کمک در تخمین اولیه مقدار CL بال (برای طراحی)

zxo003

طراح هواپیما
کاربر ممتاز
خوب یکی از مشکلاتی که وجود دارد در طراحی هواپیما مدل برای امثال من این که حداکثر ضریب برا چه مقدار باید باشد تا ان در فرمول های مربوطه قرار بدهیم و قابل دست یابی هم باشد ، توی کتب یک مقادیری هست اما ولی وقتی با انها حل میکنم انقدر کم ضریب که مساحت بال بعد از رسم نمودار تطبیق فضایی میشه :cry::cry:

ضمنا ضریب برا در حالت نشستن با حالت برخواست آیا فرق میکند ؟؟ ( در حالتی که فلپ ها پایین باشد ) ، برای جوتشون میشه یک مقدار در نظر گرفت

من در تحقیقات برای یک بال high lift به مقدایر 3.6 و یا 3.5 و ... (بین 3 تا 3.7 ) رسیدم ، توی یک مقاله طراحی هواپیما مدل هم این مقادیر دیدم ...




لطفا راهنمایی کنید به نظر شما برای یک ایرفول ناکا با نیروی برای بالا ( High Lift ) {وجود فلپ در لبه حمله و هم لبه فرار } مقدار مناسب برای شروع طراحی چه مقداری میباشد ، 3.2 خوبه ، یا 3.4 یا 3 و یا ... ( بالمون هر دو نوع فلپ خواهد داشت )

اینجا هم نتیجه یک سری آزمایش گذاشتن ( http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov/example-18.html ) در ان هم به حداکثر برا برابر با 3.5 شده و ...

اطلاعات تکمیلی :

این نیروی برا برای یک هواپیما مدل با وزن تخمینی 13 تا 14 کیلوگرم ، با ماموریت شناسای و عکس برداری و کنترل با GPS با برد 25 تا 30 کیلومتر و سقف پرواز 5000 فوت و ... لازم است ، تا مساحت بال کمتر شود ، ما به بال با مسحات کم به شدت نیازمندیم و در نتیجه به ضریب لیفت بالای احتیاج دارم تا نیازی هم به افزایش قدرت موتور و ... نباشد ..

ضمنا این پروژه Open Source است ، بعد از صحت نتایج در هر مرحله ، اطلاعات و محاسبات به رایگان منتشر خواهد شد ....
 

zxo003

طراح هواپیما
کاربر ممتاز
یعنی هیشکی ، هیچی نمیدونه !!

آه خدای من ! صد رحمت به خودم ، خوب شد یک چیزی حالیمون بود ...

باند بازی اینجا هم بی داد میکنه ...

برای آیندگان ، جواب سوال توی یک کتاب پیدا کردم اینجا هم میزارم ...

برای بدست آوردن ضریب لیفت اولیه برای شروع طراحی و رسم نمودار تطبیق : نصف ضریب برای حداکثر بال بدون فلپ + نصف ضریب برای بال با فلپ (مورد نظر خودتون) را با هم جمع میکنید ، و در طراحی استفاده میکنید ...

با توجه به شکل اول :

1.4/2 + 2.2/2 = 1.8

ضریب برای میشود 1.8 ، حالا این ضریب تو فرمولها میگزارید و طراحی میکنید ...

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/zxo003/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.pngمرجع : مقاله انتخاب ضریب لیفت مناسب (برای بالهای High Lift ) برای رسم نمودار تطبیق - بویینگ - 2006
 

مهدي كياني

کاربر فعال مهندسی هوافضا
When the distribution of lift is not computed, it is still possible to make a rough estimate of maximum lift capability. This section describes a simple method appropriate for early design of conventional aircraft.

Outer Panel Section Clmax

One starts by estimating the section Clmax of the outer wing panels. If the airfoil is known, this value may be based on experimental data or computations. A typical variation of section Clmax with thickness for peaky-type transport aircraft airfoils is shown in figure 1. Note that outer panel airfoil thickness ratio is generally less than the average value. Assuming that the outer panel has a t/c about 90% of the average value is reasonable. The increase in Clmax with thickness up to about 12%-15% reflects the larger nose radius of the thicker airfoils. Increased nose radius reduces the leading edge suction peak, the associated adverse pressure gradient, and the tendency to stall. Since supercritical airfoils have large nose radii, their Clmax is about 0.1 greater than the conventional sections shown here.

Figure 1. Section Clmax for Various Families of Airfoils.
The section Clmax is also affected by Reynolds number. Some data on this effect is shown in figure 2. The effect of Reynolds number is sometimes very difficult to predict as it changes the location of laminar transition and boundary layer thickness. Thin airfoils are less Reynolds number sensitive, thick sections are more sensitive and show effects up to 15 million.

Figure 2. Effect of Reynolds Number

Recent experiments have suggested that, especially for slotted flap systems, significant variations with Reynolds number may occur even above Reynolds numbers of 6 to 9 million. But for initial design purposes, the variation of Clmax with Reynolds number may be approximated by:
Clmax = Clmax_ref * (Re / Reref)0.1

Relating Wing CLmax to Outer Panel Clmax

The plot in figure 3 shows the ratio of wing CLmax to the section Clmax of the outer wing panel as a function of wing sweep angle and taper ratio. This plot was constructed by computing the span load distribution of wings with typical taper ratios and twist distributions. The results include a reduction in CLmax due to tail download of about 0.05, a value typical of conventional aircraft; they also include a suitable margin against outer panel stall. (This margin is typically about 0.2 in Cl.)
When estimating the Clmax of the wing outer panel, one should use the chord of the outer panel (typ. at about 75% semi-span) to compute the Reynolds number effect on that section.

Figure 3. Effect of Taper and Sweep on Wing / Outer Panel Clmax

Additional corrections to wing CLmax

FAR Stall Speed
The formula for stalling speed given earlier in this section refers to the speed at which the airplane stalls in unaccelerated (1-g) flight. However, for the purposes of certificating a transport aircraft, the Federal Aviation Agency defines the stalling speed as the minimum airspeed flyable at a rate of approach to the stall of one knot per second. Slower speeds than that corresponding to 1-g maximum lift may be demonstrated since no account is taken of the normal acceleration. The maximum lift coefficient calculated from the FAA stall speed is referred to as the minimum speed CLmax or CLmax_Vmin. The increment above the 1-g CLmax is a function of the shape of the lift, drag, and moment curves beyond the stall. These data are not usually available for a new design but examination of available flight test data indicate that CLmax_Vminaverages about 11% above the 1-g value (based on models DC-7C, DC-8, and KC-135). A typical time history of the dynamic stall maneuver is shown in figure 4.

Figure 4. Typical Record of Dynamic Stall Maneuver Power-off Stall, Thrust Effect Negligible, Trim Speed 1.3 to 1.4 Vs, Wings Held Level, Speed Controlled by Elevator
FAR Stall CL is value of CLs when DV/Dt = 1kt/sec and: CLs = 2W / S r Vs2

Figure 5. Flight Data showing FAA CLmax vs. CLmax based on 1-g flight.
Wing-Mounted Engines
The presence of engine pylons on the wings reduces CLmax. On the original DC-8 design, the reduction associated with pylons was 0.2. When the pylons are "cut-back" so they do not extend over the top of the leading edge, the reduction can be kept to within about 0.1 with respect to the best clean-wing value.
Increment in CLmax Due to Slats
When leading edge slats are deployed, the leading edge pressure peak is suppressed. The introduction of a gap between the leading edge device and the wing leading edge increases the energy of boundary layer above what it would have been without a gap. For this reason, the section lift coefficient is increased dramatically. The specific amount depends on the detailed design of the slat, its deflection, and the gap size. For the purposes of our preliminary design work, the value is estimated based on Douglas designs shown in figure 6. The effect of sweep reduces the lift increment due to slats by the factor shown in figure 7. A better method would include the observation that when leading edge devices are employed, the favorable effect of nose radius (and increased t/c) would not be realized. Although this data applies for 5 deg of flap deflection, this slat increment can be used for preliminary estimates at all flap angles.

Figure 6. Effect of slat deflection on Clmax increment due to slats. Prediction based on maximum Mach number constraint. This data is for a 17% slat.

Figure 7. Effect of wing sweep on slat maximum lift increment.
Increment in CLmax Due to Flaps
A simple method for estimating the CLmax increment for flaps is described by the following expression. It is highly approximate and empirical, but the next level of sophistication is very complex, and sometimes not much more accurate.
DCLmax_flaps= Swf / Sref DCLmax _flapsK(sweep)
where:
Swf = wing area affected by flaps (including chord extension, but not area buried in fuselage)
Sref = reference wing area
DClmax_flaps = increase in two-dimensional Clmax due to flaps
K = an empirical sweepback correction
The wing area affected by flaps is estimated from a plan view drawing. Typical flaps extend over 65% to 80% of the exposed semi-span, with the outboard sections reserved for ailerons. The resultant flapped area ratios are generally in the range of 55% to 70% of the reference area. (See table at the end of this section.)

DClmax_flaps is determined empirically and is a function of flap type, airfoil thickness, flap angle, flap chord, and sweepback. It may be estimated from the expression:
DClmax_flaps = K1 K2 DClmax_ref
DClmax_ref is the two-dimensional increment in Clmax for 25% chord flaps at the 50 deg landing flap angle and is read from the experimentally-determined curve below at the mean thickness ratio of the wing.

Figure 8. Section Clmax increment due to flaps. The results are for double slotted flaps. For single slotted flap multiply this value by 0.93. For triple slotted flaps, multiply by 1.08.
K1 is a flap chord correction factor. It includes differences between the flap chord to wing chord ratio of the actual design to that of the reference wing with 25% chord flaps.

Figure 9. Effect of Flap Chord.
K2 accounts for the effect of flap angles other than 50 deg.

Figure 10. Flap Motion Correction Factor
K(sweep) is an empirically-derived sweep-correction factor. It may be estimated from:
K = (1-0.08*cos2(Sweep)) cos3/4(Sweep)
Effect of Mach Number
The formation of shocks produces significant changes in the airfoil pressure distribution and limits the maximum lift coefficient. In fact, a strong correlation exists between the Clmax of a slat and the Cl at which flow near the slat becomes supersonic. In general, as the freestream Mach number is increased, the aircraft CLmax is reduced. The figure below shows this effect for the DC-9-30.

Figure 11. Effect of Mach number on maximum lift.
As a first approximation this data can be used to estimate the effect for another aircraft as follows:
CLmax(M) = CLmax_l.s. * CLmax_ref (M') / CLmax_l.s.ref
Where:
CLmax_l.s. is the CLmax at low speed (Mach number < 0.3)
and M' = Modified Mach number based on equivalent normal Mach = M*cos(sweep) / cos(DC-9sweep),
where the DC-9, which provides the reference data here, has a sweep of 24.5 deg.
The final figures show the approximate CLmax values for a number of aircraft.

Figure 12. CLmax Values for a variety of transport aircraft.


Airplane Swf / Sref Flap Type Flap Chord Ratio Sweep (deg) DC-3S 0.575 Split 0.174 10 DC-4 0.560 Single Slot 0.257 0 DC-6 0.589 Double Slot 0.266 0 DC-7C 0.630 Double Slot 0.266 0 DC-8 0.587 Double Slot 0.288 30.5 DC-9-30 0.590 Double Slot 0.360 24.5 DC-10-10 0.542 Double Slot 0.320 35
Figure 13. Effect of Flap and Slat Deflections on CLmax for several Douglas airplanes. The results are based on the FAA measured stall speeds and reflect the 1 kt/sec deceleration.
 

مهدي كياني

کاربر فعال مهندسی هوافضا
AA241A Sample Final Exam Solutions

This is an open note, open book exam to be completed in 3 hours. The maximum score for each problem is indicated in parentheses.

Many of the questions on this exam deal with modifications to a reference airplane design described below: Fuselage length = 80 ft
Fuselage maximum diameter = 10 ft
Distance from cruise c.g. to tail a.c. = 40 ft
Horizontal tail area = 281 ft2
Taper ratio = .25 Reference
Wing Area = 1000 ft2
T-tail with aft engines
AR = 8.
Sweep = 30deg.
t/c = .10 at both root and tip
Cruise Weight = 100,000 lbs
Cruise Altitude = 35,000 ft
Cruise Mach = 0.80
Total CDp = .020
Total e = .85
"Peaky" airfoil sections

(density = 7.382 x 10-4 lb s2/ft4 kinematic viscosity = 4.0575 x 10-4 ft2/s)

1. The company that builds this airplane decides to replace the wing with a new design of aspect ratio 10 rather than 8. Assume that the following parameters are held constant: fuselage geometry, taper ratio, reference wing area, sweep, t/c, airfoil type, tail geometry, weight, and cruise conditions. (10)
a. Find the L/D of the original design.
b. Find the L/D of the new design.

a. V = M a = 973.6 * 0.8 = 778.8 ft/sec
First we compute CL = 2W / SrV2 = 2*100000 / (1000*.0007382*778.8^2) = .447.
Now CD = CDp + CDi + CDc = .020 + CL2 / p AR e + CDc = .020 + .447^2 / (pi*8*.85) + CDc = 0.02935 + CDc
Computation of CDc:
Given CLnormal = .447/cos2(30) = .596 and t/cnormal = .10 / cos(30) = .1155
We find from plot in notes that Mccnormal = 0.680. So, Mcc = .68 / cos(30) = .785
So M/Mcc = 1.019. From plot of CDc in notes: CDc/cos3(30) = .00174, so CDc = .00113.
So CD = .00113 + .02935 = 0.03048 and L/D = CL/CD = 14.67.
b. When the wing span changes, the following parameters change: CDi due to changes in aspect ratio, lift-dependent viscous drag, and fuselage interference; CDp due to changes in Reynolds number, and exposed wing area. This requires computation of wing CDp for both designs. The difference is subtracted from the CDp given above. Details are left to the student for now.



2. If a new airfoil were designed for the reference airplane, which of the following airfoils would be most appropriate? The actual Cp distribution is shown at the cruise Mach number. (4)
Cp at the crest well above Cp* Rather conventional peaky section -- best choice
Very thin and too far below MDiv No lift.

3. Rather than the 10% peaky section assumed for the reference airplane, estimate the maximum thickness of a supercritical airfoil if it is used on the reference airplane at the specified cruising conditions. Assume a new supercritical airfoil is used with a section Mcc that is .06 higher than that of a peaky section at the same t/c and CL. (5)
From problem 1 CLnormal = .596. If the airplane is cruising at Mdiv = .8, then Mcc is given by:
MDiv = Mcc [ 1.02 +.08 ( 1 - Cos 30 ) ] . So Mcc = .8/(1.02+.08*(1-cos(30))) = 0.776
The sections see the normal component of this: Mccnormal = .776 cos(30) = .672.
For peaky sections, the plot in the notes yields t/cnormal = .123 for this value of CLnormal and Mccnormal .
Supercritical sections will behave as though Mccnormal were .06 lower or Mccnormal = .612.
This leads to t/cnormal = .196 or t/c = .170

4. What is wrong with the wing design with the characteristics shown below? Results are computed for the isolated wing in inviscid flow at low speeds. (Choose all that apply.) (5)
a. Cl near the root is too high.
b. The tip Cl's are too high.
c. The lift distribution is not close enough to elliptical (note the value of e)
d. There is not enough lift near the tip.
e. The two curves should not intersect.


5. To fix the wing above, how would you change the taper and twist? (Choose all that apply.) (5)
a. Increase taper ratio -- to permit higher tip loads without higher tip Cl
b. Decrease taper ratio
c. Leave taper ratio the same
d. Increase washout
e. Decrease washout -- to increase tip loading

6. The parameters: Area, AR, t/c, Sweep, Taper Ratio, and Washout are important in the initial wing design and have many different effects.Which of the above parameters leads to each of the following results when its value is increased and the others are fixed? (Choose best answer for each part. (5)
a. This adds extra drag, lowers stall speed and lowers D CDc at given altitude and Mach number
Increased Area
b. This reduces fuel volume, and increases the lift near the tip.
Increased Taper Ratio
c. This lowers stall speed a bit, increases fuel volume, and reduces Mcc.
Increased t/c
d. This improves the climb rate at a given (low) speed.
Span or AR
e. This reduces the induced drag when the tip lift is larger than optimal.
Washout

7. In problem #1 we considered what would happen to the reference airplane drag if the wing aspect ratio were changed. Assume that the original tail was sized according to the statistical sizing method we used in AA241 and compute the tail size required if the wing aspect ratio is changed from 8 to 10. Assume that the distance from cruise c.g. to tail a.c. is not changed and the c.g. range (in % MAC) is constant. (Consider just the horizontal tail) (5)
In the original case span = sqrt(AR Sw) = 89.44 ft
Croot = 2*Sw / (b (1+l)) = 17.89 ft
MAC = 2/3(Croot+Ctip - Croot*Ctip/(Croot+Ctip)) = 2/3 Croot ( 1 + l - l / (1+l)) = 12.52 ft
For the new wing with AR = 10 we find MAC = 11.2 ft
The tail volume coefficient is given by Vh = Sh/Sw * lh / c
From the data in problem 1 we find Vh = 281/1000 * 40/12.52 = 0.898
From the statistical sizing method: Vh = f (wf2 lf / Sw c ).
The correlation parameter wf2 lf / Sw c is, for this case = 102 * 80 / (1000 *12.52) = .639
For the new case the correlation parameter = 102 * 80 / (1000 *11.2) = .714
From the correlation plot we expect Vh = 0.30*3.2 = 0.96
The required tail area is then: Sh = Vh Sw c / lh ~ .96 * 1000 * 11.2 / 40 = 268.8 sq ft.


8. According to statistical tail sizing method we used in problem set #8, the required horizontal tail size is just set by the fuselage and wing parameters. This is not the best approach. Use the scissors curve shown below to estimate the required horizontal tail size if the c.g. range were 0 and the wing was positioned to satisfy the stability and control requirements with the smallest possible tail for the reference airplane discussed earlier.(5)

If the c.g. range were 0 we could get by with Vh = .54 if the scissors curve above applied to our airplane. This would mean Sh = Vh Sw c / lh ~ .54 * 1000 * 12.52 / 40 = 169 sq ft.

9. Estimate the clean wing FAR stall speed for the reference airplane if the outer wing section Clmax is 1.2 at low speed, sea level conditions. Assume flight at sea level and ignore Mach effects. (5)
If the outer panel has Clmax = 1.2, then from the relation between overall wing CL and outer panel Clmax shown in the plot in the notes, with sweep = 30deg. , CLmax = 1.2 * 82 = .984.
The only correction to be made is the correction for VSmin associated with the 1kt/sec FAA flight test. This adds about .2 to the 1-g CLmax so CLmax = 1.184.
The associated FAA Stall Speed is given by Vs = sqrt (2*100000 / (1000*.002377*1.184)) = 266.6 ft/sec = 158 kts.

10. Two wings for an SST are shown below. (5)
Use the expressions for minimum drag of supersonic wings and assume the following. The wings have the same area, carry the same lift, and fly at the same altitude. The drag of the two wings is the same at Mach 1.6. Which has lower drag at Mach 2.4 and why?

Wing B must have lower drag at M=2.4.
Since the wings have the same area, they have roughly the same skin friction drag. At Mach 1.6 the sum of volume wave drag, vortex drag, and lift-dependent viscous drag is equal. Since the length of wing B is longer, its reduced wave drag is offset by a higher vortex drag. Now at the higher Mach numbers and higher q, the volume-dependent drag will become a larger fraction of the total, so wing B will have lower drag.
If, however, we increase altitude as we increase M so that q is held fixed, we expect that the lift-dependent wave drag will increase while the other terms remain relatively unchanged. In this case, wing B, with its greater length will have less drag.
 

zxo003

طراح هواپیما
کاربر ممتاز
خدا خیرت بده ...

کمک کردی ...

بالاخره یکی آمد جواب داد ...

سعی میکنم تا فردا بخش های اماده شده از طراحی هواپیما را اینجا یا روی وبلاگم قرار بدم ، تا تشکری از شما هم باشد ...
 

mrbookani

عضو جدید
با سلام
خدمت دوست عزیز عرض کنم که هر چه ضریب لیفت شما بیشتر بشه ضریب درگ القایی شدیدا زیاد می شه برای همین اکثر هواپیماها فقط در حالت نشست با تمام ضریب لیفت و درحالت بلند شدن درصدی از حداکثر ضریب لیفت استفاده می کنن.بنابراین نکته اول اینه که ضریب لیفت معقول باید حدود نیم برای حالت کروزباشه که مصرف سوخت شدیدا پایین بیاد و وزن هواپیما کاهش پیدا کنه و نکته دوم این هست که وقتی شما ضریب لیفت بال را زیاد در نظر بگیرین چون درگ القایی زیاد میشه احتیاج به موتور قویتری دارین نه ضعیفتر.
 

sia_1991

عضو جدید
tozi beyzaviye CL dar dahane bale havapeyma

tozi beyzaviye CL dar dahane bale havapeyma

salam . yeki az nokate besyar mohem dar tarahiye bal ine ke tozie niroye lift dar tole dahane bal bayad beyzavi bashe (albate dar halate seyr) yek ravesh bar hasbe formole teoriye khate baraa (lift) hast ke dar on bal be chand gesmat tagsim mishe va niroye baraa dar har gesmat mohasebe mishe
ke in niroha bayad ye shekle bezavi ro tashkil bedan . in ravesh be sorate n moadele va n machhole ke keyli pichide hast. ye raveshe dige estefade az narm afzare liftline hast ke alave bar mohasebe in parametr ha CLc va CLto va CDoc va CDoto ro ham mohasebe mikone . va man mikastam bebinam ke kesi ravesh ya narm afzare degeii mishnase ya na ?
 

zxo003

طراح هواپیما
کاربر ممتاز
salam . yeki az nokate besyar mohem dar tarahiye bal ine ke tozie niroye lift dar tole dahane bal bayad beyzavi bashe (albate dar halate seyr) yek ravesh bar hasbe formole teoriye khate baraa (lift) hast ke dar on bal be chand gesmat tagsim mishe va niroye baraa dar har gesmat mohasebe mishe
ke in niroha bayad ye shekle bezavi ro tashkil bedan . in ravesh be sorate n moadele va n machhole ke keyli pichide hast. ye raveshe dige estefade az narm afzare liftline hast ke alave bar mohasebe in parametr ha CLc va CLto va CDoc va CDoto ro ham mohasebe mikone . va man mikastam bebinam ke kesi ravesh ya narm afzare degeii mishnase ya na ?

سلام

فارسی بنویسید !!

روش طرحی بال زیاد ، و نوع طراحی ان تعیین میکند ، عده به جای اینکه دنبال توزیع نیروی برآ باشند ، به دنبال نوع بارگذاری روی بال هستند !!!

اگر به دنبال کد های ان روش Lift line هستید که زیاد ، Lifting Line + matlab در گوگل سرچ کنید ...

موفق باشید
 
بالا