Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T03:15:29.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Induced drag prediction for wing-tail and canard configurations through numerical optimisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

G. Lombardi  and
A. Vicini
G. Lombardi
Affiliation:
Aerospace Engineering Department, University of Pisa
A. Vicini
Affiliation:
Aerodynamic Research for Industrial Applications (A.R.I.A.), Livorno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computational procedure has been developed in order to predict aerodynamic interference between lifting surfaces, and to devise configurations which best meet given aerodynamic requirements. The procedure, which couples an aerodynamic solver with a numerical optimisation routine, is useful in the preliminary design of aircraft. The essential features of the aerodynamic code and of the optimisation routine are described, along with the coupling criteria. Some of the most significant predictions obtained in induced-drag minimisation for wing-tail and canard configurations are described and discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 98 , Issue 976 , July 1994 , pp. 199 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1994 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Buresti, G., Lombardi, G. and Polito, L. Analysis of the interaction between lifting surfaces by means of a non-linear panel method. In: Boundary Integral Methods. Theory and Applications, Springer-VerlagEd., 1991, pp 125–134.Google Scholar
2. Lombardi, G., Petagna, P. and Vicini, A. Computation of aerodynamic interference between lifting surfaces, Aerospace Engineering Department Report, University of Pisa, ADIA 92-9, November 1992.Google Scholar
3. Buresti, G., , Lombardi, G., and Petagna, P., Wing pressure loads incanard configurations: a comparison between numerical results and experimental data, Aeronaut J, 96, August/September 1992, pp 271–279.Google Scholar
4. Vanderplaats, G.N. Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design with applications, MacGraw-Hill series in Mechanical Engineering, 1984.Google Scholar
5. Vanderplaats, G.N. CONMIN, a Fortran program for constrained function minimization, NASA TM X-62-282, 1973.Google Scholar
6. Fletcher, R. and Reeves, C.M. Function minimization by conjugate gradients, Br Computer J, 7, (2), pp. 149–154, 1964. Google Scholar
7. Vanderplaats, G.N. and Moses, F. Structural optimization by methods of feasible directions, J Computers Struct, 3, pp.739–755, July 1973.Google Scholar
8. Vicini, A., Travostino, G. and Buresti, G. Developement of a computational procedure for transonic wing design through numerical optimization, Aerospace Engineering Department Report, University of Pisa, ADIA 92-5, Giugno 1992.Google Scholar
9. Lombardi, G. and Vicini, A. Developement of a numerical procedure for the preliminary design of interfering configurations, Aerospace Engineering Department Report, University of Pisa, ADIA 93-4, Giugno 1993.Google Scholar
10. Kalman, T.P. Giesing, J.P. and Rodden, W.P. Spanwise distribution of induced drag in subsonic flow by the vortex lattice method, J Aircraf, 7, (6), November-December 1970.Google Scholar
11. Van dam, C.P. Induced drag characteristics of crescent-moon- shaped wings, J Aircraft, 24, (2), February 1987.Google Scholar
12. Munk, M. Minimum induced drag of airfoils, NACA Rept. 121, 1921.Google Scholar
13. Prandtl, L. Induced drag of multiplanes, NACA TNI82, March 1924 Google Scholar
14. Kroo, I. Minimum induced drag of canard configurations, J Aircraft, 19, (9), September 1982, pp 847–854 Google Scholar
15. Spact, G. The forward swept wing: a unique design challenge, AIAA Paper 80-1885, August 1980 Google Scholar
16. Lombardi, G. Experimental study on the aerodynamic effects of a forward sweep angle, J Aircraft, 30, (5), September/October 1993.Google Scholar
17. Lombardi, G. and Morelli, M. Aerodynamic analysis of forward swept wing-canard configurations, J Aircraft, 31, (2), March/April 1994.Google Scholar