The Blended Wing Body (BWB) configuration is considered to have the potential of providing significant advantages when compared to conventional aircraft designs. At the same time, numerous studies have reported that technical challenges exist in many areas of its design, including stability and control. This study aims to create a novel BWB design to test its flying and handling qualities using an engineering flight simulator and as such, to identify potential design solutions which will enhance its controllability and manoeuvrability characteristics. This aircraft is aimed toward the commercial sector with a range of 3000 nautical miles, carrying 200 passengers. The BWB design was flight tested at an engineering flight simulator to first determine its static stability through a standard commercial mission profile, and then to determine its dynamic stability characteristics through standard dynamic modes. Its flying qualities suggested its stability with a static margin of 8.652% of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) and consistent response from the pilot input. In addition, the aircraft achieved a maximum lift-to-drag ratio of 28.1; a maximum range of 4,581 nautical miles; zero-lift drag of 0.005; while meeting all the requirements of the dynamic modes.

https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/7/5/51/pdf

Conceptual Design, Flying, and Handling Qualities Assessment of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) Aircraft by Using an Engineering Flight Simulator

A vehicle, includes a main body. A fluid generator is coupled to the main body and produces a fluid stream. At least one fore conduit and at least one tail conduit are fluidly coupled to the generator. First and second fore ejectors are fluidly coupled to the fore conduit, coupled to the main body and respectively coupled to a starboard side and port side of the vehicle. The fore ejectors respectively comprise an outlet structure out of which fluid flows. At least one tail ejector is fluidly coupled to the tail conduit. The tail ejector comprises an outlet structure out of which fluid flows. A primary airfoil element is coupled to the tail portion. A surface of the primary airfoil element is located directly downstream of the first and second fore ejectors such that the fluid from the first and second fore ejectors flows over the such surface.

Configuration for vertical take-off and landing system for aerial vehicles

A blended-wing-body is an example of an aircraft configuration with multiple control surfaces. The most effective use of these control surfaces, e.g. to minimize cruise drag due to pitch trim, or to maximize pitching moment at low speed in an engine-out condition, leads to optimization problems. This kind of control optimization problems can be addressed by the method of Lagrange multipliers; this allows for multiple constraints, e.g. constant lift, pitching or other moments, each associated with one multiplier. The value of the multiplier is a measure of the severity of the constraint, e.g. the drag penalty of imposing pitch trim at constant lift.

https://scholars.direct/Articles/aerospace-engineering-and-mechanics/jaem-5-030.pdf?jid=aerospace-engineering-and-mechanics

On a Method of Lagrange Multipliers for Cruise Drag Minimization

Multiple hierarchy risk assessment with hybrid model for safety enhancing of unmanned subscale BWB demonstrator flight test

The coupling of the longitudinal and lateral stability modes of an aeroplane is considered in two cases: (i) weak coupling, when the changes in the frequency and damping of the phugoid, short period, dutch roll, and helical modes are small, i.e., the square of the deviation is negligible compared to the square of the uncoupled value; (ii) strong coupling, when the coupled values may differ significantly from the uncoupled values. This allows a comparison of three values for the frequency and damping of each mode: (i) exact, i.e., fully coupled; (ii) with the approximation of weak coupling; (iii) with the assumption of decoupling. The comparison of these three values allows an assessment of the importance of coupling effects. The method is applied to two flying wing designs, concerning all modes in a total of eighteen flight conditions. It turns out that lateral-longitudinal coupling is small in all cases, and thus classical handling qualities criteria can be applied. The handling qualities are considered for all modes, namely the phugoid, short period, dutch roll, spiral, and roll modes. Additional focus is given to the pitch axis, considering the control anticipation parameter (CAP). The latter relates to the two kinds of manouever points, where damping vanishes, that are calculated for minimum speed, take-off, and initial and final cruise conditions. The conclusion compares two flying wings designs (the “long narrow” and “short wide” fuselage concepts) not only from the point of view of flight stability, but also from other viewpoints.

https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/8/3/77/pdf

On the Handling Qualities of Two Flying Wing Aircraft Configurations

/pdf/blended-wing-body-propulsion-system-design-3dw6np64n3.pdf

Blended Wing Body Propulsion System Design

/pdf/aerodynamic-optimization-of-box-wing-a-case-study-4e0ro4ceqw.pdf

Aerodynamic Optimization of Box Wing - A Case Study

The optimization of a possible medium range box wing commercial airliner is presented in three stages. Preliminary research is used to determine various parameters for a potential box wing model, and a baseline model is designed in Autodesk Inventor, based upon the cantilever Airbus A330-200, an aircraft of a similar role. The Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software used in this project is Dassault Systemes SolidWorks, which is validated through comparing the NACA 0009 airfoil lift and drag polars with published results. The first stage of optimization is performed on the airfoil shape, with 8 different designs being tested against the cantilever model. The lift to drag ratios of each model are calculated at cruise conditions, Mach 0.85 and 11,000 meters altitude. The most efficient model with the highest lift to drag ratio is then taken to the second stage of optimization, winglet height, where 7 different winglet heights are tested on the model: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35% of the span. The most efficient model out of the different winglet heights is then tested with 7 different aspect ratios: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%. The expectation of the three stages of optimization is to provide a box wing model that performs significantly better than the original base line model, and also has an improved lift to drag ratio when compared to the cantilever model.

Analysis of Aspect Ratio and Winglet Height of a Box Wing Design

No AccessEngineering NotesOptimization of High-Lift Systems at Takeoff Conditions Subject to Kinematic ConstraintsParth Kumar and Brian J. GermanParth Kumar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7131-3854Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332*Graduate Research Assistant, School of Aerospace Engineering. Student Member AIAA.Search for more papers by this author and Brian J. GermanGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332†Associate Professor, School of Aerospace Engineering. Associate Fellow AIAA.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:21 Mar 2022https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C036493SectionsRead Now ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail About References [1] van Dam C. P., “The Aerodynamic Design of Multi-Element High-Lift Systems for Transport Airplanes,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2002, pp. 101–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(02)00002-7 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[2] Zaccai D., Bertels F. and Vos R., “Design Methodology for Trailing-Edge High-Lift Mechanisms,” CEAS Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, Dec. 2016, pp. 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-016-0202-7 CrossrefGoogle Scholar[3] Kim S., Alonso J. J. and Jameson A., “Multi-Element High-Lift Configuration Design Optimization Using Viscous Continuous Adjoint Method,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1082–1097. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.17 LinkGoogle Scholar[4] Nemec M., Zingg D. W. and Pulliam T. H., “Multipoint and Multi-Objective Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1057–1065. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.10415 LinkGoogle Scholar[5] Nambu T., Mavriplis D. J. and Mani K., “Adjoint-Based Shape Optimization of High-Lift Airfoils Using the NSU2D Unstructured Mesh Solver,” 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 2014-0554, Jan. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-0554 LinkGoogle Scholar[6] Nakayama H., Kim H.-J., Matsushima K., Nakahashi K. and Takenaka K., “Aerodynamic Optimization of Multi-Element Airfoil,” 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2006-1051, Jan. 2006. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-1051 LinkGoogle Scholar[7] Rumsey C. L., Slotnick J. P. and Sclafani A. J., “Overview and Summary of the Third AIAA High Lift Prediction Workshop,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 56, No. 2, March–April 2019, pp. 621–644. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034940 LinkGoogle Scholar[8] Ashton N. and Skaperdas V., “Verification and Validation of OpenFOAM for High-Lift Aircraft Flows,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 56, No. 4, July–Aug. 2019, pp. 1641–1656. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034918 LinkGoogle Scholar[9] Coder J. G. and Ortiz-Melendez H. D., “Transitional Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation of Multielement High-Lift Airfoils,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 56, No. 4, July–Aug. 2019, pp 1303–1312. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035161 LinkGoogle Scholar[10] Kolla M. L., Yokota J. W., Lassaline J. V. and Fejtek I., “Stowability Constraint Within a Two-Dimensional Aerodynamic Optimization Method,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2009, pp. 696–699. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.34863 LinkGoogle Scholar[11] Ianelli P., Moens F., Minervino M., Ponza R. and Benini E., “Comparison of Optimization Strategies for High-Lift Design,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 54, No. 2, March–April 2017, pp 642–658. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033648 LinkGoogle Scholar[12] Schaufele R. and Ebeling A., “Aerodynamic Design of the DC-9 Wing and High-Lift System,” SAE TP 670846, 1967. https://doi.org/10.4271/670846 Google Scholar[13] Meredith P. T., “Viscous Phenomena Affecting High-Lift Systems and Suggestions for Future CFD Development,” High-Lift System Aerodynamics, AGARD CP 515, Sept. 1993. pp. 19-1–19-8. Google Scholar[14] Coiro D. P., Nicolosi F. and Grasso F., “Design and Testing of Multi-Element Airfoil for Short-Takeoff-and-Landing Ultralight Aircraft,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 5, Sept.–Oct. 2009, pp. 1795–1807. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.43429 LinkGoogle Scholar[15] Yuan L., Yan H., Yao X., Lu J. and Liu J., “Transmission Efficiency of the Motion Mechanism in High-Lift Devices,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 57, No. 4, July–Aug. 2020, pp. 761–772. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035927 LinkGoogle Scholar[16] Wentz W. H., “Wind Tunnel Tests of the GA(W)-2 Airfoil with 20% Aileron, 25% Slotted Flap, 30% Fowler Flap and 10% Slot-Lip Spoiler,” NASA CR-145139, 1977. Google Scholar[17] Economon T. D., Palacios F., Copeland S. R., Lukaczyk T. W. and Alonso J. J., “SU2: An Open-Source Suite for Multiphysics Simulation and Design,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, March 2016, pp. 828–846. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J053813 LinkGoogle Scholar[18] Valarezo W. O., Dominik C. J., McGhee R. J., Goodman W. L. and Paschal K. B., “Multi-Element Airfoil Optimization for Maximum Lift at High Reynolds Numbers,” 9th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 1991-3332, Sept. 1991. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1991-3332 LinkGoogle Scholar[19] Akgun M. A., Haftka R. T., Wu K. C., Walsh J. L. and Garcelon J. H., “Efficient Structural Optimization for Multiple Load Cases Using Adjoint Sensitivities,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 3, March 2001, pp. 511–516. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1336 AbstractGoogle Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails What's Popular Volume 59, Number 4July 2022 CrossmarkInformationCopyright © 2022 by Parth Kumar. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the eISSN 1533-3868 to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp. TopicsAircraft Components and StructureAircraft DesignAircraft KinematicsAircraft OperationsAircraft Operations and TechnologyAircraft Wing ComponentsAircraft Wing DesignAircraftsAirfoilAirfoil NomenclatureShort Takeoff and LandingTakeoff and Landing KeywordsAerodynamic Shape OptimizationFlap DeflectionAerodynamic PerformanceSTOLCFDShape OptimizationFlow SeparationSlotted FlapWind Tunnel TestsTransport AircraftAcknowledgmentsThis work supported by funding from the Georgia Institute of Technology Aerospace Engineering Graduate Fellowship.PDF Received13 July 2021Accepted10 January 2022Published online21 March 2022 

Parth Kumar

Papers

Blended Wing Body Propulsion System Design

Aerodynamic Optimization of Box Wing - A Case Study

Analysis of Aspect Ratio and Winglet Height of a Box Wing Design

Optimization of High-Lift Systems at Takeoff Conditions Subject to Kinematic Constraints