Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:05:53.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of mid-chord battle damage on the aerodynamic characterstics of two-dimensional wings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. J. Irwin  and
P. M. Render
A. J. Irwin
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, University of Loughborough, Loughborough, UK
P. M. Render
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, University of Loughborough, Loughborough, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper briefly considers the method of simulating gunfire damage to a wing and outlines the key basic assumptions used in modelling. The results of qualitative and quantitative investigations into the aerodynamic characteristics of a wing damaged at quarter chord are then presented. The results are discussed in terms of flow mechanisms, changes to surface pressure distributions and increments in lift, drag and pitching moment coefficients. For the damaged wing, the influence on force and moment coefficients was attributed to flow through the damage. This through flow was driven by the pressure differential between the upper and lower wing surfaces, and took one of two forms. The first form was a ‘weak-jet’ which formed an attached wake and resulted in small changes in force and moment coefficients. The second form resulted from either increased incidence, or damage size. This was the ‘strong-jet’, where through flow penetrated into the freestream flow, resulting in separation of the oncoming surface flow, and the development of a larger separated wake with reverse flow. The effect on force and moment coefficients was significant. The paper also compares the structure of the damage through flow with previously published results for jets in crossflows. Many similarities in the flow features were identified, although there were significant differences in the surface pressure distributions for the two cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1033 , March 2000 , pp. 153 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2000 

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. Aircraft operational experience and its impact on safety and survivability. AGARD conference proceedings, (212), 1977.Google Scholar
2. Scott, D.S. et al. The influences of ballistic damage on the aeroelastic characteristics of lifting surfaces, AFOSR TR-80-0220, 1979.Google Scholar
3. Hayes, C. Effects of simulated wing damage on the aerodynamic characteristics of a swept-wing aeroplane model, NASA TMX-1550, 1968.Google Scholar
4. Lamb, M. Effects of simulated damage on stability and control characteristics of a fixed-wing twin-vertical-tail fighter model at Mach numbers from 2-50 to 4-63, NASA TMX-2815, 1973.Google Scholar
5. Spearman, M.L. Wind tunnel studies of the effects of simulated damage on the aerodynamic characteristics of aeroplanes and missiles, NASA TM-84588, 1982.Google Scholar
6. Betzina, M.D. and Brown, D.H. Aerodynamic characteristics of an A-4B aircraft with simulated and actual gunfire damage to one wing, NASA TMX-73119, 1976.Google Scholar
7. Stearman, R.O. and Chang, J.H. The effects of warhead induced damage on the aeroelastic characteristics of lifting surfaces, Vol. 1 — aeroelastic effects, University of Texas at Austin, AFOSR TR-80-1039, 1980.Google Scholar
8. Leishman, J.G. Aerodynamic characteristics of a helicopter rotor airfoil as affected by simulated ballistic damage, University of Maryland, AD-A269 206, 1993.Google Scholar
9. Irwin, A.J. Investigation into the Aerodynamic Effects of Simulated Battle-Damage to a Wing, PhD Thesis, Loughborough University, 1999.Google Scholar
10.Design manual for the impact damage tolerant aircraft structure, AGARD-AG-238Add.Google Scholar
11. Alonze, P.M. Preliminary definition of battle damage for Loughborough aerodynamic studies. BAe/WAW/RP/R&D/SUR/450, 1993.Google Scholar
12. UK military standard: Reduction of vulnerability to battle damage, DEF STAN 00-970,1, (112), 1994.Google Scholar
13. Curry, J.M. Carbon fibre composite wing survivability research, BAe/812/TP/29, 1982.Google Scholar
14. Massman, J. Structural response to impact damage, AGARD-R-633, 1975.Google Scholar
15. Irwin, A.J. Investigations into the aerodynamic properties of a battle damaged wing, 13th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference proceedings, Paper 95-1844, 1995.Google Scholar
16. Garner, H.C. Subsonic wind tunnel wall corrections, AGARDograph 109,1966.Google Scholar
17.Matlab (Version 4.2c. 1) numeric computation and visualisation software. The Math Works, 1994.Google Scholar
18. Loftin, L.K. and Smith, H.A. Aerodynamic characteristics of 15 NACA airfoil sections at seven Reynolds numbers from 0·7 x 106 to 9·0 x 106, NACA TN 1945, 1949.Google Scholar
19. Andreopoulos, J. and Rodi, W. Experimental investigation of jets in a crossflow, J Flu Mech, 138, 1984.Google Scholar
20. Margason, R.J. Fifty years of jet in cross flow research, AGARD CP- 534, 1993.Google Scholar
21. Krothapalli, A. and Shih, C. Separated flow generated by a vectored jet in a crossflow, AGARD CP-534, 1993.Google Scholar
22. Fearn, R.L. and Weston, R.P. Induced pressure distribution of a jet in a crossflow, NASA TN D-7916, 1975.Google Scholar