You are on page 1of 35

REVOLUTIONARY AERODYNAMICS

Sumon K. Sinha, Ph.D., P.E, SINHATECH, Oxford, Mississippi


www.sinhatech.com
SumonKSinha@aol.com

TRADITIONAL AERODYNAMICS for Maximizing L/D


Maintain Laminar Flow Avoid Boundary Layer Separation Maintain Elliptical Spanwise Lift Distribution

MOTIVATION
Highest L/D is for Sailplanes (70 for AR of 33 with flaps, 48 for AR of 22 without flaps) L/D Restricted by Limits of Laminar Flow

Can

we do better than Laminar Flow?

AIRFOIL DESIGN APPROACHES FOR L/D MAXIMIZATION


Liebeck R.H. (J. of Aircraft, Oct 1973) Airfoil. Cd ~ 0.01 for 1.6 > Cl > 0.6

GT-3 testing simulation on XFOIL 6.94 Cp vs x Plot NLF-0414-F airfoil ReD = 5.775 * 10^6

Cp vs X plot The blue line represents the pressure distribution on the lower surface and the yellow line represents the pressure distribution on the upper surface.

L/D Increase using Flow Control

The turbulent skin friction drag reduction by the use of Riblets (CD/CD of about 1-2% flat-plate) The hybrid laminar flow technology (CD/CD of about 6 - 10% flat plate); The innovative wing-tip devices (CD/CD of about 5 - 8% flight); The sub-layers vortex generators and MEMS technology which can be used to control flow separation.

Shapes of riblet films Source:http://aerodyn.org/Drag/riblets

Deturbulator Flow Control reduces parasitic & induced drag (CD/CD as much as 30% for Total Aircraft) REVOLUTIONARY!

Wing-tip Devices
Source:J.Reneaux., Overview on drag reduction technologies for civil transport aircrafts European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS 2004.

The Sinha-Deturbulator Approach


Modified Boundary Layer (Thickness Exaggerated)
Unmodified Velocity Profile

Deturbulator Modified Velocity Profile

Airfoil

Sub-layer with slow Reversed Flow negates Skin Friction Drag and Speeds up Freestream Flow

SLIP LAYER: Deturbulator Stabilized Viscous

SINHA FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE SURFACE DETURBULATOR (FCSD)


Boundary Layer Flow High Strips or Ridges

Flexible Membrane 6m thick

Fundamental Flexural Vibration Mode of Membrane


Shown (Amplitude < 0.1 m)

Membrane Tension

Wing or other aerodynamic body

50-100m

Low Strips as needed to fix flexural damping

Substrate Base glued to aerodynamic surface

10-50m thick Air-Gap (Membrane Substrate)

FLOW-FCSD INTERACTION
Free stream U/t v(u/y)y=0 p/x < 0 p/x 0
Flow of pressure fluctuations

p/x > 0

BEST INTERACTION where p/x = 0


FCSD passes oscillation without damping at the Interaction

SINHA -FCS (Membrane Oscillation velocity v)

frequency :
Separation point

f = U/s
Attenuates other frequencies

Separated Shear Layer (Oscillates due to fluctuations)

This stabilizes the shear layer and mitigates turbulent dissipation

Boundary Layer Velocity Profiles Showing Effect of Deturbulation


0.07 0.06 0.05
Mean vel 80cFCSD10MV Rms vel 80cFCSD10MV Mean Vel 80cCW Rms vel 80c-CW

Y/C

0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

u/u infinity

Development History
Preliminary Drag Reduction Studies jointly with Global Aircraft 1999-2000 on GT-3 Aircraft based on Electrically actuated Active Flexible Wall Transducer (Invented in 1993, Sinha, 1999 Patent) Passive Flexible Composite Surface Deturbulator observed in 2001 (Pending Patents, Sinha 2003, 2004, 2005). Subsequent 15-20% wing profile
drag reduction on NLF-0414F on GT-3 (NASA Sponsored project with Advanced Technologies, 2004).

Sailplane Drag Reduction (2002-Present): 5-30% enhancement of total Lift/Drag over a wide range of airspeeds for the Standard Cirrus 15-m span Sailplane.

Previous Research On Active Flexible Wall


(AFW Transducer)
FCSD concept evolved out of an earlier electrically powered AFW (Sinha, 1999). Mylar stretched across the high and low electrode. Air gap between Mylar and electrode provide the mechanical damping. DC bias applied across membrane Flow-membrane interaction produces an AC signal AC signal decomposed into fundamental flow-membrane frequencies Membrane actuated at those aforementioned frequencies
Schematic of the Active Flexible Wall (AFW) Transducer Spectrum of AFW sensed signals on a cylinder showing the 2.25 kHz interaction

Interaction Frequency
2.25KHz

With Interaction

Without Interaction

MODIFICATION OF TURBULENCE BY FLEXIBLE SURFACE


SPECTRA OF STREAMWISE VELOCITY FLUCTUATIONS
With (top) and Without (bottom) Flexible-Surface Interaction for Separated Flow over a Cylinder in Crossflow for Re = 150,000, M = 0.05 at = 90 from stagnation (From: Sinha and Wang, 1999, AIAA Paper 990923)

INTERACTION FREQUENCY f = U/s

TESTS ON NLF 0414F WING


AFW or FCSD

BL-Mouse

Global GT-3 Trainer

Transition from AFW to FCSD

Unexcited AFW produced a boundary layer profile very similar to the excited AFW. Difference in percentage drag reduction is minimal. FCSD Simplifies the manufacturing and installation procedure. More pragmatic on retrofitting existing aircrafts

FCSD

CLEAN WING

AFW

TRIPPED FLOW w FCSD

GT-3 WING BOTTOM VEL PROFILES @ 0.8C

Comparision of coefficient of Total drag Vs ReD-GT-3- Clean Wing and FCSD Final
ReD

0.008
Cd-Total-CW Cd-Total-FCSD-Final % change in drag (total)

-25

0.007

-20
% Change In Drag Reduction

0.006 Cd

-15

0.005

-10

0.004

-5

0.003 5000000 5100000 5200000 5300000 5400000 5500000 5600000 5700000 5800000 ReD

0 5900000

Boundary Layer Measurement


BL Probe 0.90c, Upper Surface, , WS115, Global GT-3

109 KIAS, Palt 2000 ft, 88 F


0.0

0.0

0.0

Average 109 KIAS-Clean Wing Avg 109 KIAS FCSD/FPC

0.0
Y/C

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 u/Uinfinity 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

DETURBULATOR CLOSE UP & SURFACE OIL FLOW PATTERNS


LSB TRANSITION ATTACHED TURBULENT FLOW

FCSD MODIFIED SLIP LAYER

CLOSE UP OF FCSD

TESTS ON STANDARD CIRRUS SAILPLANE TO IMPROVE L/D

Drag Pressure Sensors

Gross Weight: 728 lbs Best L/D: 36 @ 52-kts Wing Loading: 6.8 lb/ft2 Aspect Ratio: 22.5

STANDARD CIRRUS LOWER SURFACE DRAG REDUCTION

Fig. 7. Drag-probe pressure sensor output (proportional to upstream stagnation pressure minus wake stagnation pressure). A reduction in output indicates drag reduction resulting from FCSD applications (1FCSD and 2FCSD) on wing bottom at the given location. % change (reduction) scale is on the right

Sinhatech Low-Speed Wind-Tunnel

Sinhatech Slow-Speed Wind-Tunnel


Experimental set-up showing the pressure transducers and manometer

Airfoils Tested in the Wind-Tunnel

Close up of tunnel test section showing NLF-0414F airfoil being tested

Stereo-lithography used to develop the Wortmann FX-S-02-196 Airfoil

XFOIL SIMULATION OF STANDARD CIRRUS 53-SPAN WORTMANN AIRFOIL

Pressure distribution on 2nd. Wind-Tunnel model of 53-Inch Span Section of Standard Cirrus Wing (New FCSD installion on Suction Side Only)-11/20/04
-2
CL change 0.25 to 0.62 CD change from 0.014 to 0.007 L/D change 17 to 89

-1.5

-1

-0.5 0 0 10 20 30

Cp

X/C ( percentage of chord)

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Clean Wing Suct Side Press-11/19/04


0.5

Suction Side Pr dist w new FCSD-11/20/04

Pressure Dist Pressure Side


1

SKIN FRICTION REDUCTION


Suction Surface Cf Distribution Wortmann 53 inch Std Cirrus Airfoil (Re 300,000 in Sinhatech Wind Tunnel)
0.2 Cf-Clean Wing Measured Cf-FCSD

Cf (Tau-wall/(Rho-Uinf^2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0 -0.05 20 40 60 80 100 120

-0.1

Position on Chord (X/C) %

Drag Reduction on a Standard Cirrus Sailplane (Wing Top)


1.4
Differential Pressure (Volts)

Standard Cirrus - Upper Surface 53" Station - 10/30/2004

Standard Cirrus - 167" Station Average of Two Flights 2.0 1.8


Differential Pressure (Volts)
Clean Average of 12/3 & 12/12 %Change

1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 40 45 50

Clean

FCSD

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
Percent Change

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 40

Aileron Station

Original FCSD
55 60 65 70 75 Calibrated Airspeed (kts) 80 85 90

Standard Cirrus - 53" Station Average of Two Flights 1.4


Differential Pressure (Volts)
Clean Average of 12/3 & 12/12 %Change

0 50 60 70 80 90
Calibrated Airspeed (kts)

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

Mid pt. between Root & Air Brake

Modified FCSD

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Calibrated airspeed (kts)

Percent Change

PARALLEL FLIGHT WITH ASW-28 SAILPLANE HAVING 18% LOWER SINK RATE COMPARED TO UNTREATED STANDARD CIRRUS

Std. Cirrus #60 2/26/05 L/D A veraged vs Baseline (2nd test: top Inboard 14' of each wing fully deturbulated)

45 40 35 30
L/D.

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 100
Percent Increas

25 20 15 10 40 50 60 70 A irspeed (kts) % Change 80 90

Avg 2/26/05

Baseline

Poly. (Baseline)

Induced Drag Vs Airspeed on a Standard Cirrus sailplane - CW and FCSD - 03/01/05 0.03 0.025 0.02 CDi 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0 10 20 30 40 Airspeed (m/s) 50 60
Clean Wing FCSD 60% FCSD full span

Sink Rates with Modified Full Span FCSD Treatment


Std. C irrus #60 Polar A verage of 10/12/05 & 10/8/05
800 700

600

S in kR a t e( f p m

500

400

300

200

100

0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

A irspeed (kts)
Baselin e
Av erage 10/12 & 10/8
Poly . (Baselin e)

L/D Improvement with Modified Full Span FCSD Treatment


S td. C irrus #60 L/D A verage of 10/12/05 & 10/8/05
45 40 35 30 25 80 70 60 50 40

20 15 10 5 0 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

30 20 10 0 -10 110

A irspeed (kts)
Av erage 10/12 & 10/8
Baselin e
% Ch g
Poly . (Baselin e)

P e r c e n tC h a n g

L / D

SUMMARY OF REVOLUTIONARY FCSD AERODYNAMICS


FCSD Reduces Turbulence Creates Slip Layer Reduces Skin Friction Increases Lift Reduces Induced and Parasitic Drag Across Speed Range. Increased Best Sailplane L/D by 7-11% Max Sailplane L/D increase 30% Max Section L/D increase (Low-Re) ~ 400%

OTHER Important ISSUES


Consistency Robustness Integration

with Wing at the Design stage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
National Science Foundation NASA Oxford Aero Equipment Global Aircraft Mr. Robert Williams Mr. Sundeep Ravande

QUESTIONS ?

You might also like