Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulation (CFD) and Experimental Study On Wing-External Store Aerodynamic Interference of A Subsonic Fighter Aircraft
Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulation (CFD) and Experimental Study On Wing-External Store Aerodynamic Interference of A Subsonic Fighter Aircraft
Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulation (CFD) and Experimental Study On Wing-External Store Aerodynamic Interference of A Subsonic Fighter Aircraft
2/2004
Keywords: computational fluid dynamic (CFD), wind tunnel testing, validation, aerodynamic interference.
-Alloy that having nine conduits each on the upper and lower storages. Meanwhile, the second configuration is with the ex-
surface. Fig. 4 show the semi-span model of a generic fighter ternal storages. Both configurations were tested at zero angle
aircraft taken from the digitized geometry produced by of attack at two different speeds, which are 22 m/s and 27 m/s.
Photomodeller.
3.2 Computational fluid dynamic simulation
In the CFD simulation, the mid wing was simulated at two
conditions. In the first condition, the mid wing have been
mesh into 111 239 elements. Meanwhile, and the second
condition it have been mesh into 221 112 elements as shown
in Fig. 6a and 6b. The flow was simulated at the speed 22 m/s,
incompressible flow and at laminar consideration. Fig. 6c
shows the simulation for wing with external storage with
122 158 elements.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
- Cp
- 0.2
coarse grid -lower
- 0.4 coarse grid - upper
fine grid - upper
- 0.6 fine grid - lower
- 0.8
- 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
x/c
Fig. 7: Pressure distributions at the mid span for upper and lower
Fig. 5: Model installation inside the wind tunnel surface
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
store-st3-lower store-st1-lower
-0.2 -0.2
store-st3-upper store-st1-upper
-0.4 -0.4
clean-st1-lower
clean-st3-lower
-0.6 -0.6 clean-st1-upper
clean-st3-upper
-0.8 -0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C X/C
0.6
0.4
0.2
clean-st2-lower
-0.2
-0.4
clean-st2-upper
-0.6 store-st2-upper
-0.8
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/C
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
store-st3-lower
-0.2 store-st1-lower
-0.2
store-st3-upper
store-st1-upper
-0.4
clean-st3-lower -0.4
clean-st1-lower
-0.6
clean-st3-upper -0.6 clean-st1-upper
-0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X/C
X/C
0.6
0.4
0.2
clean-st2-lower
-0.2
-0.4 clean-st2-upper
-0.6 store-st2-upper
-0.8
-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
X/C
0.3
store - upper [2] Tomaro Robert F., Witzeman F. C., Strang W. Z.: “Simu-
clean -upper
0.2 lation Of Store Separation For The F/A-18c Using
0.1 Cobalt”. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37 (2000), No. 3,
0
p. 361–367.
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Span position (tip - root)
[3] Prewitt N. C., Belk D. M., Maple R. C.: “Multiple-Body
Trajectory Calculations Using the Beggar Code”. Journal
Fig. 10: External store interference on pressure distribution
of Aircraft, Vol. 36 (1999), No. 5, p. 802–808.
[4] Brock J. M., Jr, Jolly B. A.: Application of Computational
Fluid Dynamics at Eglin Air Force Base. 1988, SAE 985500.
5 Analysis and discussion [5] Shanker V., Malmuth N.: “Computational And Sim-
plified Analytical Treatment Of Transonic Wing/Fuse-
5.1 Comparison between CFD and lage/Pylon/Store Interaction”. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 18
experimental works (1981), No. 8, p. 631–637.
The study shows that the value of pressure coefficient on [6] Hirsch: “Numerical Computation of Internal and Exter-
the upper surface predicted by simulation is around 0.4 com- nal Flows”. Volume 1. Brussels: Wiley, 1988.
pared to 0.6 performed by the experimental study. There is [7] Jameson A.: ”Re-Engineering the Design Process
about 12 % difference. In the experimental study, problem through Computation”. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36 (1999),
during the setup of experiment such as misalignment in de- No. 1.