2005
DOI: 10.2514/1.2857
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational Study of the Abrupt-Wing-Stall Characteristics of F/A-18E and F-16C

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…7) shows the most sensitivity to the model. Because the current grid has no tails, the moment coefficients are quite different than those presented by Parikh and Chung, 23 which included the empenage. The adapted DES grid shows quite good agreement throughout the entire angle of attack range.…”
Section: Steady/time-averaged Resultsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…7) shows the most sensitivity to the model. Because the current grid has no tails, the moment coefficients are quite different than those presented by Parikh and Chung, 23 which included the empenage. The adapted DES grid shows quite good agreement throughout the entire angle of attack range.…”
Section: Steady/time-averaged Resultsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Contrast the sectional lift characteristics 11 between the F-16C and the F/A-18E presented in Figure 5 for several AoA at Mach 0.9. As the AoA increases for the F-16C, the maximum wing loading moves inboard in a continuous, smooth manner, and the maximum sectional lift is achieved about mid-span at the highest AoA.…”
Section: Cfd Figures Of Merit (Fom)mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This parameter has proven to be a reliable indicator of the onset of AWS for each of the aircraft configurations considered in this study, and provides numerous insights into where the problem occurs, both in terms of AoA and location along the wingspan. 8,10,11 Figures 6 and 7, taken from reference 10, show plots of the sectional lift coefficient and its derivative with respect to AoA for two different aircraft configurations. Figure 6 gives the results for the baseline F/A-18C and Figure 7 presents the results for the baseline F/A-18C with the addition of a LE snag of the same normalized dimensions and location as that used on the F/A-18E.…”
Section: Cfd Figures Of Merit (Fom)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the change in slope of the C WB curve has been shown previously to be a more reliable indicator of AWS than the slope of the lift curve, Parikh and Chung 11 have shown that the halfplane rolling-moment coefficient C l provides identical information, as illustrated in Fig. 8.…”
Section: Cfd Fommentioning
confidence: 94%
“…This parameter has proven to be a reliable indicator of the onset of AWS for each of the aircraft configurations considered in this study and provides numerous insights into where the problem occurs, both in terms of AoA and location along the wingspan. 8,10,11 Figures 6 and 7, taken from Ref. 10, show plots of the sectional lift coefficient and its derivative with respect to AoA for two different aircraft configurations.…”
Section: Cfd Fommentioning
confidence: 99%