Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T02:18:46.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterisation of a highly staggered spanwise cambered biplane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

L.W. Traub ,
R. Waghela  and
K.A. Bordignon
R. Waghela
Affiliation:
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, USA
K.A. Bordignon
Affiliation:
Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Department, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An investigation is presented to elucidate the performance of a staggered, spanwise cambered biplane. The spanwise camber yielded wings forming a ‘∧’ or ‘∨’ when viewed streamwise. The configuration is examined in terms of its aerodynamic and stability characteristics. The feasibility of negating the requirement for a conventional empennage is explored. Geometric variation encompassed front and back wing anhedral/dihedral angles yielding 49 combinations. Evaluation of the geometry was accomplished using both wind tunnel testing and numerical simulation. The results indicated that front wing dihedral in conjunction with aft wing anhedral was most beneficial, such that the benefit of wake spacing was maximised. Aerodynamic benefit was indicated compared to a conventional empennage geometry. The greatest disparity in behaviour of the fore and aft wing anhedral/dihedral distribution was in the high lift regime, where the nature of the stall varied. Simulations to establish the viability of the geometry in terms of controllability were also conducted and indicated that the configuration is viable.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1212 , February 2015 , pp. 203 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

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.Gomez, J.C. and Garcia, E.Morphing unmanned aerial vehicles, Smart Materials and Structures, 2011, 20, pp 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K. and Inman, D.Macro-fiber composite actuators for a swept wing unmanned aircraft, Aeronaut J, 2009, 113, pp 386–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Garcia, H., Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. Roll control for a micro air vehicle using active wing morphing, 2003, AIAA-2003-5347, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference, August 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Abdulrahim, M. Flight performance characteristics of a biologically-inspired morphing aircraft, January 2005, AIAA Paper 2005-343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Traub, L.W. and Nix, T.Experimental investigation of a morphable biplane, J Aircr, January-February, 2012, 49, pp 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Traub, L.W., Snyder, R. and Pellino, T.Preliminary experimental investigation of a morphable biplane: the X-wing, J Aircr, May-June, 2010, 47, pp 1068–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Traub, L.W.Effects of sweep and nonplanarity on a delta-winged biplane, J Aircr, November-December, 2012, 49, pp 2007–2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Traub, L.W. Aerodynamic impact of aspect ratio at low Reynolds number, J Aircr, to be published.Google Scholar
9.Prandtl, L. Induced drag of multi-planes, March 1924, NACA TN 182.Google Scholar
10.Munk, M. General biplane theory, 1923, NACA Report 151.Google Scholar
11.Traub, L.W.Experimental investigation of annular wing aerodynamics, J Aircr, May-June, 2009, 46, pp 988–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Wolkowitch, J. The joined wing: an overview, January 1985, AIAA Paper 85-0274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Cahill, J.F. and Stead, D.H. Preliminary investigation at subsonic and transonic speeds of the aerodynamic characteristics of a biplane composed of a sweptback and a sweptforward wing joined at the tips, 1954, NACA RML53L24b.Google Scholar
14.Lowson, M.Minimum induced drag for wings with spanwise camber, J Aircr, July 1990, 27, pp 627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Letcher, J.V-wings and diamond ring-wings of minimum induced drag, J Aircr, September 1972, 9, pp. 605–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Broering, T.M. and Lian, Y. The effect of wing spacing on tandem wing aerodynamics, 2010, AIAA 2010-4385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Lennon, A.G.R/C Model Airplane Design, Chap 6, 1986, Motorbooks International, Osceola, WI, USA.Google Scholar
18.Scharpf, D.F. and Mueller, T.J.Experimental study of a low Reynolds number tandem airfoil configuration, J Aircr, February 1992, 29, pp 23–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Traub, L.W. and Cooper, E.Experimental investigation of pressure measurement and airfoil characteristics at low Reynolds numbers, J Aircr, July-August 2008, 45, pp 1322–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Russell, N.K. and Bordignon, K.A. Aircraft design simulation verifcation and testing, 2011, AIAA 2011-6347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Napolitano, M.R.Aircraft Dynamics From Modeling to Simulation, Wiley, 2012, pp 432–522.Google Scholar
22.Crawford, D.R.A Practical Guide to Airplane Performance and Design, Crawford Aviation, 1981, pp 131–138.Google Scholar
23.Enns, D.F., Bugajski, D.J., Hendrick, R.C. and Stein, G.Dynamic inversion: An evolving methodology for fight control design, Int J Control, January 1994, 59, pp 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Walker, G.P. and Allen, D.A. X-35 STOVL flight control law design and flying qualities, November, 2002, AIAA 2002-6018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar