Aerodynamic characteristics of a stratospheric airship in its entire flight envelope, including take-off, ascending, cruising, descending, and landing, is an important part of its research topic. In this paper, experiments of wind pressure measurement on a 1/30-scale stratospheric airship model were carried out to obtain a better assessment of the aerodynamic characteristics during the cruising process. Based on the wind pressure distribution, the effects of pitch angle, yaw angle, and combined angles (pitch angle and yaw angle acted simultaneously) on the aerodynamics of the airship were analyzed. In addition, the contributions of different portions of the airship hull (namely head, middle, and tail) to the aerodynamic forces and moments were discussed. The experimental results imply that the tail portion is the main contributor to pressure drag force. The combined angles significantly increase aerodynamic forces and rolling moment, and the rolling moment produced by the middle portion accounts for the major proportion. Secondly, the computational fluid dynamics method was verified and employed to study the aerodynamic characteristics of the full-scale model in its entire flight envelope based on the decision of the wind environment parameters and attitude. As a main result, it can be concluded that, more attention should be paid to the airship when it is located in the troposphere and near the ground with an inclined take-off angle.
Liao L and Pasternak I. Finite element analysis in novel aerostructure design. In: 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, Palm Springs, CA, USA, 2009.
2.
Smith S, Fortenberry M, Lee M, et al. HiSentinel80: Flight of a high altitude airship. In: 11th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2011.
3.
Androulakakis SP and Judy R. Status and plans of high altitude airship (HAATM) program. In: AIAA lighter-than-air systems technology (LTA) conference, Daytona Beach, FL, USA, 2013.
4.
Lee M, Smith S and Androulakakis S. The high altitude lighter than air airship efforts at the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command. In: 18th AIAA lighter-than-air systems technology conference, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2009.
5.
Sano M, Komatsu K, Kimura J, et al. Airship shaped balloon test flights to the stratosphere. In: AIAA’s 3rd annual aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) forum, Denver, CO, USA, 2003.
6.
Lutz T, Funk P, Jakobi A, et al. Summary of aerodynamic studies on the LOTTE airship. In: Proceedings of the 4th international airship convention and exhibition, Cambridge, UK, 2002.
7.
FunkPLutzTWagnerS. Experimental investigations on hull-fin interferences of the LOTTE airship. Aerosp Sci Technol2003; 7: 603–610.
8.
Funk P, Jakobi A, Lutz T, et al. Experiments on the flowfield of an inclined airship body. In: Proceedings of the international airship convention and exhibition, Friedrichshafen, Germany, 2000.
9.
Funk P, Jakobi A, Lutz T, et al. Experimental investigations in the tail region of an airship configuration. In: Proceedings of the 14th AIAA lighter-than-air technical committee convention and exhibition, Akron, OH, USA, 2001.
10.
WangXLFuGYDuanDPet al.Experimental investigations on aerodynamic characteristics of the Zhiyuan-1 airship. J Aircraft2010; 47: 1463–1468.
11.
SumanSLakshmipathySPantRS. Evaluation of assumed-transition-point criterion in context of Reynolds-averaged simulations around lighter-than-air vehicles. J Aircraft2011; 50: 450–456.
12.
Kanoria AA, Panchal K and Dongre R, et al. Computational modelling of aerodynamic characteristics of airships in arbitrary motion. In: 22nd AIAA lighter-than-air systems technology conference, Dallas, TX, USA, 2015.
13.
Chan SC, Shervington K and Hunt J. Wind tunnel study of a large aerostat, CFD validation. In: AIAA lighter-than-air systems technology (LTA) conference, Daytona Beach, FL, USA, 2013.
14.
Chan SC and Hunt JD. Wind tunnel study of a large aerostat. In: AIAA 11th aviation, technology, integration, and operations conference and 19th lighter-than-air technology conference, Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2011.
15.
AndanADAsrarWOmarAA. Investigation of aerodynamic parameters of a hybrid airship. J Aircraft2012; 49: 658–662.
16.
Dumas A, Madonia M, Ilieva G, et al. CFD analysis and optimization of a variable shape airship. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition, Fairfield, NJ, USA, 2012.
17.
Kaluvan A, Marzocca P, Ceruti A, et al. Wind tunnel testing of unconventional airships docking in-flight and conceptual design of docking mechanism. In: 53rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 2015.
18.
Carrion M, Biava M, Steijl R, et al. Analysis of hybrid air vehicles using computational fluid dynamics. In: 6th European conference for aerospace sciences, At Krakov, Poland, 2015.
19.
Biava M, Carrion M, Steijl R, et al. CFD studies of hybrid air vehicles. In: AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, At San Diego, CA, USA, 2016.
20.
LeeSBangH. Three-dimensional ascent trajectory optimization for stratospheric airship platforms in the jet stream. J Guid Control Dyn2007; 30: 1341–1352.
21.
LeeSJangJRyuHet al.Matching trajectory optimization and nonlinear tracking control for HALE. Adv Space Res2014; 54: 1870–1887.
22.
KhouryGA. Airship technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
23.
MchughJG. Pressure-distribution measurements at large angles of pitch on fins of different span-chord ratio on a 1/40-scale model of the US Airship “Akron.”. Technical Report Archive & Image Library. 1937-01-01, 1937.
24.
BarlowJBRaeWHPopeA. Low speed wind tunnel testing, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1999.
25.
MerckerE. A blockage correction for automotive testing in a wind tunnel with closed test section. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1986; 22: 149–167.
26.
CermakJIsyumovN. Wind tunnel studies of buildings and structures, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1999.
27.
SimiuEScanlanRH. Wind effects on structures, New York: Wiley, 1996.
28.
HolmesJD. Wind loading of structure, London: Spon Press, 2001.
29.
CarlosWFrédéricD. Large eddy and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of turbulent flow over an airfoil. Int J Comput Fluid Dyn2000; 13: 327–355.
30.
HuangBCWangCJ. Theory and application against wind load of structures, 2nd ed. Shanghai: Shanghai Tongji University Press, 2008.
31.
WangXL. Investigation of the drag characteristics of stratosphere airships for different cusp shapes. J Aircraft2012; 49: 151–160.
32.
SpalartPAllmarasS. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. La Recherche Aérospatiale1992; 439: 5–21.
33.
ConstantinescuGSPasinatoHWangYQet al.Numerical investigation of flow past a prolate spheroid. J Fluids Eng2002; 124: 904–910.
HanDWangXLChenLet al.Adaptive backstepping control for a multi-vectored thrust stratospheric airship with thrust saturation in wind. Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering2015; 230: 10396–10409.
37.
KaraismailECelikI. Numerical and modeling issues in application of CFD to flow in a simplified plenum relevant to a prismatic VHTR. Nucl Eng Des2009; 240: 2011–2022.
38.
YuW. The modeling of variable wind field and flight simulation of high span-chord ratio unmanned air vehicle, Xi’an: Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2004.
39.
ReidLDRobinsonPA. Modeling of turbulence and downbursts for flight simulators. J Aircraft1990; 27: 700–707.
40.
HedinAEFlemingELMansonAHet al.Empirical wind model for the upper, middle and lower atmosphere. J Atmos Terres Phys1996; 58: 1421–1447.
41.
QinFP. Optimal trajectory design of the stratospheric airship, Shanghai: Shanghai JiaoTong University, 2011.
42.
Smith I and Lee M. The HiSentinel airship. In: 7th AIAA aviation technology, integration and operations (ATIO) conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2007.
43.
Kenya H, Kunihisa E, Masaaki S, et al. Experimental study of thermal modeling for stratospheric platform airship. In: AIAA’s 3rd annual aviation technology, integration, and operations (ATIO) conference, Denver, CO, USA, 2003.
