the vortex depend on GF height,
AoA and Re number. This hypothesis is confirmed by wind tunnel testing (Figure 3) which
showed that the airfoil NACA 4412 boundary layer transition separation location expands
at adding 1% GF, AoA 4°, from 92 to 98% (Jang et al., 1998). Also, the Cl increased from
0.818 to 1.167.
Despite of its small size, the miniflap is a greatly effective mean for increasing the lift
force. Using the same airfoil, it was found that 4% high GF increased the lift force more
than at 25% chord length plain flap deflection angle +9° (Vlasov et al., 2007). At the same
time, the hinge moments induced by the deflecting flaps were smaller. At smaller
miniflap deflection angles the airfoil drag decreased significantly (Bloy et al., 1995).
Using miniflaps with airfoil NACA 63 2-215, L/D max was maintained at 2% chord when
a 45° miniflap was used at a higher lift coefficient. When the miniflap deflection angle
was increased up to 90°, the lift coefficient increased, but L/D max ratio decreased. When
the miniflap deflection angle is increased more than 45°, the lift coefficient growth
intensity will reduce (Figure 4).

14
Figure 3. Influence of Gurney flap width on upper surface boundary layer separation location (Jang
et al., 1998).

Therefore, with a symmetric airfoil NACA 0012, the Cl max increased 12.3% at a
deflection angle of 45° of a 1.5% chord of the wing miniflap, 15.1% at 60° and 17.4% at
90° (Wang et al., 2008). The use of a miniflap increases the wing negative pitching
moment depending on the miniflap width and deflection angle. By using airfoil NACA
5414 at Cl=1.0, the 2% miniflap deflecting from 0 o to 45° Cm increased from -0.122 to
-0.225 (Figure 5) (Bloy et al., 1997).

Angle of attack

Figure 4. The impact of 1,5% chord length of the wing miniflap deflection angle on airfoil NACA
0012 lift coefficient (Wang et al., 2008).

15
Figure 5. Influence of pitching moment coefficient about quarter-chord line with lift coefficient (Bloy
et al., 1997).

Figure 6. Influence of miniflap deflection angle on airfoil NACA 0012 pressure distribution and
trailing edge vortices (van Damm et al., 2007).

In a similar approach to the use of the plain flap, the deflection of the miniflap increases
to some extent the reach of the airfoil HQ-17, as the angle of attack is smaller at the same
Cl (Bechert et al., 2001). This diminishes the role of the vortices behind the miniflap in
the whole drag (Figure 6). The figure clearly shows that by increasing miniflap deflection
angle, the lower pressure distribution on the upper side of the wing extends (compare
c;j vs. d;k). Due to the increase in the pressure difference between the upper and lower
side of airfoil, the lift coefficient increases. Behind the miniflap, depending on this
relative length of the chord and angle of attack, a similar von Karman vortex street was
formed (van Dam et al., 2007).
An excellent result was achieved when a trailing edge wedge was used for airfoil S 904
(Bruscoli, 2011). At Re 1x106, at 2% wing chord length and 0.8% high trailing edge wedge
at Cl=0.52, the drag coefficient decreased from 0.0083 to 0.0049 and with Cl=0.8, from
0.0103 to 0.0068 (Figure 7). Unlike with other kinds of miniflaps, when trailing edge
wedge was used, Cl max decreased compared to the standard airfoil. (Paper I) This
supports the result of Jarzabek (Jarzabek, 2011).

16
Figure 7. Influence of different types of miniflaps on airfoil S 904 L/D performance
(Bruscoli, 2011)

1.1.2 Design of the miniflaps to improve glider climbing performance

Miniflap design was based on climbing performance polar for gliders (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Influence of lift coefficient, circling radius and bank angles on climb performance of glider
Diana 2 in a) narrow thermal, b) mean thermal (Kubrynsky, 2006).

As can be seen clearly from this figure, despite the increase in sink speed, at higher Cl
values the glider’s climbing speed still increases flying in narrow and mean thermals.
The miniflaps are of interest for using when flying in thermals at Cl>1.0. Higher wing
loading 50-60 kg/m² used with 15 m and 18 m class sailplanes preferably requires flap lift

17
coefficient at Cl=1.4 – 1.6 in thermals (Figure 8). Increasing the lift coefficient up to
1.3 – 1.5, the Diana 2 sailplane climbing speed increased by 0.2 m/s in mean and wide
thermals and even by 0.4 m/s in narrow thermals (Kubrynsky, 2006). The used flap
positions +14° – +28° enable to increase Cl max to 1.65 – 1.7, but starting from Cl
1.4 – 1.45 the profile drag begins to grow rather sharply as the boundary layer begins to
separate from the upper surface of the flap and from Cl 1.5, also the roll control starts
deteriorating.
Miniflap designing is based on previous research and modelling with the XFoil software.
To analyse miniflaps’ influence on glider’s flight performance, test flights with DG-1000
were made on Prof. Joseph Mertens’s (Akademische…, 2006) initiative in Aachen in 2006.
For these tests, 20 mm wide miniflaps (2.2%) of the chord were used. 5 test flights were
made at flap deflection angles +15°, +30°, +45°, +60° and +90°. When flying in thermals,
the best results were achieved at flap deflection +30° and +45o. Due to greater drag at
landing, the most favourable flap deflection was + 90o. It appeared that at flap deflection
+60° and +90° the drag increased significantly. Unfortunately, due to the bad weather
conditions it was not possible to continue these test flights.

Figure 9. Influence of miniflap deflection angle on the airfoil NN-8 aerodynamic characteristics,
based on modelling with XFLR 5 software at Re 1.1x106 (Balagura, 2013).

As the wing loading and wing aspect ratio of modern sailplanes will grow in future, Cl
1.5 – 1.7 needs to be used. To model the miniflap, the XFoil software (Drela, 1989) XFLR5
v. 696 was used. This modelling was also done based on the results of the wind tunnel
tests of the wing airfoil NN-8 (Ostrowski, 1981). According to the calculations, for the
SZD-48-3 Jantar-Standard 3 glider with airfoil NN-8 the optimum miniflap size was a 2%
lenght of the chord at 30o deflection angle. Using the miniflap with airfoil NN-8, the drag

18
was less at Cl>1.02 compared to the standard wing, and also the Cl-max increased
(Figure 9).
To test these calculated results, miniflap sections at fixed angle from a 1.5 mm thick
CFRP with relative wing chord ratio 2%, incl. ailerons, were made at the Estonian Aviation
Academy, Department of Aircraft Engineering. The miniflaps were attached using a
double-sided adhesive tape. Figures 10 and 11 depict the fixed miniflaps on the lower
side trailing edge of the sailplane wing.

Figure 10. Fixed angle miniflaps on sailplane Jantar-Standard 3 wing.

mm

mm
Figure 11. Fixed angle miniflap attached to the lower side of the Jantar-Standard 3 wing's trailing
edge (Paper I).
1.1.3 Methodology and tests
To perform the flight tests, the methodology developed by Johnson (Johnson, 1989) was
used. In addition to comparing the sink speed, the parallel flight method was used
(Hendrix, 2011). This methodology was chosen because it has proven the most accurate
in decades of use. Today, it is the most reliable glider flight test methodology. In addition,
the importance of a parallel test flight should be highlighted. This method makes it

19
possible to eliminate the effects of vertical movement of the atmosphere and increase
the accuracy of the measurements.
Test flights were performed in the airspace of Ridali Aerodrome in South Estonia in
2012-14. The gliders were operated by the pilots Matti Sillajõe, Alari Õun and Peep Lauk.
In the early morning, the gliders were towed by planes simultaneously to 1,700 m from
the ground. During the gliding the sailplanes flew parallel to each other at the distance
of 30-50 m at equal speeds. To find out and compare the sink speed the flight was divided
into separate sections. The same speed was maintained for 240 seconds and at the same
time the altitude change was measured. The test flight was completed at the flight
altitude of ca 600 m from the ground, which was higher than the inversion layer.
To determine the angle of attack versus speed, separate test flights were performed, as
at different angles of attack the flight speed had to be kept for 10 seconds each time.
Each test variation was repeated two or three times. The collected results were adjusted
based on the variance of air pressure and temperature. The most dangerous was the test
flight with DFS-60, and it was carried out by the author of this thesis. This device filled
most of the cockpit, worsened the view and disrupted the glider control. To get the most
accurate results, most of the subsequent miniflap test flights were performed by the
highly experienced Estonian glider pilot Matti Sillajõe. Before the flight tests the glider’s
altimeter and speed indicator were calibrated, the calibrating equipment used was the
air data test set D. Marchiori MPS 43. To reduce the influence of the fuselage on the flight
data, a Pitot’ tube was additionally installed on the upper fuselage. The test flight
program was prepared based on the modelling results of the XFLR5 software. The first
test flight already showed that the miniflaps proved to be much more effective than the
model had shown. Due to this, the flight plans had to be changed significantly and the air
speed indicator was additionally calibrated before the next test flights. (Paper I) To
calibrate the airspeed indicator, the static probe DFS-60 was used to perform the test
flights. Most of test flights were made at IAS from 65 to 101 km/h.
A graph of calibrated speeds was completed on the basis of the collected results
(Figure 12). The Dynon Avionics equipment D100 was used for accurate measuring and
recording, and an additional Pitot’ tube was attached to the sailplane for validation the
flight parameters. To record the cockpit data and the position of the second glider and,
in addition, to observe the airflow by tuft, GoPro cameras were used, attaching the first
camera to the stabilizer and the other two in the cockpit. In the test flights, the parallel
flight method with two gliders of the same type was applied. A miniflap was used with
only one glider, the other one was used for comparison. Before the test flights, both
gliders were weighed together with pilots and, where necessary, water ballast was
added. Both gliders had the same centre of gravity and wing loading (G/S 35.78 kg/m²).

20
 IAS km/h

100

90

80

70

60
60 70 80 90 100 TAS km/h

Figure 12. IAS and TAS values obtained from calibrating flights.

Figure 13. Glider SZD-48-3 Jantar-Standard 3 lift coefficient Cl versus angle of attack with a +30°
deflected 2% chord length miniflap (Paper I).

1.1.4. Flight test results

With 2% of the wing chord miniflaps at a 30° deflection angle, the sailplane’s stall speed
reduced from 75 to 66 km/h and the Cl max increased from 1.35 to 1.66 (Figure 13),
taking only a small growth of the wing area. In addition, the critical angle of attack of the
wing increased by 1.6° from 9.6o to 11.2o.
The increasing of the critical angle of attack by using Gurney flap has been noted by the
authors of several articles (Cavanaught et al., 2007). Usually, the increasing has not
exceeded 1°, but according to one research the critical angle of attack increased by 2.1°

21
(Vlasov et al., 2007). The analysis of the obtained test flight results indicated that using
miniflaps with lift coefficient Cl ranges from 0.99 to 1.21 and from 1.32 to 1.66, the drag
of the glider decreased compared to the standard configuration and the L/D ratio of the
glider improved Cl>1.0, especially in Cl range from 1.08 to 1.19 (Figure 14).
The drag decreasing may be caused not only by the reduce of the airfoil drag, but it
may also be linked to the decrease of the fuselage drag and the interference drag,
because the angle of attack decreased 2.5° at the same airspeed. At the airspeed of
81 km/h (Cl 1.13), a considerably anomalous decreasing in the sink speed up to 0.63 m/s
and increase in the L/D ratio at the same airspeed can be noticed. Considering the
dispersion of the instrument accuracy and the results obtained during the test flights,
the value of the measurement uncertainty was 12.3%. This means +/- 0.25o in AoA and
+/- 0.85 cm/s in sink speed. Therefore, the measurement uncertainty is approximately
8 times smaller than the difference in the test results and therefore, the final results are
credibly correct. The most probable cause for the drag decreasing is the thinning
boundary layer near to the trailing edge as a result of the vortex appearing behind the
miniflap on the wing. At airspeeds under 70 km/h the sink speed grew, mainly due to the
induced drag, which is generated due to the not high aspect ratio of the wing (20.2) for
gliders. At the airspeeds over 86 km/h (Cl< 0.99), the miniflap increased the sailplane
drag. Test pilots have confirmed that by using the miniflap the glider longitudinal stability
increased and the roll control of low flight speed improved. At further growth of the
airspeed up to 150 km/h, additionally to the drag also the loads on the ailerons increased
significantly. (Paper I) The test pilot confirmed that the loads on the ailerons exceeded
the normal forces for controls more than twice.

Figure 14. Miniflap 2% of the wing chord (deflection angle +30°) influence on glider Jantar-Standard
3 performance. G/S 35.78 kg/m² (Paper I).

The glider’s required towing airspeed decreased typically for this type of glider from
125-130 km/h to 115-120 km/h. Near to the critical angles of attack, the sailplane roll
stability and controllability were maintained. On one test flight, the pilot inadvertently
exceeded the critical angle of attack and flew like that for ca 10 seconds.
The controllability was maintained, but the vibration accompanying the stall increased,
as also the T-stabilizer was located inside while in the vortices area. To observe the
glider’s actual behaviour in thermals, a separate flight was performed with the main

22
objective of identifying any changes in controllability and stability caused by the use of
miniflaps. On the day of the test flight, the weather was windy and turbulent and the
thermals were narrow and intermittent. Despite of the turbulence the glider’s stability
and controllability remained good and showed no significant variation from the normal
configuration. In spiral flight in thermals, it was possible to turn to a back angle of
35°-40° while maintaining the airspeed of 76 km/h, which is significantly lower than the
standard airspeed (85-90 km/h) of this type of glider at the given mode.
The most important aspect of this thesis is that for the first time the impact of the
miniflap on the aircraft was systematically measured. Using the obtained data, it is
possible to design a fixed deflection angle miniflaps for unmanned and conventional
aircraft. The hypothesis of the efficacy of miniflap was confirmed during the test flights.
Above expectations, the efficiency of the miniflap proved to be higher than the previous
modelling had shown. Based on the collected data, it is also possible to design variable
geometry miniflaps for aircraft, gliders and large UAV-s, which can extend the range of
low drag flight speed.

1.2 Impact of variable geometry miniflaps on glider flight

characteristics
The fixed deflection angle miniflaps significantly improved the glider’s climbing
performance, but at high speeds they decreased glider’s flight performance (Paper I). To
increase the range of optimal airspeeds the author of this thesis decided to design
variable geometry miniflaps and test them on glider with trailing edge flaps.

1.2.1 Aerodynamic design of a variable geometry miniflap

Wing trailing edge flaps improve gliders’ flight characteristics. When flying in thermals,
the flaps are deflected downward, whereas in the straight and speed flight they stand in
the neutral position or are even deflected upward (negative position) during the speed
flight. To minimize the glider’s drag, the flap position is changed according to the
airspeed of flying. Today, the non-slotted plain flaps are most commonly used due to
their simple design. Most of the modern gliders, having wing airfoils with relative
thickness of 12.7-13.4% of the chord, enable thermal flying by applying the lift
coefficients 1.4-1.5 without significantly increasing the drag. Although the Fowler flaps
are more effective in generating lift, then due to the slot, they also generate relatively
higher drag. The non-slot flaps (also referred to as Wortmann flaps, Figure 15) for glider
SB-11 designed in Akaflieg Braunchweig proved suitably effective. In the extended
position, these would contribute to the maximum lift coefficient increase up to 1.7.
Additionally, the total area of the wing was also expanded by up to 25%.

23
Figure 15. SB-11 glider using Wortmann flaps (Horstmann et al., 1979).

The flight performance of the SB-11 is better than that of other gliders of similar
wingspan, but its main disadvantages include less wing torsional stiffness and
complicated structure of flap controls. Today, relatively thin airfoils are used, with their
laminar flow on the lower surface of the wing extending up to 92-95% of the wing chord,
which do not enable using that kind of flaps because these would interrupt the laminar
flow. The aspect ratio of the wing is also much higher and the use of the Wortmann flap
increases the risk of the wing flutter. To calculate real aerodynamic characteristics for
the variable geometry miniflaps (VGMF), the author of this thesis used the XFLR 5
software (XFLR5, 2017). The XFOIL code was developed by M. Drela from MIT (Drela,
1989). Using this software, the author designed optimal shape and deflection angle
VGMF for the wing with airfoil LAP 7-131/17. The airfoil pressure diagram is described in
Figure 16. In this Figure, presented by using VGMF, a laminar flow was maintained up to
68% of the chord on the upper side of the airfoil at Cl=1.75. While on the lower side of
the airfoil, the laminar flow reaches up to 75% of the chord. Despite of the flow near to
the VGMF trailing edge being separated, the drag remains relatively low. The lifting
center is located 42.5% of the chord. Accordingly, the center of gravity should be 38-40%
of the MAC. In Figure 17, airfoil polars without and with VGMF are compared. By using
VGMF, airfoil max L/D ratio increased from 175 (Cl 1.3) to 201 (Cl at 1.7), i.e. nearly by
14.6%. (Paper II) This is a far better result than using a conventional type of flap.
However, it can be clearly seen that at Cl values below 1.3 it is practical to retract the
VGMF to decrease the drag. It should be noted that the above-mentioned perfect results
are realistic when flying in non-turbulent atmosphere if the wing is clean.
When contaminated with insects or water drops, the airfoil drag may increase more than
twice.

24
 chord

Figure 16. Pressure distribution on the LAP 7-131/17 airfoil, flaps +15o, with VGMF +16,7o (above)
and airfoil aerodynamic characteristics (below), at the Re 1,1x106 (Paper II).

Figure 17. Airfoil LAP 7-131/17 polars, with flaps at +15o with and without the VGMF.

With flaps deflecting at +15o downward, the VGMF +16,7o at the airfoil angle of attack of
0o increased the lift coefficient by 0.669.

25
Figure 18. VGMF influence on airfoil LAP 7-131/17 lift coefficient (flap angle +15o) Cl versus AoA
(Paper II).

Variable geometry miniflaps are accommodated inside the flaps. For the VGMF
extending, the lower aft side of the flap is covered with flexible precurved mylar seal.
Like Wortmann flaps, extending the VGMF increased the wing area by 6.5% and could be
deflected by 16.7o (Figure 19). The picture shows a top view of the VGMF, made of carbon
fiber behind the trailing edge of the flap.

Figure 19. VGMF in extended position.

To improve the roll control at the beginning of the test flights, miniflaps were also
attached to the trailing edge of the ailerons. Their use was later abandoned because the
roll controllability was good enough.

26
Figure 20. VGMF different positions with flap in glider LAK-17B wing.

Like the Wortmann flap, there are no slots between the flap and VGMF, but instead, to
ensure smooth movement of the miniflap, the rear lower section of the flap is made
flexible (Figure 20). Wider flap width (17% of the wing chord) is needed for completing
the VGMF flap track and actuating mechanism inside the flap. By using VGMF together
with the flap at deflection angle +15˚, the airfoil’s maximum lift coefficient increased
from 1.36 to 1.75, i.e. by 28.5% (Figure 18), on the other hand, the critical angle of attack
decreased from 3.5o to 0.5o. To ensure the optimal lift distribution alongside the wing,
for actuating the flaps and VGMF, it is also necessary to deflect the ailerons downward
at an angle that exceeds the deflection angle of the flaps.

1.2.2 Technological design of a variable geometry miniflap

From an engineering perspective, designing a control mechanism for VGMF is a serious
challenge because the wings of the glider flex during the flight. Normally, the wing tips
of Lak-17B flex approximately 0.50 m upward above the neutral position during the flight.
At maximum overloading, the wing tip reaches approximately 2.5 m upward or 1.5 m
below the neutral position at 18-meter wingspan. Also, under these conditions, the
VGMF control mechanism must work smoothly (Figure 21).

27
Figure 21. LAK-17B with VGMF to make a test flight.

The torsional stiffness of flaps is a very important indicator and its center of gravity
should stay within the permitted limits. To increase the torsional rigidity, an extra spar
and ribs were bonded inside the flap.

Figure 22. VGMF control mechanism inside the flaps.

To minimize the weight of the flap, 1.5 mm thick balsa wood sheets were used between
the CFRP layers. The miniflaps were designed by the author of this thesis at the
Department of Aircraft Engineering of the Estonian Aviation Academy (Figure 22). Many
of miniflap control elements were milled from aluminium alloy mark 7075. Several
complex elements were produced from stainless steel 316R, by using 3D laser sintering
at the Powder Metal Laboratory at Tallinn University of Technology (Figure 23).

28
Figure 23. 3D laser printed control elements inside the flaps.

The actuating mechanisms inside the flap move simultaneously through the connected
CFRP guide tube (Figure 24). The miniflap control mechanism consists of three devices:
the actuating mechanism (blue), a miniflap track beam and guide rail (yellow and red),
as well deflecting mechanism which is located inside the front side of the miniflap.

Figure 24. The novel control mechanism of miniflaps, created by the author of this thesis, in
retracted and extended positions. (Paper II).

The flap’s lower rear side is coated with elastic precurved mylar sealing (Figure 25).

29
Figure 25. The miniflaps in extended position. The precurved mylar seal coated at the lower side of
the flap’s trailing edge.

With the wings rigging (joining), the miniflap controls were joined automatically with the
fuselage controls. The average weight of the new flaps designed with miniflaps is 142 g
(7%) less, compared to that of the standard flaps. This actuating device designed by the
author has been published in the journal "Aviation" No. 4, 2017 and international experts
have acknowledged it as a highly promising technological solution. The center of gravity
of the flaps was located near to the allowable rear position. With their flaps’ torsional
rigidity being lower than that of the standard flaps, the glider’s maximum allowed
airspeed was limited to 180 km/h. The fact that the new flaps were lighter in weight,
enabled to increase the thickness of CFRP skin laminates and, thus, to achieve the
relevant torsional rigidity. Miniflaps actuating is controlled in the cockpit by using a
manually operated lever. Before the test flights, non-destructive tests were carried out.
Finally, the miniflaps connected to the flaps were loaded to the 3G overload. Both the
deflection angle and the twist angle of the flaps were measured. Similar test of the
mechanical devices under overloads was performed. The positioning of the VGMF on the
wings is shown in Figure 26.

Figure 26. VGMF positioning on glider LAK-17B.

1.2.3 Flight test methodology

To perform the flight tests, the methodology developed by Richard Johnson was used
(Johnson, 1989), together with the J. Hendrix flight data recorder (Hendrix, 2011). Before
the flight tests, the airspeed indicator was calibrated, using the Air Data Test Set MPS 43.
(Paper II) As is widely known, airflow over the glider affects the indicator readings during
the flight. Due to this the DFS-60 static probe was used for calibrating airspeed indicator

30
additionally. The test flight results provided by calibrating airspeed indicator with
different flap and airbrake positions have been presented in Figure 27.

Figure 27. Test flights results provided by calibrating airspeed indicator in glider.

For data recording during the test flights, the LX Eos flight recorder was used. The flight
test data obtained were processed and analysed, using the AJ1.IGC Software (IGC, 2017).
The software enables to analyse and reproduce in 3D space the flight data received.
Additionally, a GoPro camera was used in the cockpit to measure the glider’s pitch angle,
and to video record flying at different air speeds. For parallel flying, gliders with the same
flight characteristics were used, but mostly the glider LAK-19T that had undergone a
thorough pre-flight calibration. Before test flights, the take-off weight of the glider was
determined and additional weight (water) was loaded to the tail ballast tank so as to shift
the centre of gravity to the allowable rear position. During test flight, the wing loading of
both gliders was 39.39 kg/m2. The corrected results of the test flights are presented in
Table 1.

Table 1. Corrected results of test flights. (Paper II)

31
To perform the test flights, the gliders were towed to the altitude of 2,500 m above the
ground. During the glide flight, the sink speed was measured at different airspeeds and
also by using different positions of flaps and miniflaps. Each flight leg at a constant
airspeed lasted for 180 seconds. In parallel flying, the gliders flew side by side at 30-50
meters from each other. The difference between the sink speeds was compared by using
the video recording. Measurement was stopped above the inversion layer, and the
measurement results were adjusted based on the variance of air pressure and
temperature readings with those of the standard atmosphere. For calculations, the
formulas presented by Pätzold were used (Pätzold, 2014).

Figure 28. LAK-17B sink speed influence on VGMF in different flap positions.

1.2.4 Flight test results

As a result of the test flights at the airspeed of 72-82.5 km/h, the variable geometry
miniflaps decreased the sink and stall speed of the LAK-17B glider (Figure 28). The flaps
were deflected downward at +9˚ and +15˚; the ailerons were deflected same time at
+14.4˚ and +21.2˚. With the flap deflection angle at +9o at the airspeed of 79.5 km/h, the
sink speed was decreased when using the VGMF from 0.775 to 0.555 m/s, i.e. by 39.6%.
With the flap deflection angle at +15o, the optimal flight speed decreased, but the sink
speed increased. One of the main factors causing the aerodynamic drag to increase is the
canal between the flap and the fuselage that is formed when the flap is deflected and
that violates the elliptic lift distribution on the wing. Deflecting the flap also induces the
growth of the interferent drag. Unlike the narrow (e.g. 2% length of the wing chord)
miniflaps, those making up to 6.5% of the length did not increase the critical angle of
attack but, rather, decreased that angle by 3o (Figure 18). The decreasing lift in
overcritical angle of attack when using miniflaps was relatively slow, and the decrease in
the critical angle of attack, likewise, was not significant. Also, the glider’s lateral stability
decreased, because during the stall, the lift coefficient decreases more near to the
ailerons. Under the impact of miniflaps, the maximum increase in lift coefficient Cl
obtained was from 1.41 to 1.58, i.e. by 12% and the stall speed decreased at the same
time from 75.4 to 72 km/h, i.e. by 4.7%. The aerodynamic effectiveness of the miniflaps
was reduced by their relatively small wing surface area. The miniflaps take over for 45%
of the total wing area. If the miniflaps were located along the wing’s trailing edge, from

32
root to tip, the lift coefficient could rise up to 32%, which allows to reduce the stall speed
by 13.8%. At the airspeed in excess of 82.5 km/h, i.e. Cl<1.2 the miniflaps increased the
drag, and due to this it is practical to retract the miniflaps into the flaps before increasing
airspeed. Considering the dispersion of the instrument accuracy and the results obtained
during the test flights, the value of the measurement uncertainty was 13.4%. This means
+/-0.25o and +/-1.0 cm/s in sink speed. Therefore, the measurement uncertainty is
approximately 7.5 times smaller than the difference in the test results and therefore, the
final results are credibly correct. Several glider pilots tested the use of miniflaps in
thermals. Dependent on each pilot’s weight, a 35o-40o bank angle in spiral flight was
performed at the airspeed range of 80-85 km/h (at wing loading 39 kg/m2), which is
significantly lower than the designed airspeed (90-100 km/h) of this type of glider.
The effect of using VGMF is particularly considerable when flying in narrow thermals.
Before the test flights, additional weight was loaded to the tail ballast tank. By changing
the centre of gravity from 26 to 35% of MAC, the glider’s flying characteristics improved
and at the same time, its stall speed decreased. However, additional change of the centre
of gravity up to 39.9% of MAC did not lead to further improvement of the glider’s flight
characteristics. Instead, its stall characteristics degraded. The lateral stability could
slightly be improved when reducing the ailerons’ deflection angle by 1o-2o. (Paper II)

1.2.5 Conclusion

The defended statements

• With 2% of the wing chord, all wingspan fixed angle miniflaps at a 30° deflection angle,
the sailplane’s Jantar-Standard 3 stall speed reduced from 75 to 66 km/h and the Cl
max increased from 1.35 to 1.66 (Paper I).
• The critical angle of attack of the wing increased by 1.6° from 9.6o to 11.2o. The analysis
of the obtained test flight results indicated that using miniflaps with lift coefficient Cl
ranges from 0.99 to 1.21 and from 1.32 to 1.66, the drag of the glider Jantar-Standard
3 decreased compared to the standard configuration.
• The L/D ratio of Jantar-standard 3 glider improved Cl>1.0, especially in Cl range from
1.08 to 1.19. (Paper I) As a result of free flight tests, the fixed miniflap effect
significantly exceeded the calculated results for this type of glider.
• Using variable geometry miniflaps allows to improve the L/D ratio of LAK-17B glider
within the range of Cl from 1.2 to 1.58 (Paper II). At the same time, the critical angle of
attack decreased by 3o. The highest rise of L/D ratio was achieved when using the
miniflaps (reaching up to 39.8% at Cl=1.29).
• Test pilots confirmed that by using miniflap, the glider’s longitudinal stability increased
and the roll control of low flight speed improved.
Effectiveness of miniflaps could still be higher if instead of covering 45% they would cover
up to 65-75 % of total wing area. In this thesis, it was found that the miniflaps somewhat
improved the stall characteristics. At the same time, this issue should be investigated
systematically. The main importance of this thesis is that for the first time, the author
designed and tested the miniflap, which simultaneously changes both the angle of
deflection and the area of the wing. Its effect is significantly higher than that of the widely
known plain flap. In addition to the aerodynamic effect, the device proved to be reliable,
despite the large deformation of the wing during the flight. Thickness of the airfoil used
previously was in between from 15% to 17% and had much higher drag. Also, the wing

33
flexed in flight much less due to smaller aspect ratio. For the first time, the variable area
flap was successfully tested and used in such a thin (thickness 13.1%) low drag wing,
despite the high elastic deformation during the flight. Actuating device proved that it is
possible to design a light and reliable device and proved its usability in extreme
conditions. The similar device can be used in the future inside the thin trailing edge flaps
of commercial aircraft and large UAV-s.

34
2 Impact of trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic
performance of the wing at high speed
2.1 Influence of trailing edge modifications on the aerodynamic
characteristics of a supercritical airfoil at transonic speeds
One of the most effective methods for increasing the L/D ratio on commercial aircraft at
Cl values from 0.55 to 0.7 and at Mach=0.78-0.85, is to use various modifications to the
trailing edge of the wing. These modifications are divided into two. The most known
modifications include the diverged trailing edge (DTE). It is used by commercial aircraft
in McDonnel Douglas MD-11 and also in Boeing B777X. DTE allows to avoid the wave
drag growth that is associated with the increase in Cl value of over 0.55. Unfortunately,
at Cl values less than 0.50, DTE-s increase drag. Airbus, a leading European aircraft
manufacturer, has tested the mini split flap called miniTED with an adjustable angle of
deflection. The results obtained and their use in miniflap design are discussed in the next
chapter.
2.1.1 High speed flight test results with miniTED-s
Successful developments up to large scale demonstrations have taken place, e.g. such as
in-flight testing of multifunctional mini Trailing Edge Devices (miniTED-s). The miniTED-s
are a highly efficient concept where large effects can be obtained with a small chord
device attached directly on the wing/flap trailing edge (Reckzeh, 2014).

Figure 29. MiniTED (in red colour) as multifunctional add-on device on the A340 Flaps in Flight Test.
(Reckzeh, 2014).

The above-mentioned devices require a separate actuating system, which has to be

embedded on the moveable trailing edge flap carrying the miniTED.
Based on the test flight, the miniTED deflection in flight at subsonic speeds of 0.70-0.82
Mach enables to decrease the wing drag from above Cl 0.53 (Richter, 2010). The mini
split flap is proved more effective than the plain miniflap type. Different researches have
noted out that depending on the aircraft type, the optimum miniTED deflection angle is

35
7.5o-22.5o (Gardner et al., 2006). Some role in the reducing of the drag might be
attributed also to the decreasing of 2-2.5° on the fuselage slope angle. In wind tunnel
tests with the model of the Airbus A340-300 at Mach=0.82, the use of a 2% chord
miniTED at 7.5° deflection angle increased the aircraft’s L/D ratio by 4.4% at Cl=0.65 and
by 6.07% at Cl=0.67 (Figure 30). (Paper I) This responds to A340-300 flight weight of
accordingly 181,000 kg and 224,700 kg at flight level FL 390 and Mach=0.82. The fuel
consumption decreases proportionately. The received results are comparable to the
effect of using winglets. It should be accented that the use of miniflaps for aircraft gives
significant results at wing loadings over 600-700 kg/m². The highest fuel economy is
attained with the use of both the miniflaps and the winglets. In case of turbulence, with
changing the miniflaps angle during the flight, the load distribution can be changed
(Gardner et al., 2006), decreasing the wing bending moment that is induced by the
turbulence in airspace.
Although miniTED had a relatively high aerodynamic efficiency, its technical solution
was complicated. The thin miniTED was not rigid enough and required a simultaneous
cooperation of many electric actuators. However, this solution is not sufficiently reliable
for using on commercial aircraft.

Figure 30. Impact of miniTED (+7.5°) on A340-300 drag at different Cl values. (Richter, 2010).

In the Boeing CLEEN framework (Wilsey, 2012), miniflaps were tested on an American
Airlines Boeing 737-800 in September 2012. The 3% chord of the wing mini plain flaps at
the angle of 30o were used. In addition to reducing the fuel consumption miniflaps enable
to reduce the noise at takeoff and at landing as the required airspeed at takeoff is lower
and the aircraft’s angle of ascent is greater. (Paper I)

36
2.1.2 Aerodynamic performance of the supercritical wing
Airflow control near to the wing at transonic speed is complicated. From Mach=0.74 the
Cl low drag region of supercritical airfoils becomes quite narrow. For example, at the
airspeed of Mach=0.78, the low drag region of the airfoil SC(2)-0410 is between Cl=0.4
and Cl=0.5. The Cl range of the airfoil SC(2)-0710, due to the higher chamber at the same
Mach, is within the range from 0.55 to 0.70. At the same time, at lower Cl values the drag
of SC(2)-0710 is higher than that of the airfoil SC(2)-0410. Due to the air traffic and
meteorological conditions there is often need for using the Cl range between 0.45 and
0.7 during the flight. A fixed shape airfoil of a commercial aircraft is usually designed for
the optimal range of Cl=0.5–0.55, but at the values higher or lower than this, the drag
and fuel consumption start to increase. The main reason for the drag increase is the
arising shock wave on the upper side of the wing.
Figure 31 presents the Mach field over the supercritical airfoil SC(2)-0410 and the
pressure distribution on the surface of the airfoil at the angle of attack of +0.50 at
Mach=0.78 (Paper III). While the airflow exceeds the supersonic airspeed on the upper
side of the airfoil, the changes in the pressure and airspeed are relatively smooth.

37
Figure 31. Supercritical airfoil SC(2)-0410, Mach field and pressure distribution at Mach=0.78,
α =0.5o and Cl=0.476.

The Mach field situation is significantly changed when increasing the angle of attack of
the same airfoil by up to +1.50. As can be seen in Figure 32, a strong shock wave on 64%
of the chord on the upper side of the airfoil causes a rapid decrease of air speed and with
that, increase of the drag. Behind the shock wave the increase of the boundary layer
thickness is clearly visible.

38
Figure 32. Supercritical airfoil SC(2)-0410, Mach field and pressure distribution at M=0.78, α =1.5o,
Cl=0.7037.

2.1.3. The effect of the cruise miniflap profiles on the aerodynamic performance of
the wing
To solve the problem discussed above, the author of this thesis designed the cruise
miniflap (CMF) for the supercritical airfoil SC(2)-0410 with the width of CMF 4% of the
chord, using CFD software STAR-CCM+. Like the Wortmann flap, it can be retracted at
lower Cl=0.52 and extended at higher Cl values. The extended CMF also deflects
downward by about 3.5o (STAR-CCM+, 2017).
To make the calculations, the standard atmospheric conditions data were used. The Re
number selected in the calculations was 7.7x106. By thoroughly examining earlier
research work, in particular the studies by Harris and Henne, the author was inspired to
compare different trailing edge profiles. Different shape profiles were calculated at the
trailing edge of the CMF. It was also important to compare them with standard (sharp)
trailing edge (CMF-A). Computational calculations were based on Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) Solution (equations). Estimates for most of these modifications
showed the maximum lift coefficient increasing and the wave drag relatively reducing.
Figure 33 presents different CMF profile shapes that were used for calculations. At the
angle of attack of 0o only 4% wide of the airfoil chord, the CMF-D increased the lift
coefficient from 0.365 to 0.857, i.e by 0.492, that means more than twice (Figure 34).
Using the CMF-D airfoil trailing edge profile, the angle of attack reduces by 2.41o to the
same lift coefficient. (Paper III) The most important results that can be applied to the
design of new commercial aircraft are mainly presented on pages 42-46 of this research.

39
Figure 33. Different CMF trailing edge profiles that were used for calculations.

Figure 34. Influence of different CMF profiles on airfoil SC(2)-0410 lift coefficient.

The CMF-C with a cavity trailing edge increased the Cl coefficient at the same angle of
attack up to 0.825, i.e. by 0.46. Both of the above-mentioned CMF profiles obtained are
higher when compared to the standard sharp trailing edge of 0.2% thickness, i.e 0.41.
Due to the high efficiency, the CMF-s are suitable for optimizing the lift distribution along
the wing, which enables to reduce the induced drag (Gardner et al., 2006).
Comparing the pressure distribution of airfoil (Figure 35) with different trailing edge
profiles it its clearly visible that the CMF significantly reduces the airfoil’s upper side Cl
level from 1.1 to 0.8, as an average, and expands the plateau of negative pressure from
64% to 81% of the chord. (Paper III)

40
Figure 35. Influence of different CMF profiles on pressure distribution at M=0.78, Cl=0.70.

With the reduction of negative pressure, also the air flow speed is reduced, and with
that, the wave drag on upper side of the airfoil. Comparing the Mach fields of different
CMF-s, it appeared that the use of CMF changes the structure of the shock wave.
The normal strong shock wave is characteristic of the basic airfoil. By using the CMF, the
shock wave moves closer to the trailing edge, also the transition is wider and has a
lambda-shaped pattern (Figure 36).

Figure 36. Supercritical airfoil SC(2)-0410 with CMF-D Mach field M=0.78, Cl=0.682.

An especially low shock wave was formed when using the CMF-C with cavity. Its trailing
edge height is 0.7% of the airfoil chord. The shock wave reduced significantly and the
transition of air pressure on the upper side of the wing is smoother when compared to
other CMF profiles (Figure 37). With the use of the CMF, the lifting centre of the airfoil
moves towards the trailing edge while increasing the nose down coefficient. The

41
comparison of calculated aerodynamic polars shows (Figure 38) that by using CMF-s, the
decrease of the drag begins from Cl>0.50–0.52. CMF-D is more effective when compared
to the other types of CMF-s. The use of CMF-D reduces the airfoil drag at lift coefficients
of Cl=0.65 and Cl=0.70 by 20.34% and by 26.57%, respectively. (Paper III)

Figure 37. Airfoil SC(2)-0410 with CMF-C Mach field at M=0.78, Cl=0.70.

Despite the positive effect of the cavity trailing edge on pressure distribution, the CMF-C
drag is a bit higher than that of the CMF-D. But the cavity height and deflection angle
optimization can still be drag reducing. The optimal thickness of the trailing edge cavity
remains within the range of 0.5–0.9% of the chord, and depends on the relative thickness
of the airfoil, Mach number and the Cl value.

42
 CMF-D
CMF-C

Figure 38. Calculated aerodynamic polars of SC(2)-0410 airfoil with different CMF profiles.

With the higher Cl value, the height of optimal cavity is higher. The same principle is used
in other CMF design. The cavity trailing edge allows to control the size of the von Karman
vortex and the separation from the trailing edge. By modelling the wing body
configuration, the use of CMF-D may increase the L/D ratio of a medium-sized
twin-engine commercial aircraft by up to 5 % (Figure 39). (Paper III)

Figure 39. Comparison of calculated wing body L/D characteristics for a medium-sized twin-engine
aircraft.

This graph shows that the use of CMF-D increases the max L/D ratio at Cl=0.65 and the
wing effective aspect ratio (AR) remains within the range of 10.7–12.0. If the wing aspect
ratio is lower than 10, the effectiveness of CMF decreases significantly, because the
increasing in Cl creates the increase in the induced drag.
Another important influence is that the extension of CMF brings the centre of lift to
move rearwards the trailing edge of the wing. When the centre of gravity is fixed, the use
of CMF increases the balanced drag because the stabilizer must produce higher negative
lift. Increasing of the balanced drag can be up to 2% rise of the total drag of the aircraft.
The similar result was reached also by P. A. Henne (Henne, 1990).

43
Figure 40. CMF-D influence on Specific Air Range (SAR) example for a typical medium-sized twin-
engine aircraft.

Increase of the balanced drag can be prevented by using the trim tank in the tail of the
aircraft. Usually this tank is designed as located inside the stabilizer. By using the CMF
during the flight, the centre of gravity is moved behind along the chord by pumping the
fuel from the central tank to the trim tank in the tail. Before the take-off and the landing,
the fuel is pumped back into the central tank to increase the longitudinal stability.
2.1.4. The impact of cruise miniflap on the specific air range (SAR)
By using CMF, it is possible to increase the specific air range (SAR) (Figure 40). Specific air
range is the ratio between true air speed and gross fuel consumption expressed as air
nautical miles per gallon or kilometres per kilogram of fuel. It is a measure of the fuel
efficiency of the aircraft. This figure shows the influence of optimal altitude with the CMF
on SAR of a typical medium-sized twin-engine aircraft with the flight weight of 77,000 kg.
As shown in this figure, the optimal altitude rises for about 900 m, and the low fuel
consumption altitude range also increases.

44
Figure 41. Wind speed inside a typical jet stream at different altitudes.

Strong winds inside the jet streams, appearing in various regions of the world, have a
significant influence on the air traffic. The polar jet stream with the prevailing direction
of the wind from the west to the east has a major impact on the air traffic in European
airspace.
The typical jet stream wind speeds depend on altitudes and are shown in Figure 41.
As it can be seen, the maximum wind speed remains within the range of altitude
FL 300–340 on an average. The impact of the wind on an aircraft SAR decreases
significantly with the rise of altitude from FL 340–400 upwards. Accordingly, flying in
headwind is advisable within the range of altitude FL 380–400, and flying in tailwind
within the range of altitude FL 310–330. In transatlantic flights from east to west, the use
of CMF allows to increase altitude from FL 340 to FL 380, which enables to reduce the
fuel consumption by about 5.7% in the conditions where an intensive jet stream is
prevailing for about 25% of flight track. On the opposite flight, it is reasonable to use the
altitude of FL 330. By this model, the optimization of flight levels would help to save all
in all 3.1% of the fuel. (Paper III)
In the aircraft industry, the complex technical solutions have often been the cause why
many great ideas have not been implemented. The main causes include the reduced
operating reliability and the increased maintenance costs of the actuating systems. The
technical solution patented by the author of this thesis is simple, reliable and requires
low maintenance work (Figures 42).

45
Figure 42. CMF actuating mechanism in extended and retracted positions (Patent application EP
17207454.4).

The most important units of this device are swivel beams that enable to retract and
extend the CMF flap and concurrently change the deflecting angle. The motion of the
CMF reasons the split flap deflecting, positioned under the CMF, and helps to reduce the
friction drag by moving CMF. The centre of gravity of the actuating unit is located in the
front side of the flaps. Due to this, the CMF can be used inside the ailerons because the
mass balancing to prevent aileron flutter is not necessary. The main advantage of this
solution compared to the VGMF presented in the previous chapter is that it contains
approximately 3 times smaller number of moving parts. This makes the solution much
simpler in terms of technology. Together with the reduction weight of CMF, it is possible
to reduce the production cost of the entire aircraft, as well as to increase the aircraft
reliability. (Paper III)
The most practical is to calculate the fuel consumption of the aircraft, using the Breguet
Range Equation [1]. Knowing the specific fuel consumption of the propulsion system and
other basic parameters of the aircraft, it is possible to calculate the range of the aircraft
using the following formula (Young, 2018).

[1]

where:
V - airspeed
L - lift coefficient
D - drag coefficient
SFC - specific fuel consumption
g - acceleration of gravity

46
Winitial - aircraft take-off weight
Wfinal - aircraft landing weight

When the range is known, the following formula can be used to calculate the fuel
consumption, also named as Fuel flow (mf) [2] (Young, 2018).
𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 −𝑊𝑊𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
mf =
𝑅𝑅/𝑉𝑉
; [2]
where:
mf - fuel flow, kg/h
R - range, km
From the above formulas shown, it can be seen that the drag reduction and the fuel
consumption decrease proportionally. By increasing L/D ratio by 5%, the fuel
consumption will also decrease by 5%. This assumption is true if the remaining
parameters, except the weight, are constant.
2.1.5. Conclusion
The present study is focused on determining the effect of miniflaps on the aerodynamic
characteristics of the wing on fully-turbulent flow conditions at Mach=0.78 and the
Reynolds number 7.7x106. State-of-the-art computational fluid dynamic (CFD) methods
were used.
The defended statements
• The CMF-D with the 4% of the airfoil chord with the deflecting angle of 3.5o increases
the Cl by 0.492, that means more than twice in AoA 0o, therefore being much more
efficient than the miniTED and other modifications tested earlier (Richter, 2010).
• The use of CMF-D caused the reduction of the airfoil drag at Cl=0.65 and Cl=0.70 by
20.34% and by 26.57%, respectively. It allows to increase the aircraft’s maximal L/D
ratio by 5% and considerably reduce the aircraft’s fuel consumption. The main purpose
of using the CMF is reducing the wave drag of the wing.
• Using the different deflection angles of CMF, it is possible to optimize the lift
distribution along the wing and reduce the induced drag by 3-5%.
• By using the CMF, the centre of lift will move significantly backward of the wing chord.
It is reasonable to change the position of CMF backward during the flight by pumping
the fuel into the trim tank of the tail of aircraft.
• By using the CMF, it is possible to reduce the impact of meteorological conditions on
the flight time and fuel consumption of the aircraft, mainly due to the impact of jet
streams. Using the CMF allows to use the most optimal flight level during the flight and
additionally reduce the fuel consumption by 3.1–5.7% and shorten the flight time.
• The simple CMF technical solution, developed by the author of this thesis (Patent
applications EP17207454.4 and US 16/220,337), is more reliable and entails lower
production and maintenance costs. If necessary, this device can be installed inside the
aileron, because the centre of gravity of the device is in the front side of the aileron.

47
3 Advanced trailing and leading edge flap design for
commercial aircraft
The high lift device performance of a commercial aircraft has a very important role in the
flight efficiency and safety. At the same time, the construction of these devices is
complex and requires a lot of maintenance work. Currently, the rack and pinion drive has
become the most popular drive system for commercial aircraft slats (Figure 43).

Figure 43. Rack and pinion drive system for slats. Used for the Boeing 757; Airbus 320 et al.
(Niekerke, 2013).

In addition, the gear wheel and the torque tube drive system also include geared rotary
gearboxes (GRA), offset gearboxes, torque limiter. Many of these units contain gears in
different sizes which are usually highly loaded to increase the power to weight ratio. Due
to its complex design, this system has several drawbacks. The high load is caused

Figure 44. Link track trailing edge flap actuating system in Airbus A320 (Aircraft…, 2015).

48
by repeated faults in the gears. In addition to this, the fuel leakages occur in these
systems at the junction between the fuel tank and track cans. A fuel leak can cause fire
in the aircraft. Similar drive system components are also widely used to move the trailing
edge flaps (Figure 44). Because the rotary gearbox loads are higher, incidents have
occurred where gear failure has caused torque shaft breakage. Surprisingly, there have
been even cases where a slat track beam has broken during the flight. In the next study,
a new kinematic and less complex high lift actuating system was designed.

3.1 Development of the swivel beam system (SBS)

The swivel console equipped wing slats have been used for many years. The first patent
on a similar device was taken already in the beginning of the last century by the British
aeronautical engineer F.H. Handley Page (Page, 1921). By his invention, the axles of the
system were positioned almost parallel and allowed to extend and retract the wing slats.
This solution can be used also in automatically operated slats involvement system.
In cruise flight, the air flow helps the retracting of wing slats. By increasing the angle of
attack, the direction of the resultant force also changes, so that the slats are extended.
As the slot has an optimum shape, then the velocity of the boundary layer air flow
increases, and the lift coefficient increases considerably.
Today, similar system can be seen mostly in light aircraft. For example, it has been
designed in Superstol (Cox, 2015) (Figure 45) and in Antonov An-2 aircrafts. This system
stands out for its simple design, light weight and minimum maintenance costs.
Its drawback, worth mentioning, is the constant angle of the slat which does not depend
on the position of the slat. However, for wing flaps, such design has never been used.
It is so because during the Fowler motion, the flap deflection angle should also be
changed to increase the lift coefficient.

Figure 45. Just Superstol aircraft and its automatic slat mechanism (Cox, 2015).

Using the swivel beam system in the straight wing, the Fowler motion of the flaps is
relatively not large (Figure 46).

49
Figure 46. Influence of the wing sweep on flap Fowler motion, actuated by swivel beams.

Assuming that the swivel beam length equals to 17% of the wing chord and the flap chord
equals to 29% of the wing chord, the Fowler motion of a straight wing can be about 5%.
The Fowler motion of a sweep wing can be significantly higher. With the swivel beam of
the same length and at the 45o angle of turn, the Fowler motion may increase in excess
of 9% at the wing sweep angle of 20o. With the swivel beam length increasing by 27.3%
at the wing chord and at the 45o angle of turn, the Fowler motion will increase in excess
of 15% at the same sweep angle. (Paper IV) Spoilerons can be recommended to cover up
the flaps’ outboard edge. In the patented (Patent application EP 17207523.6) swivel
beam system (SBS), the author of this thesis has added also a device, which can
simultaneously deflect the flaps and the slats (Figure 47). The deflecting device at the
front of the flap is operated on the cardan principle. Depending on the necessary
deflection angle of the flaps, the swivel beam β-axis remains set toward the flap tilt rod
at 43o to 72o. Y- and β-axis remain at 90o of each other. By turning the swivel beam, the
mechanism rotates around β- and y-axis, thus changing the flap deflection angle
simultaneously. Here, the rule is that when the flap tilt rod angle is smaller, the flap
deflection angle is higher. (Paper IV)

50
Figure 47. Swivel beam with the transmission mechanism to change the flap deflection angle
(Patent application EP 17207523.6).

3.2 High lift system aerodynamic design by using SBS

For the cost-effective air transport, the aerodynamic performance of high lift system has
a significant role. According to the source (Butter, 1984), the high lift performance affects
the typical twin-engine jet commercial aircraft’s total performance as follows:
5% increase in maximum lift coefficient allows to 12-15% increase of payload;
5% increase of take-off L/D ratio allows to 20% increase of payload;
5% increase of maximum lift coefficient in landing configuration allows to 25% increase
of payload.
Such results are confirmed by Daniel Reckzeh in his work (Reckzeh, 2004). The above
values often remain out of reach because of the existing limitations. In a typical medium
range twin-engine aircraft, increasing the maximum lift coefficient by 2.0% can increase
the flight weight from 75,000 kg to 76,495 kg, which means carrying 16 more passengers.
Improving the L/D ratio of 2.0% during the take-off will facilitate an aircraft of the same
class to increase its payload by transporting 10 more passengers. These examples show
that relatively small changes in the aerodynamic performance of the high lift system can
significantly affect the aircraft’s payload and performance.
In medium- and long-range commercial aircrafts, the use of variable chamber (VC) flaps
allows to increase the L/D ratio. Dependent on the aircraft’s flight weight and also its
cruise speed and altitude, it is possible to optimize its flap positions. Usually, the flap
deflection range is between -1.7o and +3.5o. Yet, it will allow to minimize the aircraft’s
fuel consumption. (Paper IV) The variable chamber flaps have proven to be important in
aircraft with NLF airfoil wing design, because their low drag region is relatively narrow.
According to data (A350-900, 2018) published on the Airbus company website, the
variable chamber type flap ADHF deflection angle optimization helps to save up to 2% of
the Airbus A350 XWB’s fuel.

51
 %

degree

Figure 48. Influence of kinematic solution on the flap Fowler motion.

The flaps actuated by SBS are deflected proportionally according to the swivel beam
rotation. Figure 48 describes the interdependence between the flaps’ Fowler motion and
the deflection angle in different flap kinematic solutions. In a typical medium-sized
aircraft A320 with single slotted flap, the maximum Fowler motion is 15.4% that is near
to the SBS flap’s Fowler motion value of 15.82%. Well-known ADHF flap has a maximum
Fowler motion value only slightly in excess of 5%. Despite of the Airbus A320 flap’s
relatively high Fowler motion in take-off position, its drag exceeds the SBS and ADHF
solutions because the gap with 2.2% height of the chords leads to the increase of drag.
The SBS flaps, however, do not have a slot in take-off position. Figure 49 compares the
SSF and SBS flap solutions in the landing configuration.

Figure 49. Link-track (A320) and SBS flaps compared in landing positions.

In the landing position, deflecting the SBS spoilers by +8o allows to increase the chamber
of the high lift system and additionally the lift coefficient (Wang et al., 2017) (Figures 49
and 50).

52
Figure 50. Estimated Cl/AoA for the pre-optimized flap configurations.

The SBS wide spoiler (25.7% of the chord) and flap (29.3%) enable to increase its CI above
those of the other types. At the same time, its critical angle of attack decreases
somewhat. The main reason for lower CI value at ADHF originates from the smaller flap
chord (19% of the wing’s chord). By using the SBS flaps with a variable chamber function,
it is possible to reduce the fuel consumption in the cruise flight and, explicitly, the
payload can be increased. Reducing critical angle of attack is especially important for
stretched fuselage aircraft, as their AoA in approach is smaller due to the higher risk of
tail strike.

3.3 Swivel beam systems kinematic solutions

The SBS kinematic solution can be designed for use with one or two slots trailing edge

Figure 51. SBS single-slotted flap positions.

flaps. Figure 51 shows the flap positions in single slot flap solution.
During the cruise flight, the flap optimum deflection angle can be exactly adjusted by
the swivel beam system, within the range from -1.7o to +3.5o, dependent on the airspeed,
altitude and flight weight of the aircraft. By flap deflecting, the spoilers (coloured green)

53
are also deployed. In the take-off position, the flaps have no slot. With the slot perform,
the boundary layer on the flap would be significantly disturbed as the swivel beam’s turn
angle to the air flow exceeds 30o. In the landing position, the swivel beam is practically
located parallel to the air flow. By deflecting the spoiler, an optimum shape slot is
formed. The spoilers could also be used to increase the effect of ailerons in the aircraft’s
roll. Already a few degrees negative angle contributes to airflow separation on the flap’s
upper surface, thus causing a considerable decrease in the lift. Compared to current flap
solutions, the SBS has the following advantages:
● Higher lift during approach and landing. Deflected spoilers (+8o) allow to raise the
Cl by 7-8%, compared to SSF, during approach and landing, and with this, it is
possible increase the weight of the commercial cargo by 20-25%.
● Smaller drag, because the wing does not have flap track beams and fairings. For
example, in B757, such drag makes up for 1.4-1.8% of the total drag of the aircraft
(Thiede, 2000).
• By optimizing the flaps’ deflection angle during the flight, it is possible to save 1.8-
3.0% of the fuel (this, primarily, holds true especially for long-range aircraft).
• Lower gross weight. The flap functions as a push-rod. No actuators / servo motors
are needed in the outboard wing section. The structure weighs less (for example
A320; -300 kg) and the system is more reliable.
• Lower system complexity and lower manufacturing costs.
• Lower maintenance costs, due to the smaller number of bearings that need
greasing.
The efficiency of flaps will, somewhat, be reduced by the flap track beams and fairings,
that would reduce the airspeed behind the fairings, thus also the efficiency of the flaps.

Figure 52. SBS double-slotted flap positions.

In a typical medium-sized commercial airplane, their width makes up for approximately

9% of the flap span. The width of the swivel beams, however, makes up for approximately
1.5% of the flaps’ span. Should a higher CI maximum be required, it will be possible to
use double-slotted flaps (Figure 52). Flaps are interconnected by using small swivel
beams. In the take-off position, the flaps have no slots. In the landing position, both slots

54
will be open. The only drawback here is a small increase of the drag, due to more slits
during the cruise flight. (Paper IV)
In a medium-sized twin-engine aircraft (A320) each flap track beam has the weight of
approximately 45 kilograms. Altogether, there are 8 of those beams, 2 of which are
accommodated inside the dry bay of the fuselage. Even more, these multiple bearings
and trolleys have their weight to add. By using the SolidWork software, the SBS structural
components were modelled, using the load range from 26.3 KN up to 89 KN.

Figure 53. Completed SBS Unit.

The total weight of completed swivel beam unit, with 640 mm distance between the axes
(Figure 53), dependent on the estimated load, is within the range of 9,476 g to 11,698 g.
Using SBS in the medium-sized aircraft could possibly reduce the weight of the flap
system roughly by 300 kilograms. With the smaller weight of high-lift system, the flutter
risk of the wing will be decreased, and at the same time, the critical flutter speed will
rise. Without significantly strengthening the wing, it will enable to extend the wing span
and aspect ratio, and thus, decrease the induced drag of the aircraft. According to
Rudolph (Rudolph, 1996), an aircraft’s high lift systems production cost account for
somewhere between 6% and 11% (potentially higher for more complex configurations)
of the typical commercial aircraft. Using SBS, due to its lower complexity, would help to
further reduce the manufacturing cost.
The problems with longitudinal movement of flaps can be solved as follows: onto the
upper surface of outboard flap tip, spoilerons can be installed (Figure 54). In the cruise
flight, spoilerons will adhere to the flap’s upper surface, yet while during an intensive
rolling of the aircraft, they will deflect upward similar to aileron movement. Only in the
landing position, where the flap has moved sidewise, they get deflected up and down by
up to 30o. To increase the rigidity, the spoilerons have been reinforced by attaching
lateral ribs. (Paper IV)

Figure 54. Settings of outboard flap spoilerons.

55
In cruise flight, the use of spoilerons helps to reduce significantly the wing torque
moment. It is especially important for aircraft with high aspect ratio and sweep wing.
By deploying the spoilerons upward, the aircraft can be put to positive yaw moment,
by which the rudder deflection angle can be decreased.
Based on wind tunnel tests, the use of outboard ailerons (as well as spoilerons) is a
much more effective solution for lift increasing than using the inboard ailerons.
In addition to the improvement in the roll control, the Cl reaches roughly 10% higher
(by 0.16) than when using the inboard aileron (van Dam, 2002).

Figure 55. Nose door (coloured red) solution for SBS flaps.

For the flaps to perform with enough efficiency in the landing position, the forward nose
door (colored red) are used in the flap’s leading edge (Figure 55). By extending of the
flaps, the forward nose doors are turned and will also completely cover the opening. In
a medium-sized twin-engine aircraft, cylindrical motion can be implemented to deploy
the trailing edge flaps in the wing. That being so, this system is less complex to design.
Once the wing is with conical geometry, the use of full span flaps is necessary, for which
the conical motion principle shall be applied and swivel beams of different length are
used. On the underside, on their inboard side, the inboard flaps have a door that covers
up the recess underside of the flap (Figure 56) (colored pink).

56
Figure 56. Inboard door positions beside the flap.

By changing the flap’s deflection angle from -1.7o to +3.5o, the inboard door will be sliding
along with the related flap. By increasing the flap deflection angle more than +5o, the
inboard door will also be turned up to 90o. With the flap deflected, the tilted door
increases the flap efficiency because the intensity of the flap tip vortexes will decrease.
With the flap deflection angle reaching 15o, the square-shaped simple hinge flap,
alongside the bell-shaped fairing, will also deflect. By deflecting the flap downward to
landing position, the flap together with the door will be moved to reach the fuselage
wall. Between the bell-shaped fairing and flap, a funnel-shaped space is formed. It does
not significantly reduce the lift coefficient. At high angles of attack, in the areas close to
the fuselage wall, separation of air flow takes place, which may somewhat disturb the
engagement of flaps. The same split-flap space is formed also for Airbus A330neo,
A350-900 and A350-1000 in the area where the fuselage wall and flap are alongside.
Once the wing is uniformly conical in shape, one rotary actuator in each wing will be
sufficient for deflecting the flaps. In variable conical shape wing (with Yehudi flap), the
flap’s trailing edge angle changes considerably. Therefore, in the inboard section of the
wing the two parallel motion rotary actuators shall be used (Figure 57).

Figure 57. Swivel beam leading and trailing edge solutions with rotary actuators.

57
Due to the swivel beam’s lateral motion, it will be reasonable to set the rotary actuators
at a 90° angle, around longitudinal axis, unlike the conventional one. This kind of solution
will simplify the connection needed between the torque tube and the geared rotary
actuator’s less offset gearboxes and torque limiters. The torque tube between the geared
rotary actuators is relatively short and operates without additional transmission.

3.4 Low drag leading edge devices

The three-position slat is the most commonly used leading edge device on the
commercial aircraft. Using the swivel beam system for actuating the leading edge slats,
the turn axis of the swivel beam shall be set at 55°-60° from the vertical axis to achieve
the necessary aerodynamic effect (Figure 58).

Figure 58. Outboard swivel beam slat positions.

On such occasions, a three-position slat solution can be implemented. In the take-off

position, the slot between the main wing and the slat can be covered by the trailing edge
of the slat. In the landing position, a slot of optimum shape will occur between the slat
and the wing’s leading edge. The slot inside the wing’s leading edge (above the chord
level) should be closed using a rotating door, to prevent a drop of the lift in the slat
landing position. With a conventional high lift solution, the slat tracks with an airflow are
usually at the angle of 25o to 35o, which increases the drag and decreases the lift. By using
SBS, the drag and noise is smaller because the swivel beams are practically along the

58
airflow. At the same time, the slot below the chord level does not affect significantly the
lift value. In the inboard wing section, it would be reasonable to use a slotless leading
edge flap (Figure 59). (Paper IV)

Figure 59. Slotless leading edge flap positions in the inboard section of the wing.

To minimize the aerodynamic drag and also the noise, the doors have been designed
underneath to cover the opening between the flap’s trailing and the wing’s leading edge.
The Figure 59 indicates that the deflection angles of leading edge flaps are smaller in the
take-off and landing positions. Due to this, the lift coefficient and critical AoA are also
smaller. By increasing the angle of attack, the airflow separation from the inboard section
of the wing begins, helping to reduce the risk of stall. At the same time, it is a suitable
technical solution to increase the L/D ratio in the aircraft during the take-off.
Slotless or drooped nose at Cl=2.6 has almost 24% smaller drag (Wang et al., 2016)
when using a conventional slat system. At the same time, Cl maximum is significantly
smaller and accounts for 82-88%, compared to the slotted solution. Also, with a slotless
solution, a smaller critical AoA is between 14o-17o, while with the slotted solution it
reaches up to 24o. Using the wing with positive sweep angle that is less than 20o allows
to use a slotless solution along the whole wing span. To prevent the wingtip stall, in a
wing with higher sweep angle, it is necessary to use a slotted solution in the outboard
section of the wing.
The SBS has the following advantages compared to the conventional slat solutions:
• Simple and reliable design and reasonable manufacturing cost
• Lower weight
• Lower maintenance costs
• No need for the slat-track cones that have proven to be potentially fatigue
cracking and cause fuel leaks.

59
An aircraft with a shorter wing span will need only one geared rotary actuator per wing.
An aircraft with a longer wingspan should be equipped with an extra actuator in the
outboard wing, and then they could also perform the autoslat function.

3.5 Conclusion
Using the SBS kinematic solution in a high lift system, it will be possible to increase the
aircraft`s L/D ratio while decreasing its fuel consumption.
The defended statements
● Higher lift during approach and landing. Deflected spoilers (+8o) allow to raise
the Cl by 7-8%, compared to SSF, during approach and landing, and with this, it
is possible to increase the weight of the commercial cargo by 20-25%.
● Smaller drag, because the wing does not have flap track beams and fairings. For
example, in B757, such drag makes up for 1.4-1.8% of the total drag of the
aircraft (Thiede, 2000).
• By optimizing the flaps’ deflection angle during the flight, it is possible to save
1.8-3.0% of the fuel (this, primarily, holds true especially for long-range aircraft).
• Lower empty weight of aircraft.
• Lower system complexity and lower manufacturing costs.
• Lower maintenance costs.
• No need for the slat-track cones that have proven to be potentially fatigue
cracking and cause fuel leaks.
Due to the lack of flap track beams and using variable chamber function, it will be
possible to save 3.7-3.9% of the fuel at the aircraft cruising distances of over 3,000 NM.
Also, by decreasing the weight of fuel, the payload can be increased, thus making the air
transport more cost-effective. Using the SBS would also enable to reduce the expenses
made on the manufacturing and maintenance of the flaps and slats.

60
4 New leading edge flap solutions for use in natural laminar
flow (NLF) wings
The application of natural laminar flow (NLF) on transport aircraft is a promising future
technology offering significant potential for increasing the aircraft fuel efficiency (ICAO,
2010). As outlined in a number of studies, a fuel burn improvement in the order of
10-15% (Allison et al., 2010; Wicke et al., 2012) is possible by generating laminar flow on
an aircraft wing. Despite that the higher drag reduction can be achieved with using hybrid
laminar flow control (HLFC), tested in B757-200 (Young et al., 2000), the NLF wing design
is attractive because, unlike active laminar flow control (LFC) and HLFC methods, it does
not require additional systems to be integrated with the aircraft (Allison et al., 2010).
Using the natural laminar airfoils allows to reduce the wing profile drag, but at the same
time, achieve the required very smooth wing and tail surfaces.

4.1 The NLF wing and tail surface requirements

The design of a leading edge flap should take into account the requirements for natural
laminar flow. This includes surface waviness, roughness, and maximum allowable heights
and widths for steps and gaps, especially on the nose side of the wing. The NLF wing
surface quality requirements, at the high Reynolds numbers, are shown in Figure 60
published in the article (Boeing…, 1999).

Figure 60. Surface quality requirements by using NLF airfoils at high Re numbers (Boeing…, 1999).

61
As can be seen in Figure 60, the wavelength of 10 inches (254 mm) per wing width shall
not exceed 0.1 mm. Square down step must also not exceed 0.1 mm. Maximum width of
gap is allowed up to 2.54 mm and rounded up-step up to 0.3 mm. Natural laminar flow
is seriously affected by insect contamination. Previous figure shows that the roughness
associated with the contamination must not exceed 0.05-0.1 mm. These requirements
are not as stringent when flying at higher flight levels as FL 390, also on the outer wing
part where the Re number is smaller. However, in most of the area of the wing, these
requirements apply. Using standard slat technology, the step and gap dimensions
significantly exceed the requirements set to ensure the NLF flow. Therefore, the standard
leading edge flaps are not acceptable as these will have manufacturing irregularities
(steps or gaps) at the junction with the main wing that will alter the laminar behaviour in
cruise (Iannelli et al., 2013) Figure 61.

Figure 61 Incompatibility of standard leading edge slat with NLF technology (Iannelli et al., 2013).

4.2 Slat solutions currently tested

Currently, three leading edge solutions have been developed. Each of them has its
advantages and disadvantages.

Figure 62. Leading edge device concepts evaluated (Iannelli et al., 2013).

● The Krueger device on compromise to ensure a good performance at low-

speed conditions, a loss of laminar flow is only on the lower side at cruise
conditions (Figure 63).
● Large Slat with very long chord (about 30%). The problem with this solution is
the higher step on the trailing edge of the slats, which occurs with deformation
of the wing during the flight. As a result, the thickness of the boundary layer
and the drag are increased.
● Drooped nose is a concept applied to maintain the laminar flow on both
surfaces of the wing at cruise conditions. The slotless design is not as effective
in lift increasing as the previous solutions, also, there is a greater risk of insect
contamination and partially lost laminar flow (Iannelli et al., 2013).

62
Figure 63. Krueger flap in extended position (Hansen, 2015).

This actuating system, shown in above figure, has based its folding bull nose on the
Krueger design and it is modified B757 HLFC concept.

4.3 New leading edge flap design

Using the potential of the new technology, developed by the author of this thesis, it is
possible to extend the laminar flow on the lower side of the wing from 5% to 67% of the
chord. To achieve this, the lower panel has formed a partially flexible (Figure 65) and
separate line in the airfoil's leading edge. If the height of the rounded step is less than
0.3 mm, natural laminar flow is maintained. However, if due to the deformation of the
airfoil the step height increases by more than 0.3 mm, the passive suction is applied
through the slot on the leading edge. By extending the laminar flow in the lower side of
the wing in using the airfoil OA-JTI-1, it is possible to reduce the airfoil drag coefficient
additionally by up to 23% (Cd from 0.00486 to 0.00326).

Figure 64. OA-JTI-1 supercritical NLF airfoil polar and laminar to turbulent transition influence on
lift coefficient (Salah El Din et al., 2014).

The above-mentioned airfoil is designed to be applied in the future innovative Green

Regional Aircraft. From reference, three airfoils have been developed that differ from
each other basically for their thickness-to-chord ratios. In the root, the airfoil thickness
is 14.8%, at the crank 13.7%, and at the tip 12.4%. (Salah El Din et al., 2014) According to

63
the new actuating solution, during the cruise flight, the leading edge flaps (coloured
green in Figure 65) are located inside the wing. The actuating of the leading edge flap is
based on the use of swivel beams (coloured blue). The upper wing panel is rigid and
practically does not change its shape during the flight. The lower panel, however, is
bendable. The panels are interconnected with ribs (coloured violet). The panel joint line
is located below the chord line. This ensures that the upper panel maintains a natural
laminar flow. If necessary, an interlocking mechanism can be added to the nose section
of the wing. Swivel beams are actuated by using the screw actuators (coloured red in
Figure 66). To deflect the lower panel, the torque tube and supports are used.

Figure 65.Basic positions of the novel leading edge flap solution for use with the NLF wing.

Before the flap extension, the lower wing panel bends by using supports downward and
then the swivel beam turns together with the slats. After the slat extension, the lower
wing panel is closed and locked. Unlike in previous slat solutions, the swivel beam is then
rotated up to 88o. There are only small doors for swivel beam openings in the leading
edge of the wing (coloured pink).

64
Figure 66. The novel leading edge flap positions. View from above.

To reinforce the flap against the bird strikes, supports are added (coloured yellow in
Figure 65). Compared to the classic Krueger flap, the weight of the new leading edge flap
system is smaller because its attachment device is on the front spar, whereas the Krueger
flap attachment is located on the front of leading edge of the wing and requires
reinforcement with many ribs. This solution has the following advantages:

* Smaller drag during the cruise flight

* It is possible to design slat in optimal shape
* Less noise
* Insect shielding effect, against insect contamination
* Lower complexity and reliable structure
* No need for the slat track cones, which can cause cracks and fuel leaks. Despite the
fact that with the novel leading edge flap solution, natural laminar flow is
possible on the lower side of the wing, it has been designed so that during
operation, the steps and gaps are increased and may disturb the laminar flow.
In this case, a passive suction can be used especially through the slots in the
nose section of the wing. Figure 67 below depicts a basic scheme of functional
operation of a passive suction. Such design was tested on the Boeing B757
HLFC. In commercialization, this design can be simplified by eliminating the
ducting pipes.

65
Figure 67. Pressure difference between leading edge A and center section B on the lower side of the
wing. Right side: Influence of the flap deflecting angle on the NLF airfoil performance (Boeing…
1999).

Passive suction is based on a relatively high pressure difference between the front and
center sections of the wing. The pressure difference exeeds 1,200 kg/m2 at Mach=0.78
and FL 390. The position of the control valve depends mainly on the air speed. Passive
suction has been successfully tested by NASA and is used to reduce the drag of the Boeing
787-9 fin and stabilizer (Figure 68). The low drag region in the NLF airfoils is relatively
narrow and to ensure the low drag, the trailing edge flap and aileron deflection angle has
to be changed. For example, a 3o change in the flap deflection angle results in a significant
increase in the low drag region as shown on the right graph in Figure 67. For actuating
the flaps, is also suitable to use the swivel beam system described in Chapter 3. Also, SBS
does not include any flap track beams that can cause headlong transition from the
laminar flow to turbulent flow.

66
Figure 68. Nose section of the Boeing 787-9 HLFC stabilizer and fin (Hemmen, 2018).

4.4 Novel slotless rotable nose leading edge solution for inboard
section of the NLF wing
The inboard section of the wing is frequently used as a slotless Krueger flap or drooped
nose. Both options help to raise the lift coefficient, while their critical angle of attack is
smaller than the outboard wing. They also help to prevent the deep stall of the wing,
because their stall runs earlier than the outboard of the wing. Typical drooped nose
section positions in Airbus A350 are shown in Figure 69.

Figure 69. Droop nose device kinematics comparison with the slat device (A350…, 2013).

The technical solution, developed by the author of this thesis, is for using especially on
the NLF inboard section of the wing. This solution increases the airfoil chamber and nose
radius, and along with that, also the lift coefficient. However, the critical angle of attack
is smaller than the slotted leading edge flaps. The most important is the smaller drag
during the take-off and the higher L/D ratio. Rotary actuator deflects simultaneously on
the lower panel of the wing and rotates the nose door. This device is not complex in
design and therefore, its maintenance costs are smaller than those of the commonly used
leading edge devices.

67
Figure 70. Rotable nose door to increase the lift coefficient on inboard section of the wing.

Rotable nose door works like the drooped nose, increasing the lift coefficient and
protecting the wing against the deep stall. To increase the lift coefficient, the vortex
generators can be added to the nose section (coloured yellow). The rotating nose section
has an insect shielding effect because its wide edges cover the nose section of the
laminar airfoil. In addition, compressed air can be blown through the slots under the wide
edges of the nose door to prevent insect contamination during the take-off and landing.
When using a straight wing in regional aircraft, a rotable nose door to increase the lift
coefficient during the take-off and landing is sufficient and no separate slat solutions are
required. The nose door can be used to attach the anti-icing protection equipment. Due
to its lower weight and high L/D ratio in the take-off, this device could be used widely on
regional aircraft with NLF wings.

4.5 Conclusion
The application of natural laminar flow (NLF) on transport aircraft is a promising future
technology, offering significant potential for increasing the aircraft fuel efficiency (ICAO,
2010). According to several studies, the fuel burn improvement can be in the order of
10-15% (Allison et al., 2010; Wicke et al., 2012). Using a standard slat solution, it is not
possible to maintain the laminar flow due to the steps between the slat and the wing.
With the new technological solution, the leading edge flap is accommodated inside the
wing during the flight. Using laminar flow on the upper side of the wing allows to reduce
the fuel consumption by 5%, the technical solution developed by the author of this thesis
also allows to extend the laminar flow on the lower side of the wing up to 67% at the

68
leading edge of the wing and additionally reduce the fuel consumption by 3.7-3.9%.
The actuating of the leading edge flap is based on the use of swivel beams. The upper
wing panel is rigid and practically does not change its shape during the flight. The lower
panel, however, is bendable. Before the flap extension, the lower wing panel bends by
using supports downward, and then the swivel beam turns together with the slats.
After the slat extension, the lower wing panel is closed and locked. In addition to the
smaller drag, this leading edge flap solution has an insect shielding effect. Another
technical solution is based on the use of rotable nosedoor. This solution allows to save
same amount of fuel like the previous one. Aerodynamically, this solution is similar to
the drooped nose, the profile of the nose section of the wing is of variable shape. Due to
the lack of slat, its L/D ratio is higher on the takeoff and landing, but Cl max is lower than
that of the slotted solution. Therefore, this solution is suitable for use on the inboard side
of the wing.

Despite the fact that with the novel leading edge flap solution, natural laminar flow is
possible on the lower side of the wing, it has been designed in a way that during
operation, the steps and gaps are increased and may disturb the laminar flow. In this
case, a passive suction can be used especially through the slots in the nose section of the
wing. Passive suction is based on a relatively high pressure difference between the front
and center sections of the wing. The control valve is located under the center section of
the wing. The position of the control valve depends mainly on the air speed.

The technological solutions developed by the author of this study make it possible to use
the full potential of laminar flow and thereby, achieve the maximum fuel economy.

Using the above-described technical solutions together, we can reduce the fuel
consumption even further. For example, using the SBS and NLF leading edge flap
solutions together, it is possible to reduce the fuel consumption by 9.27% on a typical
twin-engine medium range aircraft, provided that the weight of the structure is 300 kg
lighter than that of a basic aircraft. Moreover, using all three above-described solutions
together, it is possible to reduce the fuel consumption, according to the equation [1] and
formula [2] described in Chapter 2, by 10.77% at the basic aircraft structure weight.

For an aircraft of the same class with a range of 4,400 NM and the fuel consumption of
2580 kg/h, a 10.77% reduction in the fuel burn would mean saving 277.87 kg fuel per
hour. Provided that the total flight time is 5,000 flight hours per year, the total fuel
savings amount to 1,389,330 kg, which at €700/t fuel cost means a reduction in the
operating costs of an aircraft amounting to €972,523/yr. The amount of harmful CO2
emissions also decreases in this case by 4,376,389 kg/year per aircraft. In addition, also
the maintenance costs are reduced. According to the above estimate, commercial
aircraft pollute the environment significantly more, compared to other means of
transport. It holds particularly true about freighters, whereas the pollution generated by
contemporary passenger aircraft does not exceed the pollution caused by family cars.
Using the wing modifications developed in this study, it will be possible to reduce the
fuel consumption of a typical twin-engine medium-range aircraft by 1.75 l/100 km/per
passenger on a 4,000 NM flight.

69
 5 Conclusion

Harmful pollution to the environment caused by aircraft has become a serious problem.
According to the forecast, the number of commercial aircraft is expected to double by
2032 compared to 2017 (Flaig, 2018). In order to prevent further pollution increasing,
the efficiency of aircraft should increase and the fuel consumption should be radically
reduced. Aircraft operators are also interested in reducing fuel consumption, as fuel
costs account for a large proportion of the aircraft's operating costs. One effective
approach to reducing the fuel consumption and noise is to reduce the wing’s
aerodynamic drag. The purpose of this thesis is to provide, based on aerodynamic
analyses, various technological solutions to reduce wing drag and increase the lift.
The defended statements
● According to the results of Jantar Standard 3 sailplane test flights, the most effective
was fixed angle miniflap 2% wide (of the wing chord) and +30o deflected downward.
Wing drag decreased, compared to the standard solution, with the lift coefficient Cl
between 0.99 and 1.66. The largest drag reduction was reached at Cl=1.21. At the same
time, critical angle of attack rose 1.6o. At less than Cl 0.99, miniflaps started to increase
the drag. It follows from the above that the fixed angle miniflaps are suitable for gliders
and unmanned aircraft with a relatively narrow range of flight speeds.
● Variable geometry miniflaps (VGMF) should be used to achieve a wider range of flight
speeds and LAK-17B glider was selected for testing this. Miniflaps built inside this
glider’s trailing edge flaps were 6.5% wide (of the wing chord) and with a deflection
downward up to +16.7o. The test flights revealed that VGMF miniflaps reduced the drag
when Cl was above 1.2. Whereas, the best result was achieved at Cl=1.29 when the sink
speed of the glider was reduced even by 39.6%. At the speeds below Cl=1.2,
the miniflaps were retracted into the trailing edge flaps so as to avoid any additional
drag. Many of the small details of the miniflap were produced by 3D selective laser
melting from the stainless steel and titanium alloys. Thanks to thoughtful design, the
miniflaps mechanism worked perfectly, despite the extreme deflecting of the wings
during the flight.
● Using the experience of modelling and testing the miniflaps with gliders was applied to
improve the aerodynamic performance of the commercial aircraft wings at higher
Mach numbers. As is known, the wing drag of a commercial aircraft starts to grow
intensively from M>0.74 onwards as a result of the increasing wave drag. To reduce the
growth of drag, a supercritical airfoil SC (2)-0410 that is used on commercial aircraft
was modelled with different shape cruise miniflaps (CMF) at M=0.78. CMF-D proved
the most effective modification, with a 20.34% reduction of airfoil drag at Cl 0.65 and
even 26.57% reduction of drag at Cl=0.70, compared to the standard airfoil. With this
modification, the complete aircraft L/D ratio increases by 5%, whereas the width of the
CMF is only 4% of the wing chord and deflection angle is +3.5o. Equally, it is possible to
reduce fuel consumption. At lifting coefficient lower than Cl=0,5, CMF-s no longer
reduce the drag and it is reasonable to retract them inside the trailing edge flaps.
The use of CMF allows to increase the optimal flight altitude and thereby reduces jet
stream influence on the aircraft fuel consumption and flight time. To actuating the
CMF, a relatively simple and reliable solution was developed based on a swivel beam
system. According to this method, the actuators located in the nose section of the

70
 trailing edge flap rotate the swivel beams and along with them the CMF, and with a
such design, there is no longer need for a complex flap track mechanism.
● The kinematic solution that is based on a swivel beam system can also be used for
actuating the leading edge flaps and trailing edge flaps during the flight. This technical
solution allows to decrease the drag giving up the flap track beams and increase the
commercial aircraft L/D ratio on average by 3.4%-3.8%. This result is achievable with a
variable chamber flaps. Furthermore, the trailing edge flap with adjustable deflection
angle function also allows to reduce fuel consumption by 1.8%-3.0%. Spoiler deflecting
allows to rise the Cl during approach and landing and with it increase the weight of the
commercial cargo by 20-25%. Also, the swivel beam system is lighter in weight and
entails lower production and maintenance costs.
● Special leading edge flaps actuated by swivel beams were designed for using with
natural laminar flow (NLF) airfoil wings. Unlike Krueger flaps, these are located inside
the wing in the flight. During the take-off and landing, the lower wing panel is first bent
so that from this opening the slat can move out. In the extended slat position, the lower
wing panel closes this opening. This solution will allow the laminar flow to be
maintained also on the lower surface of the wing. As is known, with the solution
currently in use, the laminar flow is only maintained on the upper side of the wing. On
the lower side, the flow is disturbed by the retracted Krueger flap. Depending on the
aircraft and laminar airfoil type, the solution described above would allow to save 3.6%
to 3.8% of fuel. The extended leading edge flap protects the wing from contamination
with insects, which also helps to maintain the laminar flow during the flight.
● Using the above-described technical solutions together, can reduce the fuel
consumption even further. For example, using the SBS and NLF leading edge flap
solutions together, it is possible to reduce the fuel consumption by 9.27% on a typical
twin-engine medium range aircraft, provided that the weight of the structure is 300 kg
lighter than that of a basic aircraft. Moreover, using all three above-described solutions
together, it is possible to reduce the fuel consumption by 10.77% at the basic aircraft
structure weight. For an aircraft of the same class with a range of 4,400 NM and the
fuel consumption of 2580 kg/h, a 10.77% reduction in the fuel burn would mean saving
277.87 kg fuel per hour (Airbus 321 neo). Provided that the total flight time is 5,000 fh
per year, the total fuel savings amount to 1,389,330 kg, which at €700/t fuel cost means
a reduction in the operating costs of an aircraft amounting to €972,523/yr. The amount
of harmful CO2 emissions also decreases in this case by 4,376,389 kg/year per aircraft.
In addition, also the maintenance costs are reduced.
● Using the technical solutions developed in this thesis will help to improve the aircraft
efficiency and reduce harmful pollution to the environment caused by aircraft and save
tens of billions of euros per year if applied wider.
In doing so, all the tasks that were set up for this thesis, are fully completed.
For further studies, a ground-based wing demonstrator on a scale 1:1 would need to be
built. Potential step and gap dimensions would then be measured while loading the
demonstrator, to establish whether these remain within the limits of requirements set
for NLF airfoil wings. The results obtained will serve as a basis for further developments
of the technical solutions described above. In conclusion, the technical solutions
developed in this thesis will help to improve the aircraft efficiency and reduce harmful
pollution to the environment caused by aircraft. Karl Erik Seegel from the Estonian
Aviation Academy will continue this research work in the future.

71
References
Aircraft Flap Track Amature - Animation and Rigging - Blender ...Blender Artists. (2015).
A320 Flap Track.png443×502 68.3 KB. Available from Internet:
https://blenderartists.org/t/aircraft-flap-track-amature/658868
Akademische Fliegergruppe an der Universität Karlsruhe e.V. Jahresberisht 2005 & 2006.
(2007). (in German), {cited 15 May 2014}. Available from Internet: http://
www.akaflieg.uni-karlsruhe.de/vp-content/uploads/2015/03/2005-2006.pdf.
Allison, E, Kroo, I., Suziki, Y. and Martins-Ricas, H. (2010). Aircraft conceptual design with
natural laminar flow. 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences
(ICAS), Nice, France,2010.
A350-900 (2018). Shaping efficiency. Airbus Website. Available from internet:
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/passenger-aircraft/a350xwb-family/a350-
900.html
A350 Flight Tests Official Thread Part 4 - Page 5 - Airliners.net (2013). Avaible from
internet: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=561287&start=200
Balagura, J. (2013). Miniklappide aerodünaamilise mõju modelleerimine õhusõidukile
Jantar-Standard 3. Eesti Lennuakadeemia. Lõputöö.
Bechert, D. W., Meyer, R. and Hage, W. (2001). Drag reduction of Gurney flaps and
divergent trailing edges. http://www.dlr.de/at/Portaldata/2/Resources/
dokumente/at/AIAA2000_2315.pdf
Bloy, A. W., Tsioumanis, N., Mellor, N. T. (1997). Enhanced aerofoil performance using
small trailing-edge flaps. Journal of aircraft, Vol 34 No .4, 1997.
Bloy, A. W. and Durrant, M. T. (1995). Aerodynamic Characteristics of an aerofoil with
small Trailing edge flaps. Wind Engineering, Vol.19, No.3, 1995, pp.167-172.
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (1999). High Reynolds Number Hybrid Laminar Flow
Control (HLFC) Flight Experiment II. Aerodynamic Design. NASA / CR-1999-
209324. Available from internet:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990052586.pdf
Bruscoli, S. (2011). Airfoil optimization for a solar powered aircraft.
http://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=oai%5C%3Aetd.adm.unipi.it%5C%3Aetd-
05212011-180923
Butter, D. J. (1984). Recent Progress on Development and Understanding of High-Lift-
Systems, AGARD-CP 365.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Robertson, P., Mason, W. H. (2007). Wind tunnel test of Gurney Flaps
and T-strips on an NACA 23012 Wing. http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/ ~mason/
Mason_f/AIAA2007-4175.pdf
Cox, B. (2015). Just Aircraft’s SuperSTOL Extreme: Economy Class, STOL Performance,
Plane&Pilot. Published October 30, 2015. Available from internet:
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/just-aircrafts-superstol-extreme-
economy- class-stol-performance/#.W5PqhiQzbIU

72
van Dam, C. P., Chow, R. (2007). Computational investigations of small deploying tabs and
flaps for aerodynamic load control. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 75 (2007)
van Dam, C. P. (2002). The aerodynamic design of multi-element high-lift systems for
transport airplanes. Progress in Aerospace Sciences 38, 101-144.
Drela, M. (1989). XFOIL : An analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils.
Proceedings of the Conference Notre Dame Indiana, June 5-7 1989 New York:
Springer Verlag, 1989, p. 1-12.
Flaig, A.(2018). R&T for the Aircraft of the Future. SVP Airbus R&T. AEGATS 18, Toulouse,
23.10.2018.
Gardner, A. D., Nitzsche, J., Neumann, J., Richter, K. (2006). Adaptive load redistribution
using mini-teds, 2006 Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical
Sciences (ICAS), 3-8 September 2006, Hamburg, Germany. (cited 2 Dec 2017),
Available from internet http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/
216.PDF
Hansen, H. (2015). Laminarität für zukünftige Verkehrsflugzeuge Überblick, Anforde-
rungen und Status. Wissenschaftstag Braunschweig 2015. Ergebnisse des Airbus
Technologieprogramms Low Drag Aircraft (TOP-LDA). Available from internet:
https://www.dlr.de/Portaldata/17/Resources/dokumente/wissenschaftstag/201
5/Laminaritaet_fuer_zukuenftige_Verkehrsflugzeuge_Ueberblick_Anforderunge
n_und_Status_Schlipf.pdf
Harris, Ch. D. (1990). NASA Supercritical Airfoils. Nasa Technical Paper 2969, 1990.
(cited 16 Dec 2017) (online), Available from internet:
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/aerodynamics/
supercritical%20aerofoils.pdf
Hemmen, J.P.P. (2018) Towards Practical Hybrid Laminar Flow Control. Technische
Universiteit Delft. Master Thesis. Available from internet: http:// repository
tudelft.nl/
Hendrix, J. (2011). Parallel-flight testing with your flight data recorder.
http://www.oxaero.com/Parallel Flight Testing.pdf
Henne, P. A. (1990). Innovation with Computational Aerodynamics. The Divergent
Trailing-Edge Airfoil”., Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, pp. 221-261
(cited 18 Dec 2017), Available from internet:
https://books.google.ee/books?id=5Ov2tHj0wxoC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=I
nnovation+with+Computational+Aerodynamics+The+Divergent+Trailing-
Edge+Airfoil%E2%80%9D..&source=bl&ots=SpMjwbaDmd&sig=TTNn5MHTfPapI
XITraA8yxeKcws&hl=et&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjekNXS26jZAhVPaFAKHbnPBPYQ6A
EIKTAB#v=onepage&q=Innovation%20with%20Computational%20Aerodynamics
%20The%20Divergent%20Trailing-Edge%20Airfoil%E2%80%9D..&f=false
Horstmann, K. H., Quast, A. (1979). Wing profile design of the world championship
sailplane SB-11. Nasa Technical Memorandum NASA TM-75829 19800022879

73
Iannelli, P., Wild, J., Minervino, M., Strüber, H., Moens, H. F., Vervliet, A. (2013). Design
of a High-Lift System for a Laminar Wing. 5th european conference for aeronautics
and space sciences (eucass). Available from internet: https://elib.dlr.de/87420/1/
EUCASS2013_T21.pdf
ICAO, ICAO Environmental Report (2010). Aviation and climate change, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada, 2010.
IGC Software (2017). Available from Internet: http//www.igssoftware.com
Jang, S. C., Ross, J. C., Cummings, R. M. (1998). Numerical investigation of an airfoil with
a gurney flap. http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=
1001&context=aero_fac
Jarzabek, A. (2011). Low speed wind tunnel testing of aerofoil family for solar powered
aircrafts. http://oa.upm.es/7428/1/PFC_Artur_Jarzabek.pdf
Johnson, R. H. (1989). Sailplane Performance Flight Test Methods. Soaring Magazine,
May, 1989 http://www.oxaero.com/SailplaneFlightTestMethods.pdf
Kubrynsky, K. (2006). Aerodynamic design and cross-country flight performance analysis
of Diana-2 sailplane. http://www.dianasailplanes.com/Tech_Soar_KK.pdf

Liebeck, R. (1978). Design of subsonic airfoil for high lift. Journal of Aircraft 15 (9). 547-
561. Available from Internet: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/3.58406 Liebeck, R. 1978.

Niekerk, B. (2013). Aviation studies project groep 1K 0. Amsterdam. Available from

internet: http://barryvanniekerk.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Project-Flight-
Controls-Group-1K.pdf.

Ostrowski, J., Skrynski, S., Litwinczyk, M. (1981). Discussion of test results in the design
of laminar airfoils for competition gliders.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810007469.pdf

Page, F. H. (1921). Wing and similar member of aircraft. Available from internet:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1394344
Pätzold, F. (2014). Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Flugleistungsvermessung der Lak-17a (S5-
3117) im Vergleichflugverfahren in Aalen-Heidenheim-Elchingeni 20/21. August
2012. Techniche Univärsität Braunschweig, Institut für Flugfürung 21.02.2014.
Reckzeh, D. (2014). Multifunctional wing moveables: design of the a350xwb and the way
to future concepts. 29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical
Sciences. St. Peterburg 7-12 September 2014. Available from internet:
https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2014/data/papers/ 2014_0133
_paper.pdf
Reckzeh, D. (2004). Aerodynamic design of airbus high-lift wings in a multidisciplinary
environment. European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences
and Engineering ECCOMAS 2004. Jyväskylä, 24—28 July 2004. Available from
internet:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242581172_AERODYNAMIC_DESIGN
_OF_AIRBUS_HIGH-LIFT_WINGS_IN_A_MULTIDISCIPLINARY_ENVIRONMENT

74
Richter, K., Rosemann, H. (2011). Steady Aerodynamics of Miniature Trailing-
EdgeDevices in Transonic Flows. Conference: 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, June 2011. Available from internet:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225020493_Steady_Aerodynamics_
of_Miniature_Trailing-Edge_Devices_in_Transonic_Flows
Richter, K. (2010). Untersuchungen zur Aerodynamik von Miniature Trailing-Edge Devices
in transsonischen Strömungen.DLR Deutches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt
e.V.-Forschungerichte 09/2010 (cited 20 Jan 2018) (online), Available from
internet: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kai_Richter3/publication/
224991403_Untersuchungen_zur_Aerodynamik_von_Miniature_Trailing-
Edge_Devices_in_transsonischen_Stromungen/links/0deec52739504df5e90000
00/Untersuchungen-zur-Aerodynamik-von-Miniature-Trailing-Edge-Devices-in-
transsonischen-Stroemungen.pdf
Rudolph, P. K. C. (1996). High-Lift Systems on Commercial Subsonic Airliners. NASA
Contractor Report 4746.
Salah El Din, I., Godard, J.-L., Rodde, A.-M., Moens, F., Andreutti, G., de Rosa, D., Di Muzio,
M., Gemma, R., Baldassin, E., Calvi, N., Averardo, M. A., (2014). Natural Laminar
Flow Transonic Wing Design Applied to Future Innovative Green Regional Aircraft.
Available from internet: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-
01082913/document
STAR-CCM (2017). (online), Available from internet: https://mdx.plm. automation.
siemens.com/sites/all/themes/basic/assets/downloads/STAR-CCM+%20v11%20
brochure%202016.pdf
Tamm, M. (2018). Strength Analysis of Swivel Beam Trailing Edge Flap System for
Commercial Aircraft. Estonian Aviation Academy. Diploma Paper.
Thiede, P. (2000). Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies: Proceedings of the
CEAS/DragNet, 19- 21 June 2000, Potsdam, p. 102-104.
Vlasov, V., Kogan, M., Nalivaiko, A. (2007). Investigation of the control of the flow around
a wing using mini-flaps. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0015462
808 060173# page-1
Wang, J. J., Li, Y. C., Choi, K.-S. (2008). Gurney flap lift enhancement, mechanisms and
applications.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042107000 784
Wang, W., Liu, P. (2017). Numerical study of the influence of spoiler deflection on high-
lift configuration. Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters. Volume 7, Issue 3,
May 2017, Pages 159-163
Available from internet: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taml.2017.04.001
Wang, W., Liu, P., Tian, Y., Qu, Q. (2016). Numerical study of the aerodynamic
characteristics of high-lift droop nose with the deflection of fowler flap and
spoiler. Aerospace Science and Technology Volume 48, January 2016, Pages 75-85.
Available from internet: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.10.024

75
Wicke, K., Kruse, M., Linke, F. (2012). Mission and Economic analysis of aircraft with
natural laminar flow. 28 th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences.
23- 28 September 2012, Brisbane, Australia. Available from internet:
http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2012/ABSTRACTS/029.HTM
Wilsey, C. (2012). Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Technologies
Development. Boeing Program Update https://www.faa.gov/about/ office_org/
headquarters_offices/apl/research/aircraft_technology/cleen/2011_consortium
/media/Boeing_CLEEN_Projects_Briefing.pdf
XFLR5 Software (2017). Available from Internet: http://www.xflr5.com/xflr5.htm

Young, T. M. (2018). Performance of the Jet Transport Airplane. Analysis Methods, Flight
Operations and Regulations. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., USA.
Young, T. M., Fielding J. P. (2000). Flight Operational Assessment of Hybrid Laminar
Flow Control (HLFC) Aircraft. Aerodynamic Drag Reduction Technologies (p.102).
Potsdam.

76
Acknowledgements
This thesis was completed thanks to my supervisor, Associate Professor Toivo Tähemaa
who always found the way to support me in what I did. I would also like to thank the
Department of Mechanical Engineering of the Tallinn University of Technology for their
help and support in carrying out my research.
Also, I would like to extend my gratitude to the people at the Estonian Aviation Academy
who allowed me to contribute a lot of time to carrying out my research alongside my
main occupation.
My special thanks also go to my wife Signe and friends who have always supported me
or just heard me out in the timewise difficult years.

77
Abstract
New Technological Solutions to Improve the Aerodynamic
Characteristics of an Aircraft Wing
Harmful pollution to the environment caused by aircraft has become a serious problem
faced by aircraft engineers around the world. According to the forecast, the number of
commercial aircraft is expected to double by 2032 compared to 2017. In order to prevent
further pollution, the efficiency of aircraft should increase and the fuel consumption
should be radically reduced. Aircraft operators are also interested in reducing fuel
consumption, as fuel costs account for a large proportion of the aircraft's operating costs.
One effective approach to reducing the fuel consumption and noise is to reduce the
wing’s aerodynamic drag. The purpose of this thesis is to provide, based on aerodynamic
analyses, various technological solutions to reduce wing drag and increase the lift. Due
to the specific features of various aircraft, different software is used for aerodynamic
analysis and modelling of various wing modifications. For gliders and unmanned aircraft,
due to the low Re number, the XFLR5 software based on the XFLR code was used,
whereas for the analysis of commercial aircraft, a CFD simulation software STAR-CCM+,
based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS), was applied. Test flights
were also carried out to examine the effect of the miniflaps developed for gliders.
According to the results of Jantar Standard 3 sailplane test flights, the most effective wing
trailing edge miniflap modification was 2% wide (of the wing chord) and +30o deflected.
Wing drag decreased, compared to the standard solution, with the lift coefficient Cl
between 0.99 and 1.66. The largest drag reduction was reached at Cl=1.21. At the same
time, at Cl values less than 0.99, miniflaps started to increase the drag. It follows from
the above that the fixed angle miniflaps are suitable for gliders and unmanned aircraft
with a relatively narrow range of flight speeds. Variable geometry miniflaps (VGMF)
should be used to achieve a wider range of flight speeds and LAK-17B glider was selected
for testing this. Miniflaps built inside this glider’s trailing edge flaps were 6.5% wide (of
the wing chord) and with a deflection of up to +16.7o. The test flights revealed that VGMF
miniflaps reduced the drag when Cl was above 1.2. Whereas, the best result was
achieved at Cl=1.29 when the sink speed of the glider was reduced even by 39.6%. At
speeds below Cl=1.2 the miniflaps were retracted into the trailing edge flaps so as to
avoid any additional drag. Many of the small details of the miniflap were produced by 3D
selective laser melting from the stainless steel and titanium alloys. Interestingly, the
weight of the flap equipped with the miniflaps was lower than the weight of standard
flaps, probably due to its optimal design.
The following project was intended to improve the aerodynamic performance of the
commercial aircraft wings at higher Mach numbers. As is known, the wing drag of a
commercial aircraft starts to grow intensively from M>0.74 onwards as a result of the
increasing wave drag. To reduce the growth of drag, a supercritical airfoil SC (2)-0410
that is used on commercial aircraft, was modelled with different cruise miniflap (CMF)
modifications at M=0.78. CMF-D proved as the most effective modification, with a
20.34% reduction of airfoil drag at Cl 0.65 and even 26.57% reduction of drag at Cl=0.70,
compared to the standard airfoil. With this modification, the complete aircraft L/D ratio
increases by approximately 5%, whereas the width of the CMF is only 4% of the wing
chord and the deflection angle is +3.5o. At lifting coefficient lower than Cl=0,5, CMF-s no
longer reduce the drag and it is reasonable to retract them inside the trailing edge flaps.

78
The use of CMF allows to increase the optimal flight altitude and thereby reduces jet
stream influence on the aircraft’s fuel consumption and flight time. To move the CMF, a
relatively simple and reliable solution was developed based on a swivel beam system.
According to this method, the actuators located in the nose section of the trailing edge
flap rotate the swivel beams and along with them the CMF, and with a such design, there
is no longer need for a complex flap track mechanism.
The kinematic solution that is based on a swivel beam system can also be used for
actuating the leading edge flaps and trailing edge flaps during the flight. This technical
solution allows to decrease the drag and increase the commercial aircraft L/D ratio on
average by 1.4%-1.8%. Furthermore, the trailing edge flap with adjustable deflection
angle function also allows to reduce fuel consumption by 1.8%-3.0%. Spoiler deflecting
allows to rise the Cl during approach and landing and with this, increase the weight of
the commercial cargo by 20-25%. Also, the swivel beam system is lighter in weight and
entails lower production and maintenance costs.
Special leading edge flaps actuated by swivel beams were designed for using with
natural laminar flow (NLF) airfoil wings. Unlike Krueger flaps, these are located inside the
wing during the flight. During the take-off and landing, the lower wing panel is first bent
so that from this opening the slat can move out. In the extended slat position, the lower
wing panel closes this opening. This solution will allow the laminar flow to be maintained
also on the lower surface of the wing. As is known, with the solution currently in use, the
laminar flow is only maintained on the upper side of the wing. On the lower side, the
flow is disturbed by the retracted Krueger flap. Depending on the aircraft and laminar
airfoil type, the solution described above would allow to save 3.6% to 3.8% of fuel.
The extended slat of the leading edge flap protects the wing from contamination with
insects, which also helps to maintain the laminar flow during the flight.
For further studies, a ground-based wing demonstrator on a scale 1:1 would need to
be built. Potential step and gap dimensions would be measured while loading the
demonstrator, to establish whether these remain within the limits of requirements set
for NLF airfoil wings. The results obtained will serve as a basis for further developments
of the technical solutions described above. In conclusion, the technical solutions
developed in this thesis will help to improve the aircraft efficiency and reduce harmful
pollution to the environment caused by aircraft.

79
Lühikokkuvõte
Õhusõidukite tiiva aerodünaamiliste omaduste parandamine
uute tehnoloogiliste lahenduste abil
Õhusõidukite poolt põhjustatud keskkonnasaaste on muutunud tõsiseks probleemiks,
millega lennukiinsenerid üle maailma silmitsi seisavad. Üle kogu maailma on hetkel
käigus 37 400 kommertslennukit. Nendest suurim osa on nn keskmise tegevus-raadiusega
kahemootorilised reisilennukid (Boeing 737, Airbus 320 jt). Neid on käigus 28 550 (2018.
a oktoobri seisuga) ehk üle 76% kommertslennukite üldarvust (Flaig, 2018). Moodne
reisilennuk (Airbus 321 neo) kulutab aasta ehk 5000 lennutunni jooksul keskmiselt
12 900 t lennukikütust ja emiteerib seejuures 40 663 t CO2. Prognoosi järgi kasvab 2032.
aastaks kommertslennukite arv võrreldes 2017. aastaga kaks korda. Edasise saastamise
pidurdamiseks tuleks radikaalselt tõsta õhusõidukite efektiivsust, sh vähendada
kütusekulu reisijate ja kaubaveol. Isegi 1% kütusekulu vähendamine võimaldaks
vähendada CO2 saastet antud näite puhul 406,6 t võrra. Kütusekulu vähendamisest on
huvitatud ka lennukioperaatorid, sest kulutused kütusele moodustavad suure osa
õhusõiduki opereerimiskuludest. Kui õnnestuks vähendada kommertslennukite kütusekulu
1%, siis lennukikütuse hinna juures 700 EUR/t oleks kõikide keskmise tegevusraadiusega
kommertslennukite pealt saavutatav kokkuhoid üle 2,5 miljardi euro aastas.
Üheks küllalt efektiivseks viisiks kütusekulu ja müra vähendada on tiiva aerodünaamilise
takistuse vähendamine. Käesoleva uurimuse ülesanne ongi aerodünaamiliste analüüside
alusel pakkuda välja erinevaid tehnoloogilisi lahendusi tiiva takistuse vähendamiseks ja
tõstejõu suurendamiseks. Tulenevalt õhusõidukite eripärast kasutatakse
aerodünaamiliseks analüüsiks ja erinevate modifikatsioonide modelleerimiseks erinevaid
arvutiprogramme. Purilennukite ja piloodita õhusõidukite puhul kasutati, tulenevalt
väikesest Re arvust, XFLR koodil põhinevat arvutiprogrammi XFLR5. Kommertslennukite
tiiva analüüsil aga kasutati CFD simulatsiooni tarkvara STAR-CCM+, mis omakorda
põhineb Reynoldsi keskmistatud Navier-Stokesi võrrandil (RANS). Lisaks viidi
purilennukitele väljatöötatud miniklappide mõju selgitamiseks läbi testlennud.
Purilennuki Jantar Standard 3 testlendude tulemusel osutus efektiivseimaks tiiva
tagaserva miniklapi variandiks 2% laiune (tiiva kõõlust) ja +30o kaldenurgaga miniklapp.
Võrreldes standardlahendusega vähenes tiiva takistus tõstejõu koefitsiendi Cl vahemikus
0,99-1,66. Suurim takistuse vähenemine saavutati Cl väärtusel 1,21. Samas Cl väärtustel
alla 0,99 miniklapid hoopis suurendasid takistust. Eeltoodust järeldub, et fikseeritud
nurgaga miniklapid sobivad purilennukitele, aga samuti piloodita õhusõidukitele, mille
lennukiiruste diapasoon on küllalt kitsas. Laiema lennukiiruste diapasooni saavutamiseks
tuleb kasutada muudetava geomeetriaga miniklappe (VGMF), mille testimiseks valiti
purilennuk LAK-17B. Selle tagatiibade sisse ehitati 6,5% laiused (tiiva kõõlust) miniklapid,
mida oli võimalik kallutada kuni +16,7o nurga alla. Testlendude käigus selgus, et VGMF-d
vähendasid õhutakistust Cl väärtustel üle 1,2. Seejuures suurim efekt saavutati Cl
väärtusel 1,29, kui purilennuki vajumiskiirus vähenes lausa 39,6%. Lennukiirustel, millele
vastavad Cl väärtused alla 1,2, tõmmati miniklapid tagatiibade sisse, nii et need ei
põhjustaks lisatakistust. Paljud miniklapi väikesed liikuvad metallosad valmistati 3D
laserprinteri abil roostevabast terasest ja titaansulamitest. Tänu läbimõeldud miniklappide
konstruktsioonile töötas mehhanism kergelt ka tiibade ekstreemselt suure läbipainde
juures.

80
 Tuginedes purilennukitel edukalt läbi viidud testide tulemustele oli järgnev projekt
suunatud kommertslennukite tiiva aerodünaamiliste omaduste parandamisele
kõrgematel Machi arvudel. Teatavasti hakkab kommertslennukite tiiva takistus alates
M>0,74 lainetakistuse lisandudes kiirelt kasvama. Takistuse kasvu vähendamiseks testiti
kommertslennukitel kasutatavat superkriitilist tiivaprofiili SC(2)-0410 koos erinevate
miniklapi (CMF) variantidega M=0,78 juures. Efektiivseimaks osutus variant CMF-D, mille
kasutamisel Cl=0,65 juures vähenes tiivaprofiili takistus 20,34% ning Cl=0,70 juures isegi
26,57% võrreldes standardse tiivaprofiiliga. Terve lennuki aerodünaamiline väärtus
suureneb sellega ligikaudu 5%. Seejuures moodustab CMF-i laius ainult 4% tiiva kõõlust
ning kaldenurk on +3,5o. Väiksemal tõstejõu koefitsiendil kui 0,5 CMF-d takistust enam ei
vähenda ning need on otstarbekas tõmmata tagatiiva sisse. CMF-i kasutamine võimaldab
suurendada optimaalset lennukõrgust ning vähendada sellega stratosfääri piiril kulgeva
jugavoolude mõju lennukite kütusekulule ja lennukestvusele. CMF-i liigutamiseks töötati
välja suhteliselt lihtne ja töökindel meetod, mille aluseks on pöördkonsoolid. Selle
meetodi järgi pööravad tagatiiva ninaosas paiknevad aktuaatorid pöördkonsoole ning
nendega koos CMF-e ning sellise ehituse juures puudub vajadus keerulise „flap track“
mehhanismi järele.
Pöördkonsoolidel põhinevat kinemaatilist skeemi saab kasutada ka esi- ja tagatiibade
liigutamiseks lennu ajal. Selline tehniline lahendus võimaldab vähendada takistust ja
tõsta kommertslennuki aerodünaamilist väärtust keskmiselt 3,4%-3,8%. Tagatiibade
muudetava nurga funktsioon võimaldab seejuures vähendada kütusekulu 1,8%-3,0%.
Spoilerite kallutamine 7-8o võimaldab tõsta tõstejõu koefitsienti ja koos sellega kasuliku
koorma kaalu 20-25%. Pöördkonsool-mehhanism on ka kaalult kergem, vajab vähem
hooldust ning selle tootmine on vähem kulukas.
Tiibadele, millel kasutatakse laminaarseid tiivaprofiile, projekteeriti pöördkonsoolidel
põhinevad esitiivad. Erinevalt Krueger tüüpi esitiibadest paiknevad eelnimetatud seadmed
lennu ajal tiiva sees. Stardil või maandumisel painutatakse esmalt alumist paneeli, nii et
tekib tiiva esiserva avaus, millest mahub esitiib välja liikuma. Väljalastud asendis alumine
tiivapaneel suleb avause. See lahendus võimaldab säilitada laminaarse voolu ka tiiva
alumisel pinnal. Teatavasti säilitatakse praegu kasutusel oleva lahenduse puhul laminaarne
vool ainult tiiva pealmisel küljel. Alumisel küljel rikub voolu sissetõmmatud Krueger tüüpi
esitiib. Olenevalt lennukist ja laminaarsest tiivaprofiilist võimaldaks eeltoodud lahendus
kokku hoida 3,6%-3,8% kütust. Esitiib kaitseb väljalastud asendis tiiba putukajäänustega
saastumise eest ning ka see aitab säilitada lennu ajal laminaarset voolu.
Kasutades SBS ja NLF esitiibade lahendusi koos on võimalik saavutada kütuse 9,27%
kokkuhoid, arvestades lennuki struktuuri kergenemist 300 kg võrra. Samas, kolme
eeltoodud lahenduse kasutamisel oleks võimalik lausa 10,77% kütusesääst, mis
omakorda tähendaks Airbus 321 neo puhul 277,87 kg kütuse kokkuhoidu tunnis.
Eeldades, et antud lennuki üldlennuaeg aastas on 5000 lennutundi, siis oleks kütuse
hinna juures 700 EUR/t aastane kütusesääst 972 523 eurot lennuki kohta aastas. Lisaks
vähenevad ka tootmis- ja hoolduskulud. Uute tehnoloogiate laiemal kasutamisel on
tulevikus võimalik vähendada saastekoormust ja hoida kokku kümneid miljardeid eurosid
aastas. Töö autor usub, et sellega on ta püstitatud ülesanded lahendanud. Edaspidi jätkab
antud uuringusuunda Karl-Erik Seegel.
Edasisteks uuringuteks oleks vajalik ehitada 1:1 mõõtkavas tiiva demonstraator (osa tiivast).
Demonstraatori koormamisel mõõdetakse võimalike astmete ja pilude mõõtmed ning sellega
selgitatakse välja, kas need jäävad NLF tiivaprofiilidele kehtestatud nõuete piiridesse. Saadud
tulemused on aga aluseks eeltoodud tehniliste lahenduste edasiarendamisel.

81
Appendix

Patent I CRUISE MINIFLAPS FOR AIRCRAFT

Application number: EP17207454.4
Date of receipt: 14 December 2017

83
01234567897 73 4 717
!"#$#%!"!"&#  !!%"%'
(#)%%#) *+,,,-*
. !#) &/0,12,3*343
564!#% &/0,12,3*3
" !!%
7!"! 037)120,

8#" *1-/0&/
. ! &%!9#)
:#! &&
;! :<=>(&?>6>59./(5@<.><:<.5;

7#)!%%#)!! A!4B)  A$#%!4B)

 !A4B)  A$#%!4"C3 4D
7<.6@6&/@4"E*1-/0&/ (/&:6@6&/@4"E*1-/0&/
%"""4"C, 4D %"!"""4"C02 4D
@;F&<A04"E7! "0221A04"C0 4D
=G%!4"C0 4D
"%!!4"C0 4D

(#)!! :6H?#%( 0,I-2

?!"%#)%% @
7!!) 037)120,J0K'0KC:&;D
!!
?%%7%! L*'.,'L:'K,'31'.K'3&'K&'7&'K.'7*'*K'5*'+-'I*'.1'.L'K5'*3'11
01234567897 73 4 717 MN61N433O P7 QRSTUVTWXWYW RN97S4 U
 ÿ ÿ 1234256575ÿ
89 ÿ  ÿ9ÿ99ÿ
ÿ!ÿ
"#$ÿ#%&'%(#)%ÿ*'+,('$ÿ()ÿ#%-*',$#%.ÿ("'ÿ,#*-*,/(ÿ0#%.ÿ+#/(ÿ,%1ÿ()ÿ1'-*',$#%.ÿ("'ÿ
,'*)12%,3#-ÿ1*,.ÿ14*#%.ÿ/+#."(7ÿ"'ÿ-*4#$'ÿ3#%#/+,5ÿ6"'*'#%,/('*ÿ7 8ÿ,--)*1#%.ÿ()ÿ
6ÿ ("'ÿ#%&'%(#)%ÿ#$ÿ5,*(ÿ)/ÿ("'ÿ,#*-*,/(ÿ0#%.ÿ)*ÿ("'ÿ(*,#+#%.ÿ'1.'ÿ/+,5ÿ,%1ÿ#(ÿ-,%ÿ9'ÿ4$'1ÿ()ÿ
3)1#/2ÿ("'ÿ-,39'*ÿ,%1ÿ("'ÿ,*',ÿ)/ÿ("'ÿ,#*-*,/(ÿ0#%.ÿ,%1ÿ()ÿ-*',('ÿ,ÿ-,&#(2ÿ0#("#%ÿ("'ÿ
0#%.ÿ(*,#+#%.ÿ'1.'7ÿ
:;<=>?!ÿ=ÿ
"'ÿ"#."ÿ0#%.ÿ+),1#%.ÿ)/ÿ3)1'*%ÿ+)%.ÿ*,%.'ÿ-)33'*-#,+ÿ,#*5+,%'$ÿ1)'$ÿ%)(ÿ,++)0ÿ
14ÿ ("'3ÿ()ÿ,-"#'&'ÿ("'ÿ)5(#3,+ÿ-*4#$'ÿ,+(#(41'ÿ,/('*ÿ(,@'A)//ÿ0#(")4(ÿ,ÿ$",*5ÿ#%-*',$'ÿ)/ÿ
("'ÿ,'*)12%,3#-ÿ1*,.ÿ9'-,4$'ÿ("'ÿ4$'1ÿ0#%.ÿ5*)/#+'ÿ",$ÿ9''%ÿ1'$#.%'1ÿ/)*ÿ+)0ÿ
,'*)12%,3#-ÿ1*,.Bÿ0#("ÿ("'ÿ+#/(ÿ-)'//#-#'%(ÿÿ0#("#%ÿ("'ÿ*,%.'ÿ)/ÿ4756C47D7ÿ)0'*ÿ
-*4#$'ÿ,+(#(41'Bÿ")0'&'*Bÿ*'$4+($ÿ#%ÿ,ÿ$+)0'*ÿ.*)4%1ÿ$5''1Bÿ0"#-"ÿ#%ÿ(4*%ÿ#%-*',$'$ÿ
/4'+ÿ-)%$435(#)%7ÿ%ÿ("'ÿ,*',$ÿ)/ÿ"',&2ÿ,#*ÿ(*,//#-Bÿ+)0'*ÿ-*4#$'ÿ,+(#(41'ÿ)/('%ÿ5*'&'%($ÿ
16ÿ /*)3ÿ$'+'-(#%.ÿ("'ÿ1#*'-(ÿ*)4('ÿ()ÿ("'ÿ1'$(#%,(#)%ÿ,#*5)*(7ÿ"'*'/)*'Bÿ"',&#'*ÿ,#*-*,/(ÿ
",&'ÿ"#."ÿ/4'+ÿ-)%$435(#)%ÿ#%ÿ("'ÿ/#*$(ÿ$(,.'ÿ)/ÿ("'ÿ/+#."(7ÿ"'ÿ#%&'%(#)%ÿ1'$-*#9'1ÿ
"'*'#%ÿ5*)&#1'$ÿ3',%$ÿ/)*ÿ#%-*',$#%.ÿ("'ÿ0#%.ÿ+#/(ÿ-)'//#-#'%(ÿ()ÿ("'ÿ+'&'+ÿ)/ÿ472C47Eÿ$)ÿ
(",(ÿ("'ÿ1*,.ÿ-)'//#-#'%(ÿ1)'$ÿ%)(ÿ.*)0ÿ$49$(,%(#,++27ÿ(ÿ,++)0$ÿ("'ÿ-)33'*-#,+ÿ
(*,%$5)*(ÿ,#*+#%'*$ÿ()ÿ*',-"ÿ"#."'*ÿ,+(#(41'$ÿ,/('*ÿ(,@'A)//ÿ,%1ÿ()ÿ#35*)&'ÿ("'ÿ
34ÿ ,'*)12%,3#-ÿ&,+4'ÿ6+#/(ÿ()ÿ1*,.ÿ)*ÿF!ÿ*,(#)8Bÿ0"#-"ÿ$49$(,%(#,++2ÿ*'14-'$ÿ/4'+ÿ
-)%$435(#)%ÿ,%1ÿ,+$)ÿ+'%.("'%$ÿ("'ÿ/+#."(ÿ1#$(,%-'7ÿÿ
G,*#)4$ÿ3)1#/#'1ÿ,#*-*,/(ÿ0#%.ÿ(*,#+#%.ÿ'1.'$ÿ",&'ÿ5*'&#)4$+2ÿ9''%ÿ5,('%('17ÿ"'ÿ
3)$(ÿ*'+'&,%(ÿ)/ÿ("'$'ÿ,*'ÿ("'ÿ/)++)0#%.Hÿ
!)-43'%(ÿ<:ÿ3125I51Bÿ6ÿ)&'39'*ÿ1JEDBÿ"'ÿK'-*'(,*2ÿ)/ÿK(,('ÿ/)*ÿ!'/'%-'ÿ
36ÿ 6?%#('1ÿ;#%.1)38ÿ618Bÿ1'$-*#9'$ÿ,ÿ$45'*-*#(#-,+ÿ0#%.ÿ$'-(#)%ÿ5*)&#1'1ÿ0#("ÿ,ÿ"#%.'1ÿ
/+,5ÿ,((,-"'1ÿ()ÿ("'ÿ0#%.7ÿ
!)-43'%(ÿ?KD6D6456ÿ:1Bÿ34ÿ7,2ÿ344IBÿ>%'*,Bÿ1'$-*#9'$ÿ,%ÿ,'*)12%,3#-ÿ$4*/,-'Bÿ
$4-"ÿ,$ÿ,ÿ0#%.Bÿ-)35*#$#%.ÿ,ÿ*'14-'1A5*'$$4*'ÿ/,-'ÿ,%1ÿ,ÿ5*'$$4*'ÿ/,-'ÿ0"#-"ÿ,*'ÿ
-)%%'-('1ÿ,(ÿ("'ÿ*',*ÿ$'-(#)%ÿ)/ÿ("'ÿ0#%.7ÿ
I4ÿ %ÿ1)-43'%(ÿ?Kÿ3442F43312EJÿ1Bÿ32ÿK'5('39'*ÿ3442Bÿ,@A,'ÿ''ÿ'(ÿ,+7ÿ1'$-*#9'ÿ
,%ÿ#35*)&'1ÿ(*,#+#%.ÿ'1.'ÿ,'*)12%,3#-ÿ-)%(*)+ÿ'//'-()*7ÿ
Patent II ACTUATING MECHANISM FOR TRAILING EDGE FLAPS AND LEADING EDGE SLATS
Application number: EP17207523.6
Date of receipt: 14 December 2017

127
01234567897 73 4 717
!"#$#%!"!"&#  !!%"%'
(#)%%#) *+,+-./
0 !#) &1/,2.,*234-
564!#% &1/,2.,*23
" !!%
7!"! /87)2./,

9#" *2:12&1
0 ! ;0<<=66>6=?&@(=;9A5
;&BC6A<AD9
B#! &&
;! 0B;>0;=6DE&BC06=(E5A@
;@0=<=6D&7D&5<01(067
<&07=6D&7D&(<0;(

7#)!%%#)!! F!4G)  F$#%!4G)

 !F4G)  F$#%!4"H8 4I
7@06A6&1A4"J*2:12&1 (1&B6A6&1A4"J*2:12&1
%"4"H/. 4I %"!"4"H/2 4I
A;C&@F/4"J7! "/..2F/4"H/ 4I
>K%!4"H/ 4I
"%!!4"H/ 4I

(#)!! B6LE#%( /,3:.

E!"%#)%% A
7!!) /87)2./,M/+'33HB&;I
!!
01234567897 73 4 717 NO61O433P Q7 RSTUVWUXVYZ[ SO97T4 V
 ÿ ÿ 1234253678ÿ
9 ÿ  ÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ
 !"#$ÿ%"$&ÿ
'()ÿ(*+,*-(.*ÿ()ÿ(*-,*/,/ÿ0.1ÿ1,/23(*4ÿ-',ÿ5,1./6*57(3ÿ/154ÿ5*/ÿ8,(4'-ÿ.0ÿ5(13150-ÿ
8(*4)7ÿ"*ÿ5//(-(.*9ÿ-',ÿ(*+,*-(.*ÿ:1.+(/,)ÿ5ÿ856ÿ-.ÿ(7:1.+,ÿ-',ÿ53-25-(*4ÿ7,3'5*()7ÿ
5ÿ 0.1ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-)ÿ5*/ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:)ÿ5*/ÿ-.ÿ1,/23,ÿ-',ÿ:1./23-(.*ÿ5*/ÿ
75(*-,*5*3,ÿ3.)-)ÿ.0ÿ5(13150-7ÿ
<#=>?@A!&ÿ#?ÿ
',ÿ 5*/;,6BC54,ÿ5*/ÿ=12,4,1ÿ-6:,ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-)ÿ5*/ÿ%.8;,1ÿ-6:,ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ
,/4,ÿ0;5:)ÿ.0-,*ÿ2),/ÿ.*ÿ7./,1*ÿ5(1;(*,1)ÿ51,ÿ,00,3-(+,ÿ(*ÿ1,/23(*4ÿ-',ÿ-5D,B.00ÿ5*/ÿ
14ÿ ;5*/(*4ÿ):,,/9ÿE2-ÿ-',(1ÿ3.*)-123-(.*ÿ()ÿ3.7:;,Fÿ5*/ÿ-',6ÿ*,,/ÿ(*-,*)(+,ÿ
75(*-,*5*3,7ÿ#;).9ÿ-',ÿ)5(/ÿ/,+(3,)ÿ51,ÿ',5+(,1ÿ-'5*ÿ.-',1ÿ-6:,)ÿ.0ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ
);5-)ÿ5*/ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:)7ÿ
AGÿC5-,*-ÿ!.7ÿ196HI96II9ÿ5*/;,6ÿC54,ÿ$-/9ÿ1Jÿ@3-ÿ1H3I9ÿ/,)31(E,)ÿ5*ÿ5(13150-ÿ8(*4ÿ
5*/ÿ5ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-9ÿ8'(3'ÿ(*ÿ:515;;,;ÿ8(-'ÿ-',ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ.0ÿ-',ÿ75(*ÿ8(*4ÿ()ÿ
15ÿ 3.**,3-,/ÿ8(-'ÿ-',ÿ;5--,1ÿ5*/ÿ7.+,)ÿ5856ÿ01.7ÿ-',ÿ75(*ÿ8(*4ÿ8',*ÿ-',ÿ517ÿ()ÿ
:(+.-,/ÿ51.2*/ÿ-',ÿ+,1-(35;ÿ:(+.-ÿ.0ÿ-',ÿ75(*ÿ8(*47ÿ"*ÿAGÿC5-,*-ÿ!.7ÿ8941591129ÿ
<1.5/E,*-9ÿK(3'5,;ÿ9ÿ1JÿL5*2516ÿ34449ÿ5*ÿ5*5;.4.2)ÿ53-25-(*4ÿ7,3'5*()7ÿ0.1ÿ
7.+(*4ÿ5ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-ÿ()ÿ/,)31(E,/7ÿ"*ÿAGÿC5-,*-ÿ!.7ÿ59J6895549ÿ<.,(*4ÿ.9ÿ12ÿ
!.+,7E,1ÿ1HHJ9ÿ5*ÿ53-25-(*4ÿ7,3'5*()7ÿ0.1ÿ7.+(*4ÿ5ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:ÿ()ÿ/,)31(E,/ÿ
34ÿ 8'(3'ÿ3.**,3-)ÿ-',ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:ÿ8(-'ÿ-',ÿ75(*ÿ8(*47ÿÿ
"*ÿ:5-,*-ÿ5::;(35-(.*ÿAG3448M43434JH9ÿ#(1E2)ÿ>7E 9ÿ1IÿG,:-,7E,1ÿ34489ÿ5*ÿ
5(13150-ÿ8(*4ÿ3.7:1()(*4ÿ.0ÿ5ÿ75(*ÿ8(*4ÿ5*/ÿ5ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:ÿ5*/ÿ5*ÿ53-25-(*4ÿ
7,3'5*()7ÿ0.1ÿ7.+(*4ÿ-',ÿ0;5:ÿ51,ÿ/,)31(E,/7ÿ
GAKK#?Nÿ@%ÿ"!O!"@!ÿ
35ÿ ',ÿ.EP,3-(+,ÿ.0ÿ-'()ÿ(*+,*-(.*ÿ()ÿ-.ÿ:1.+(/,ÿ5ÿ05)-,*(*4ÿ5*/ÿ5*ÿ53-25-(*4ÿ7,3'5*()7ÿ
0.1ÿ-',ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:ÿ5*/ÿ-',ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-9ÿ8'(3'ÿ8.2;/ÿ'5+,ÿ5ÿ)(7:;,1ÿ
3.*)-123-(.*ÿ5*/ÿ8.2;/ÿE,ÿ7.1,ÿ1,;(5E;,ÿ-'5*ÿ-',ÿ-,3'*(35;ÿ).;2-(.*)ÿD*.8*ÿ(*ÿ-',ÿ
:1(.1ÿ51-7ÿ#;).9ÿ-',ÿ.EP,3-(+,ÿ.0ÿ-',ÿ(*+,*-(.*ÿ()ÿ-.ÿ:1.+(/,ÿ5ÿ:(+.-(*4ÿ7,3'5*()7ÿ0.1ÿ
-',ÿ-15(;(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ0;5:ÿ5*/ÿ;,5/(*4ÿ,/4,ÿ);5-ÿ8(-'ÿ0,8,1ÿ3.*)-123-(.*ÿ,;,7,*-)ÿ5*/ÿ
64ÿ )7..-',1ÿ.:,15-(.*9ÿ8'(3'ÿ8.2;/ÿ(7:1.+,ÿ-',ÿ5,1./6*57(3ÿ:,10.175*3,ÿ.0ÿ-',ÿ
5(13150-ÿ/21(*4ÿ-',ÿ312(),9ÿ-5D,B.00ÿ5*/ÿ;5*/(*4ÿ5*/ÿ8.2;/ÿ1,/23,ÿ02,;ÿ3.*)27:-(.*9ÿ
,):,3(5;;6ÿ/21(*4ÿ;.*4,1ÿ0;(4'-)7ÿ',ÿ:21:.),ÿ.0ÿ-',ÿ(*+,*-(.*ÿ()ÿ53'(,+,/ÿE6ÿ7,5*)ÿ.0ÿ
Curriculum vitae
Personal data
Name: Peep Lauk
Date of birth: 02.08.1966
Place of birth: Elva, Estonia
Citizenship: Estonian
Contact data
E-mail: [email protected]
Education
2014–2019 Tallinn University of Technology, PhD.
1984–1989 Estonian University of Life Sciences, equalized with MSc
1981–1984 Põlva High School
Language competence
Estonian – native language
English – intermediate
Russian – intermediate
Professional employment
1989–1994 Estonian Agrobiocentre, Junior Scientist
1994–2001 NPK Väetis OÜ, CEO
2001–2009 Fertile-Invest OÜ, CEO
2009–… Novaviking OÜ, CEO
2013–… Estonian Aviation Academy, Researcher
Supervised dissertations
Siim Heering, MSc, 2015. Development and optimization of unmanned
aerial vehicle systems. Tallinn University of Technology
Marek Tamm, 2018. Strength analysis of the swivel beam trailing edge
flap system for commercial aircraft, Estonian Aviation Academy
Timo Korv, 2018. Modular lithium-ion battery assembly for electric aircraft,
Estonian Aviation Academy
Participation in scientific projects
2.1.3 Influence of miniflaps on aerodynamic characteristics of aircraft,
2014–2020, Peep Lauk, Estonian Aviation Academy, Development Department
Scientific work
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2017). Impact of variable geometry
miniflaps on sailplane flight characteristics. Aviation, 21 (4),
119−125.10.3846/16487788.2017.1415228.
● Lauk, P.; Rebassa, J. H.; Kartushinsky, A.; Krupensky, I.; Tisler, S.; Tähemaa, T.;
Polonskye, A. (2016). Assemblage of turbulent jet flows through static
particulate media. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 65 (3),
284−296.10.3176/proc.2016.3.05.
● Lauk, Peep; Unt, Karl-Eerik (2015). Influence of miniflaps on sailplane flight
characteristics. Aviation, 19 (3), 105−111.10.3846/16487788.2015.1104793.
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2018). The Influence of Variable
Geometrical Modifications of the Trailing Edge of Supercritical Airfoil on the
Characteristics of Aerodynamics. International Journal of Mechanical,
Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 12 (4),
261−266.

183
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K-E.; Kartušinski, A.; Tisler, S.; Hussainov, M.; Polonsky, A.;
Scheglov, I.; Rudi, Ü. (2016). Two-fluid RANS-RSTM-PDF model for turbulent
particulate flows. In: R. López-Ruiz (Ed.). Numerical Simulation (340−363).
InTech - Open Access Publisher .10.5772/63338.
● Lauk, Peep; Unt, Karl-Eerik. (2014). Miniflap influence on sailplane flight
characteristics. Research and Education in Aircraft Design 2014. Ed. Jonas
Stankūnas. Vilnius, Lithuania: Antanas Gustaitis Aviation Institute of Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University.
● Lauk, Peep; Jakimenko, Jaanus; Vanker, Signe (2016). Projektõpe aine "Ülikerge
purilennuki ehitamine" näitel. Õppemetoodiline konverents. Konverentsi
teesid: Ennast juhtiv õppija; Kaitseväe Ühendatud õppeasutused, 20.10.2016.
Toim. Svetlana Ganina; Andres Saumets. Tartu: Kaitseväe Ühendatud
Õppeasutused, 34−36.
● Lauk, P; Tähemaa, T.; Seegel, K-E. (2018). Advanced trailing edge flap design for
commercial aircraft, Toulouse, AEGATS´18 Confrence, France / 23 – 25 October
2018.

184
Elulookirjeldus
Isikuandmed
Nimi: Peep Lauk
Sünniaeg: 02.08.1966
Sünnikoht: Elva, Eesti
Kodakondsus: Eesti
Kontaktandmed
E-post: [email protected]

Hariduskäik
2014–2019 Tallinna Tehnikaülikool, PhD
1984–1989 Eesti Põllumajanduse Akadeemia, võrdsustatud magistriõppega
1981–1984 Põlva Keskkool, keskharidus
Keelteoskus
Eesti keel – emakeel
Inglise keel – kesktase
Vene keel – kesktase
Teenistuskäik
1989–1994 Eesti Agrobiokeskus, nooremteadur
1994–2001 NPK Väetis OÜ, juhataja
2001–2009 Fertile-Invest OÜ, juhataja
2009–… Novaviking OÜ, juhataja
2013–… Eesti Lennuakadeemia, lektor, arendussetsialist
Juhendatud väitekirjad
Siim Heering, MSc, 2015. Mehitamata õhusõiduki süsteemide arendus
ning optimeerimine, Tallinna Tehnikaülikool
Marek Tamm, 2018. Kommertslennukitele mõeldud pöördkonsoolidel
põhineva tagatiiva lahenduse tugevusanalüüs, Eesti Lennuakadeemia
Timo Korv, 2018. Modulaarne liitiumioon akukomplekt elektritoitel
õhusõidukile, Eesti Lennuakadeemia
Osalemine teadusprojektides
2.1.3 Miniklappide mõju lennukite aerodünaamilistele omadustele,
Peep Lauk, 2014–2020, Eesti Lennuakadeemia, Arendusosakond
Teadustöö
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2017). Impact of variable geometry
miniflaps on sailplane flight characteristics. Aviation, 21 (4),
119−125.10.3846/16487788.2017.1415228.
● Lauk, P.; Rebassa, J. H.; Kartushinsky, A.; Krupensky, I.; Tisler, S.; Tähemaa, T.;
Polonskye, A. (2016). Assemblage of turbulent jet flows through static
particulate media. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 65 (3),
284−296.10.3176/proc.2016.3.05.
● Lauk, Peep; Unt, Karl-Eerik (2015). Influence of miniflaps on sailplane flight
characteristics. Aviation, 19 (3), 105−111.10.3846/16487788.2015.1104

185
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K.-E.; Tähemaa, T. (2018). The Influence of Variable
Geometrical Modifications of the Trailing Edge of Supercritical Airfoil on the
Characteristics of Aerodynamics. International Journal of Mechanical,
Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engineering, 12 (4),
261−266.
● Lauk, P.; Seegel, K-E.; Kartušinski, A.; Tisler, S.; Hussainov, M.; Polonsky, A.;
Scheglov, I.; Rudi, Ü. (2016). Two-fluid RANS-RSTM-PDF model for turbulent
particulate flows. In: R. López-Ruiz (Ed.). Numerical Simulation (340−363).
InTech - Open Access Publisher .10.5772/63338.
● Lauk, Peep; Unt, Karl-Eerik. (2014). Miniflap influence on sailplane flight
characteristics. Research and Education in Aircraft Design 2014. Ed. Jonas
Stankūnas. Vilnius, Lithuania: Antanas Gustaitis Aviation Institute of Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University.
● Lauk, Peep; Jakimenko, Jaanus; Vanker, Signe (2016). Projektõpe aine "Ülikerge
purilennuki ehitamine" näitel. Õppemetoodiline konverents. Konverentsi
teesid: Ennast juhtiv õppija; Kaitseväe Ühendatud õppeasutused, 20.10.2016.
Toim. Svetlana Ganina; Andres Saumets. Tartu: Kaitseväe Ühendatud
Õppeasutused, 34−36.
● Lauk, P; Tähemaa, T.; Seegel, K-E. (2018). Advanced trailing edge flap design for
commercial aircraft, Toulouse, AEGATS´18 Confrence, France / 23 – 25 october
2018.

186