20th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference 2002
DOI: 10.2514/6.2002-2931
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aerodynamic Optimization of Subsonic Flying Wing Configurations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A low-noise design of a 215-passenger BWB with a 5000 nautical mile range was proposed. The French national research project (AVECA), a collaboration between Airbus and ONERA, studied a low capacity BWB configuration [24,25]. The New Aircraft Concepts Research (NACRE), also led by Airbus, studied winglet design for the BWB configuration [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A low-noise design of a 215-passenger BWB with a 5000 nautical mile range was proposed. The French national research project (AVECA), a collaboration between Airbus and ONERA, studied a low capacity BWB configuration [24,25]. The New Aircraft Concepts Research (NACRE), also led by Airbus, studied winglet design for the BWB configuration [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…enables to use them in automatic optimization chains. Such optimization strategies involving Navier-Stokes solvers have been applied in aeronautics on fixed wing configurations [11,17], and via adjoint formulation on aircraft configurations [9,15], and have demonstrated their efficiency to be successfully integrated in design cycles. Only few authors apply numerical optimization coupled with CFD codes on rotary wing, these automatic design tools being only applied for turbomachinery problems in quasi 3D and 3D [4,7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The center-body sections are fore-loaded such that they carry almost all of their lift ahead of the center of gravity, with little to no inefficient reflex required, with the exception of the BWB160-1. The optimizer has found the same trim mechanism as described by Sargeant et al 50 The optimizer trims the designs primarily through the center-body design since the large chord implies that small changes in the local sectional pitching moment coefficient produce a significant total change in the pitching moment without inducing large performance penalties associated with strongly fore-loaded sections, as noted by Mialon et al 51 On the wing, the optimizer designs supercritical sections. While trimmed, all of the designs are longitudinally unstable, with static margins between 0% and −9.4% and would require some form of an active stability system.…”
Section: Bwb Optimizationmentioning
confidence: 80%