How to design a new wing (apols if OT)
Once in a while one comes across a wing that seems so bad that anyone could improve upon it.
There is a massive NACA database of aerofoil (airfoil if googling in US) sections and NASA has more tucked away somewhere. It should be possible to start with: MTOW Intended cruising speed Engine power Take off, landing, stall speeds Wing loading, wing span No. of seats Maybe more criteria and, as if by magic, get referred to a suitable aerofoil section. I have tried writing to my old professor, a junior reader, NASA department of s/w assistance, and all have thrown my approaches into the ether. Does anyone have any ideas? |
I think one of the clues is in your use of the word 'magic'. Choosing a wing profile, as well as sorting out all the other variables in designing a wing, can be an incredibly difficult task. Have a read of this, it will give you an idea of the parameters that are involved: Wing Design Parameters
|
Thanks for a very interesting page - and web site.
But this is what computers and so called AI are good at. For instance, a statement of cruising speed would, in my case, rule out the paragraph on sweep - but, of course, the Rutan Long EZ has plenty of it, nonetheless. So, back to square one. I'll have a good read of that site. Thanks again. |
You also need to consider that to be useful to a customer the aeroplane has to have performance over a range of missions - different leg lengths, different cruise altitudes, different load capacities etc. You also can't consider the wing design in isolation - the optimum wing design varies with engine choice, structural concept, intended control system etc. I know of one aeroplane design where a "more efficient" set of wing sections had to be abandoned when it came to light that the pitching moment characteristics of those airfoils would need an additional 800kg of fuselage structure to make it stiff enough to avoid phase-lag resonances between wing and tail.
Also consider that "wing section" is a two-dimensional thing that's only used for initial . Real wings are 3-dimensional objects over which the air almost never flows directly parallel to the velocity vector. So the 2D section data is only really useful to schoolboys! In other words - the design of aeroplanes is never just a "throw a set of numbers into a database and let it get on with it" thing - it needs engineers to do teh hard stuff. PDR |
Originally Posted by Downwind Lander
(Post 9968842)
Once in a while one comes across a wing that seems so bad that anyone could improve upon it.
There is a massive NACA database of aerofoil (airfoil if googling in US) sections and NASA has more tucked away somewhere. It should be possible to start with: MTOW Intended cruising speed Engine power Take off, landing, stall speeds Wing loading, wing span No. of seats Maybe more criteria Technology used on company existing products and available for reuse Available manufacturing techniques and capacity Structural reserve factors Data on latest available materials. Size and mass of available actuators Fuel tank requirements Mach number limits Latest certification requirements Lessons learned from previous designs Projections for future development The market and operational requirement to minimise excess structure Those are some of the "maybe more criteria". And in that context major manufacturers maybe design a new wing every 15-20 years, and minor manufacturers perhaps every 5-10 years. So anybody leading the activity is as likely as not, never have to have had a senior role in wind development before - and if they did, it was almost certainly with the use of different design techniques. This is not to say that it's impossible, or that it's not done well in most cases. But it's extremely inaccurate to presume that you can just plug the numbers into a bit of software or standard set of algorithms and get the right answer out of the box. That is what happens on undergraduate degree courses because of the need to massively simplify problems to get the basic principles across to students - but not in the real world. G |
In service inspectability, and reparability. Very unwise to allow a design which incorporates areas which cannot be inspected by normal means, and the possibility that damage cannot be repaired due to access/complexity/special processes/aerodynamic smoothness.
Avoid producing products which cannot be easily maintained. |
And of course, every inspection panel also has structural implications.
G |
Not forgetting handling qualities and low speed/stall behaviour.
Wing twist/wash out Flutter considerations Location of engines or weapon pylons Any low observable demands In practice in low speed aircraft aerofoil section is not always significant. As speeds increase the choice of section becomes more important, and probably more open to compromise. Bear in mind a thicker section will be lighter, have greater internal volume for fuel, but slower. Everything is a compromise - the skill is where to pitch the compromise ... Many choices will work, but what will make money? Phil |
And of course, every inspection panel also has structural implications. This sort of maintenance "ease" is not generally considered by civil aircraft buyers, but it certainly saves a lot of repair or maintenance cost later in the life of the aircraft. Sometimes, it's much cheaper to remove the wing from the aircraft to work on it. The ease with which a Cessna or Piper wing may be removed from the fuselage is also very pleasing. By comparison, single through spar wings (like a Found Bush Hawk or Islander) become really challenging when the aircraft has to be disassembled for transport. |
As soon as trying to extract the most performance out of a wing is attempted, you will find even small changes can produce large effects. I'm not an aerodynamicist but had to reprogram the Stall Protection Computer on a Regional Jet after the wing was found to have less than optimum performance. I eventually filled a whole filing cabinet with change documentation & bench test results before the final solution was found by our Flight Sciences group - and that was without making any major changes to the airfoil or planform!
|
And so far we've all only really mentioned the wing.
Delivery of acceptable longitudinal stability and control criteria mean integrating the wing's innate stability characteristics with the broader aeroplane longstab behaviour as determined by the tailplane and fuselage shapes. You really can't design a wing in isolation in that regard. G |
Gordon Bennett! - What a tsunami of wisdom.
But I am not in the market for a new1000 seater airliner or a new generation stealth vehicle: - Two seats and under 450Kg MTOW. The existing bar is low - very low. The aircraft is fine, in its way, but the wing could have been designed by Laurence Llewelyn Bowen. I can't find the pic that I am looking for - give me a day or so. I just reckon that if it were to be given a wing designed by Burt Rutan, then that would turn it on its head. |
If it's in that class, I have considerable industry knowledge - are you able to tell us what it is? I will point out however that in that class manufacturing and certification costs have to be extremely low, not all that many people in the community are particularly highly skilled engineers (albeit that the best are world leading), and there's usually an absolute requirement to keep Vso below 35kCAS.
G |
1 Attachment(s)
Well, you've guessed, Ghenghis.
I can't find the image I was looking for; it looked like a French cathedral stained glass window. Here is a bread & butter one. It doesn't need to be high wing; it could be mid or low level - even, possibly adjustable. Obviously, the thrust/drag couple will have something to say. Of course, this is a flexwing design and so, to get 3 axis control back, further thought will be needed. Certain composite designs might be bendable - a slightly scary thought. Wing loading needs consideration to keep within the rules. But the scope for improvement is there - big time. |
A Rogallo wing is an extremely complex exercise in aeroelasticity, understood well by far fewer people than "conventional" wings. What they're not is crude or necessarily poorly designed. The specific wing you're describing sounds to me like an Air Creation Tanarg wing, or close relative, imported into the UK by Flylight at Northampton Sywell.
The concept of the use of a Rogallo wing within a 3-axis control system was tried by a few manufacturers in the 1980s, and generally speaking abandoned. I can't offhand think of anything that's happened since to change that conclusion - although the elimination of top rigging in some of the most modern designs may make it possible to mount the wing below structure - not previously attempted. Checking the usual databases it doesn't look like any of those hybrids made it through the mandatory imposition of BCAR Section S in the UK between 1984 and 1987, or the similar BFU-95 in Germany a little later so data will be sketchy in the extreme. Almost certainly the best source of information will be a long out of print book called "Microlight and Ultralight Aircraft of the World" by Berger & Burr. On basic characteristics of Rogallo wings, these are probably the most authoritative sources, some you can download, some you may need to buy, or quite possibly just use a library (the National Aerospace Library in Farnborough may be your best resource here!). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/18403728..._sl_anerc182_e Book Review: Tailless Aircraft in Theory & Practice | UAV and Model Airplane Design, Building and Flying | RCadvisor.com http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf You might also see if any talks by Dr. Billy Brooks of P&M Aviation in Wiltshire are on the web somewhere - he's certainly the cleverest man in the field in the UK, and quite possibly the world. I'm going to hazard a guess you are doing this as a dissertation exercise in a university somewhere? Will a microlight or hang-glider Rogallo wing be improved by the addition of 3-axis controls? I doubt it very much, but it's an interesting academic exercise, and I wish you well with it. There are discussions from time to time about whether the use of an external horizontal stabiliser may reduce the risk of a tumbling departure, but that's unproven and all current work on tumble resistance lies elsewhere so far as I know. G (Checking my logbook, 350hrs under a Rogallo wing, although no current plans to increase that as I'm busy flying other stuff right now). |
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
(Post 9973021)
I'm going to hazard a guess you are doing this as a dissertation exercise in a university somewhere?
You have given me much to think about. But what makes me think that it is an inefficient wing is a comparison of the engine power and top/cruising speeds of a P & M and the Long EZ, which certainly looks like the ultimate in both elegance and good aerodynamic design - which pays off in performance. |
Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer
(Post 9973021)
I'm busy flying other stuff right now).
:E PDR |
Originally Posted by Downwind Lander
(Post 9973116)
But what makes me think that it is an inefficient wing is a comparison of the engine power and top/cruising speeds of a P & M and the Long EZ, which certainly looks like the ultimate in both elegance and good aerodynamic design - which pays off in performance.
PDR |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 9973159)
Posting to Pprune while acting as P1 is highly dangerous!
:E PDR G |
Originally Posted by PDR1
(Post 9973162)
Look at the two in terms of draggy bits - the P&M has lots of external bracing, sticky-out wheels, open cockpit etc etc. All that makes for a marked relictance to slip thropugh fluids like a well-buttered eel.
PDR That said, internal structural cleverness and use of fairings and simplified shapes certainly has potential to remove a lot of the easily identifiable profile drag generators in the way of cables, struts, pilots, etc... The best such at the moment is probably the P&M PulsR?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RbDVS-0XTE Which if nothing else, is very clever, and very pretty. Designed by the aforementioned Bill Brooks. G |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.