This paper presents an analytical research study to improve the aerostructural performance of an unmanned medium altitude long endurance aircraft using the adaptive wing concept. Aerodynamic drag and wing root loads are minimized by optimal scheduling of multiple trailing edge flaps located on the wing. A trim optimization process is developed specifically for this purpose. The aeroelastic model is based on finite element formulation for the structure and doublet lattice method for the aerodynamics. A nonlinear numerical lifting line method is used, in combination with airfoil wind tunnel data, to estimate the induced and total drags. Results are presented for the current aircraft configuration and a more flexible proposed configuration, thereby providing an uncommon perspective on the effect of flexibility on the adaptive wing. For example, the benefits of optimal flap deployment turn out to be greater for the flexible aircraft than for the rigid one. It is hoped that this work and its insights will also aid the multidisciplinary design optimization of future aircraft.
JutteCStanfordBK, Aeroelastic tailoring of transport aircraft wings: state-of-the-art and potential enabling technologies, NASA/TM-2014-218252, Virginia: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, 2014.
2.
ShirkMHHertzTJWeisshaarTA, et al.Aeroelastic tailoring-theory, practice, and promise, Journal of Aircraft1986; 23(1): 6–18.
3.
MacquartTWerterNBreukerD, et al., Aeroelastic tailoring of blended composite structures using lamination parameters, 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference2016: 1966, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
4.
StodieckOCooperJEWeaverPM, et al.Improved aeroelastic tailoring using tow-steered composites. Composite Structures2013; 106: 703–715.
5.
WeisshaarTADukeDK, Induced drag reduction using aeroelastic tailoring with adaptive control surfaces. Journal of Aircraft2006; 43(1): 157–164.
6.
KolonayRMEastepFE. Optimal scheduling of control surfaces flexible wings to reduce induced drag. Journal of aircraft2006; 43(6): 1655–1661.
7.
GopalarathnamANorrisRK. Ideal lift distributions and flap angles for adaptive wings, Journal of aircraft2009; 46(2): 562–571.
8.
LinJGG. Reducing induced drag and maneuver loads by active aeroelastic alteration. Journal of Aircraft2016; 53(6): 1787–1801.
9.
RavehDE. Maneuver load analysis of overdetermined trim systems. Journal of Aircraft2008; 45(1): 119–129.
10.
MillerG, An active flexible wing multi-disciplinary design optimization method, 5th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization1994: 4412, FL, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
11.
KuzminaSIshmuratovFKuzminV, et al. Estimation of flying vehicle induced drag changing due to deformation of lifting surfaces. Proceedings of the CEAS/NVvL/AIAA International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics2003; 777–780.
12.
EllerDHeinzeS. Approach to induced drag reduction with experimental evaluation, Journal of Aircraft2005; 42(6): 1478–1485.
13.
PatilMClarkR. Aeroelastic control using multiple control surfaces, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural Dynamics,and materials conference2002: 1632, Denver, Colorado: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
KimSAlonsoJJJamesonA. Multi-element high-lift configuration design optimization using viscous continuous adjoint method, Journal of Aircraft2004; 41(5): 1082–1097.
16.
JonesRT. The spanwise distribution of lift for minimum induced drag of wings having a given lift and a given bending moment, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics1950: 2249, Washington: NACA TN 2249.
17.
ClarkeRAllenMDibleyR, et al.Flight test of the F/A-18 active aeroelastic wing airplane, AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit2005: 6316, San Francisco, California: AIAA.
18.
CusherAAGopalarathnamA. Drag reduction methodology for adaptive tailless aircraft. Journal of Aircraft2012; 49(1): 161–172.
19.
BowersAHMurilloOJJensenR, et al.On wings of the minimum induced drag: spanload implications for aircraft and birds, NASA/TP-2016-2190722016, California: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Armstrong Flight Research Center Edwards.
20.
Abdel-MotalebSA. Comparison of induced and parasitic drag on wings with minimum induced drag, Ph.D. thesis, Utah State University2018, San Diego, California, AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum.
21.
LukacovicKS. A parametric study of formation flight of a wing based on Prandtl’s bell shaped lift distribution, Ph.D. thesis, California Polytechnic State University2020, San Luis Obispo, California Polytechnic State University.
22.
ZhaoWKapaniaRK. Static aeroelastic optimization of aircraft wing with multiple surfaces, 18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference2017: 4320, Denver, Colorado, AIAA Aviation Forum.
23.
MunkMM. The minimum induced drag of airfoils. NACA Report No. 1211921.
24.
BlackwellJAJr. Numerical method to calculate the induced drag or optimum loading for arbitrary non-planar aircraft, NASA1976Langley Res: Center Vortex-Lattice Utilization.
25.
GurOMasonWHSchetzJA. Full-configuration drag estimation. Journal of Aircraft2010; 47(4): 1356–1367.
26.
ZhaoWJradMGuptaR, et al.Multidisciplinary design, analysis and optimization of performance adaptive aeroelastic wings. AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference, Paper No. AIAA-2017-1392, 2017, Grapevine, Texas: AIAA.
27.
PendletonEWFlickPPaulD, et al.The X-53: a summary of the active aeroelastic wing flight research program, 48th AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamcics and Materials Conference, 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii: AIAA.
28.
Merlin-. A new twist in flight research: the F-18 active aeroelastic wing project, NASA, 2013, The Aeronautical Journal 2015; 119(1216): 791.
29.
AndersenGForsterEKolonayR, et al.Multiple control surface utilization in active aeroelastic wing technology. Journal of aircraft1997; 34(4): 552–557.
30.
PendletonEWBessetteDFieldPB, et al.Active aeroelastic wing flight research program: technical program and model analytical development. Journal of Aircraft2000; 37(4): 554–561.
31.
ZinkPSMavrisDNRavehDE. Maneuver trim optimization techniques for active aeroelastic wings. Journal of Aircraft2001; 38(6): 1139–1146.
32.
DowellEHBlissDBClarkRL. Aeroelastic wing with leading-and trailing-edge control surfaces. Journal of Aircraft2003; 40(3): 559–565.
33.
StanfordBK, Optimization of an aeroservoelastic wing with distributed multiple control surfaces, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2016, pp. 1131–1144.
34.
JohnsonE, MSC/NASTRAN aeroelastic analysis user guide, version 68, Los Angeles, California: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1994.
35.
MillerMP, Getting started with MSC/NASTRAN: user’s guide, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, Los Angeles, California: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1993.
36.
AlbanoERoddenWP. A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic flows. AIAA journal1969; 7(2): 279–285.
37.
KatzJPlotkinA. Low-speed aerodynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2001.
38.
PhillipsWFSnyderDO. Modern adaptation of Prandtl’s classic lifting-line theory, Journal of Aircraft2000; 37(4): 662–670.
39.
Pradeep RoyS. Partha Mondal N, and Balakrishnan -. Evaluating the suitability of numerical lifting line theory for swept wings. SAROD2013.
40.
AndersonJ. Fundamentals of aerodynamics, (SI units). New york, NY: McGraw Hill., 2011, p. 10121.
41.
Optimization toolbox for MATLAB. MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA; 2015.
42.
WrightJRCooperJE. Introduction to aircraft aeroelasticity and loads, John Wiley and Sons2008; 20.
