Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “TAKEOFF”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Computational Evaluation of Inlet Distortion on an Ejector Powered Hybrid Wing Body at Takeoff and Landing Conditions

Due to the aft, upper surface engine location on the Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) planform, there is potential to shed vorticity and separated wakes into the engine when the vehicle is operated at off-design conditions and corners of the envelope required for engine and airplane certification. CFD simulations were performed of the full-scale reference propulsion system, operating at a range of inlet flow rates, flight speeds, altitudes, angles of attack, and angles of sideslip to identify the conditions which produce the largest distortion and lowest pressure recovery. Pretest CFD was performed by NASA and Boeing, using multiple CFD codes, with various turbulence models. These data were used to make decisions regarding model integration, characterize inlet flow distortion patterns, and help define the wind tunnel test matrix. CFD was also performed post-test; when compared with test data, it was possible to make comparisons between measured model-scale and predicted full-scale distortion levels. This paper summarizes these CFD analyses.

Wind Tunnel Testing↗
NASA NTRS2019

Multipoint Design and Optimization of a Turboshaft Engine for a Tiltwing Turboelectric Vertical Takeoff Landing Air Taxi

This paper describes the design of a turboshaft engine for a tiltwing air taxi application. In this case, the tiltwing air taxi is intended to fly a 400 nm mission with up to fifteen passengers. Engine requirements for the concept engine are taken from aircraft system studies where thrust is produced by four propellers driven by electric motors and powered by a single gas turbine engine. The purpose of this paper is to perform a cycle design optimization that minimizes fuel consumption and weight while respecting current technology limitations to meet mission requirements. To achieve results, the engine overall pressure ratio and maximum temperature at the exit of the combustor are set as the design parameters. Several sensitivity studies are also performed to visualize optimization trends. Results of the optimization study show solutions are heavily dependent on engine cooling flow requirements and exact mission requirements. This engine is intended for use in large system optimization research.

gas turbine↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Simulations of Landing and Takeoff CRM High-Lift Configurations

Numerical simulations have been performed for a conventional high-lift version of the Common Research Model (CRM) model corresponding to landing and take- off configurations. Computed values of lift and drag for the landing configuration are compared with the experimental data acquired in the 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14×22) at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Simulations replicated the experimentally observed improvements in the lift characteristics in the presence of a nacelle chine. Flow visualization images indicate that vortices generated by the nacelle chine reduce flow separation regions on the upper surface of the wing at higher angles of attack. Based on such observations, the take-off configuration considered is also equipped with a nacelle chine, and testing of this configuration is planned in the 14×22 tunnel in near future. Preliminary solutions are also presented to explore the feasibility of using a localized flap gap blowing (LFGB) active flow control concept for improving the aerodynamic performance at take-off conditions.

aerodynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CFD Simulations of Landing and Takeoff CRM High-Lift Configurations

Numerical simulations have been performed for a conventional high-lift version of the Common Research Model (CRM) model corresponding to landing and take- off configurations. Computed values of lift and drag for the landing configuration are compared with the experimental data acquired in the 14- by 22-Foot Subsonic Tunnel (14×22) at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). Simulations replicated the experimentally observed improvements in the lift characteristics in the presence of a nacelle chine. Flow visualization images indicate that vortices generated by the nacelle chine reduce flow separation regions on the upper surface of the wing at higher angles of attack. Based on such observations, the take-off configuration considered is also equipped with a nacelle chine, and testing of this configuration is planned in the 14×22 tunnel in near future. Preliminary solutions are also presented to explore the feasibility of using a localized flap gap blowing (LFGB) active flow control concept for improving the aerodynamic performance at take-off conditions.

aerodynamics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

On the Modeling of Urban Air Mobility Vehicle Takeoff and Landing Operations in the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool

Urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles are anticipated to operate in close proximity to the public. A possible barrier to the introduction of UAM vehicles as a transit solution is their community noise impact, particularly around vertiports. The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is the mandated tool to assess aircraft noise and other environmental impacts due to federal actions at civilian airports, vertiports, or in U.S. airspace for commercial flight operations. However, AEDT was designed to model fixed-wing aircraft and conventional helicopter operations, not UAM vehicles. Prior work by the authors showed significant differences in noise contours of UAM departures and approaches when modeling operations as fixed-wing and helicopter types in AEDT. This paper identifies the sources of those differences. Additionally, a NASA time-marching simulation tool is used to generate noise exposure predictions for equivalent operations to help identify differences associated with the noise model implemented in AEDT and offer possible changes to assess UAM community noise impact more consistently with simulation-based modeling.

aeroacoustics↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

On the Modeling of Urban Air Mobility Vehicle Takeoff and Landing Operations in the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool

Urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles are anticipated to operate in close proximity to the public. A possible barrier to the introduction of UAM vehicles as a transit solution is their community noise impact, particularly around vertiports. The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is the mandated tool to assess aircraft noise and other environmental impacts due to federal actions at civilian airports, vertiports, or in U.S. airspace for commercial flight operations. However, AEDT was designed to model fixed-wing aircraft and conventional helicopter operations, not UAM vehicles. Prior work by the authors showed significant differences in noise contours of UAM departures and approaches when modeling operations as fixed-wing and helicopter types in AEDT. This paper identifies the sources of those differences. Additionally, a NASA time-marching simulation tool is used to generate noise exposure predictions for equivalent operations to help identify differences associated with the noise model implemented in AEDT and offer possible changes to assess UAM community noise impact more consistently with simulation-based modeling.

aeroacoustics↗
NASA NTRS1937

The Transition Phase in the Take-Off of an Airplane, Special Report

An investigation was undertaken to determine the character and importance of the transition phase between the ground run and steady climb in the takeoff of an airplane and the effects of various factors on this phase and on the airborne part of the takeoff as a whole. The information was obtained from a series of step-by-step integrations, which defined the motion of the airplane during the transition and which were based on data derived from actual takeoff tests of a Verville AT airplane. Both normal and zoom takeoffs under several loading and takeoff speed conditions were considered. The effects of a moderate wind with a corresponding wind gradient and the effect of proximity of the ground were also investigated. The results show that, for normal takeoffs, the best transition was realized at the lowest possible takeoff speed. Moreover, this speed gave the shortest overall takeoff distance for normal takeoffs. Zoom takeoffs required a shorter overall takeoff run than normal takeoffs, particularly with a heavy landing, if the obstacle to be cleared was sufficiently high (greater than 50 feet); no advantage was indicated to the airplane with a light loading if the height to be cleared was less. The error resulting from the neglect of the transition in the calculation of the airborne distance of takeoff was found to vary from 4% with the heaviest loading considered to -4% with the lightest loading for normal takeoffs over a 100-ft obstacle; the percentage error was twice as great for a 50-foot obstacle. For zoom takeoffs the error attained much greater values. The average wind gradient corresponding to a 5-mile-per-hour surface wind reduced the airborne distance required to clear a 50-foot obstacle by about 9% with the lightest loading and 16% with the heaviest loading; for both cases. The overall reduction due to this wind was approximately twice that resulting from the wind gradient alone. A simple expression for the reduction of observed takeoff performance to no-wind conditions is presented. Ground effect is shown to reduce the airborne distance to attain a height of 50 foot by 10% with the lightest loading and 16% with the heaviest loading; for a 100-foot obstacle the percentage reduction was about 1/2 as great.

Wetmore, J. W.↗
NASA NTRS1995

CFD-Based Design Optimization Tool Developed for Subsonic Inlet

The traditional approach to the design of engine inlets for commercial transport aircraft is a tedious process that ends with a less-than-optimum design. With the advent of high-speed computers and the availability of more accurate and reliable computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers, numerical optimization processes can effectively be used to design an aerodynamic inlet lip that enhances engine performance. The designers' experience at Boeing Corporation showed that for a peak Mach number on the inlet surface beyond some upper limit, the performance of the engine degrades excessively. Thus, our objective was to optimize efficiency (minimize the peak Mach number) at maximum cruise without compromising performance at other operating conditions. Using a CFD code NPARC, the NASA Lewis Research Center, in collaboration with Boeing, developed an integrated procedure at Lewis to find the optimum shape of a subsonic inlet lip and a numerical optimization code, ADS. We used a GRAPE-based three-dimensional grid generator to help automate the optimization procedure. The inlet lip shape at the crown and the keel was described as a superellipse, and the superellipse exponents and radii ratios were considered as design variables. Three operating conditions: cruise, takeoff, and rolling takeoff, were considered in this study. Three-dimensional Euler computations were carried out to obtain the flow field. At the initial design, the peak Mach numbers for maximum cruise, takeoff, and rolling takeoff conditions were 0.88, 1.772, and 1.61, respectively. The acceptable upper limits on the takeoff and rolling takeoff Mach numbers were 1.55 and 1.45. Since the initial design provided by Boeing was found to be optimum with respect to the maximum cruise condition, the sum of the peak Mach numbers at takeoff and rolling takeoff were minimized in the current study while the maximum cruise Mach number was constrained to be close to that at the existing design. With this objective, the optimum design satisfied the upper limits at takeoff and rolling takeoff while retaining the desirable cruise performance. Further studies are being conducted to include static and cross-wind operating conditions in the design optimization procedure. This work was carried out in collaboration with Dr. E.S. Reddy of NYMA, Inc.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1975

DC-9 flight demonstration program with refanned JT8D engines. Volume 4: Flyover noise

Flyover noise tests were conducted to determine the noise reductions achievable by modifying the engines and nacelles of DC-9-30 airplanes. The two stage fan of the JT8D-9 engine was replaced with a larger diameter, single stage fan and sound absorbing materials were incorporated in the engines and nacelles. The noise levels were determined to be 95.3 EPNdB at the sideline, 96.2 EPNdB for a full thrust takeoff, 87.5 EPNdB for takeoff with thrust cutback, and 97.4 EPNdB for landing approach. The noise reductions relative to the hardwall JT8D-9 were 8.2 EPNdB for takeoff with cutback and 8.7 EPNdB for landing. The 90 EPNdB noise contour areas were reduced by 40% for missions requiring maximum design takeoff and landing weights. For typical mission weights, the reductions were 19% for full thrust takeoff and 34% for takeoff with cutback. The 95 EPNdB contour areas were reduced by 50% for takeoff and 30% for takeoff with cutback for both missions.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2016

Perceived Noise Analysis for Offset Jets Applied to Commercial Supersonic Aircraft

A systems analysis was performed with experimental jet noise data, engine/aircraft performance codes and aircraft noise prediction codes to assess takeoff noise levels and mission range for conceptual supersonic commercial aircraft. A parametric study was done to identify viable engine cycles that meet NASAs N+2 goals for noise and performance. Model scale data from offset jets was used as input to the aircraft noise prediction code to determine the expected sound levels for the lateral certification point where jet noise dominates over all other noise sources. The noise predictions were used to determine the optimal orientation of the offset nozzles to minimize the noise at the lateral microphone location. An alternative takeoff procedure called programmed lapse rate was evaluated for noise reduction benefits. Results show there are two types of engines that provide acceptable range performance; one is a standard mixed-flow turbofan with a single-stage fan, and the other is a three-stream variable-cycle engine with a multi-stage fan. The engine with a single-stage fan has a lower specific thrust and is 8 to 10 EPNdB quieter for takeoff. Offset nozzles reduce the noise directed toward the thicker side of the outer flow stream, but have less benefit as the core nozzle pressure ratio is reduced and the bypass-to-core area ratio increases. At the systems level for a three-engine N+2 aircraft with full throttle takeoff, there is a 1.4 EPNdB margin to Chapter 3 noise regulations predicted for the lateral certification point (assuming jet noise dominates). With a 10 reduction in thrust just after takeoff rotation, the margin increases to 5.5 EPNdB. Margins to Chapter 4 and Chapter 14 levels will depend on the cumulative split between the three certification points, but it appears that low specific thrust engines with a 10 reduction in thrust (programmed lapse rate) can come close to meeting Chapter 14 noise levels. Further noise reduction is possible with additional reduction in takeoff thrust using programmed lapse rate, but studies are needed to investigate the practical limits for safety and takeoff regulations.

Turbofans↗
NASA NTRS2019

Perceived Noise Analysis for Offset Jets Applied to Commercial Supersonic Aircraft

A systems analysis was performed with experimental jet noise data, engineaircraft performance codes and aircraft noise prediction codes to assess takeoff noise levels and mission range for conceptual supersonic commercial aircraft. A parametric study was done to identify viable engine cycles that meet NASAs N+2 goals for noise and performance. Model scale data from offset jets was used as input to the aircraft noise prediction code to determine the expected sound levels for the lateral certification point where jet noise dominates over all other noise sources. The noise predictions were used to determine the optimal orientation of the offset nozzles to minimize the noise at the lateral microphone location. An alternative takeoff procedure called programmed lapse rate was evaluated for noise reduction benefits. Results show there are two types of engines that provide acceptable range performance; one is a standard mixed-flow turbofan with a single-stage fan, and the other is a three-stream variable-cycle engine with a multi-stage fan. The engine with a single-stage fan has a lower specific thrust and is 8 to 10 EPNdB quieter for takeoff. Offset nozzles reduce the noise directed toward the thicker side of the outer flow stream, but have less benefit as the core nozzle pressure ratio is reduced and the bypass-to-core area ratio increases. At the systems level for a three-engine N+2 aircraft with full throttle takeoff, there is a 1.4 EPNdB margin to Chapter 3 noise regulations predicted for the lateral certification point (assuming jet noise dominates). With a 10 reduction in thrust just after takeoff rotation, the margin increases to 5.5 EPNdB. Margins to Chapter 4 and Chapter 14 levels will depend on the cumulative split between the three certification points, but it appears that low specific thrust engines with a 10 reduction in thrust (programmed lapse rate) can come close to meeting Chapter 14 noise levels. Further noise reduction is possible with additional reduction in takeoff thrust using programmed lapse rate, but studies are needed to investigate the practical limits for safety and takeoff regulations.

Jet Noise↗
NASA NTRS1990

Flight control issues of the next generation space transportation launch vehicles

Some of the issues that affect the flight control and guidance system designs for vertical-takeoff and horizontal-takeoff vehicles were investigated. A two-stage all-rocket vehicle was used to represent the vertical-takeoff system and a generic aerospace plane concept to represent the horizontal-takeoff vehicle. Two flight control issues for the vertical-takeoff rocket were uncovered. The first was the large gimbal angle range required for pitch trim when using parallel mated vehicles. The second was control during staging. Two issues were also identified for the air-breathing vehicle. The first is that the drag losses due to aerodynamic trim are a significant fraction of the total ideal velocity required to achieve orbit. The second issue is that since the vehicle flies at high dynamic pressure for most of the ascent, the guidance system design will be more difficult to ensure accurate insertion than that for the vertical-takeoff rocket system.

Powell, Richard W.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Concept Development of a Mach 1.6 High-Speed Civil Transport

A high-speed civil transport configuration with a Mach number of 1.6 was developed as part of the NASA High-Speed Research Program to serve as a baseline for assessing advanced technologies required for an aircraft with a service entry date of 2005. This configuration offered more favorable solutions to environmental concerns than configurations with higher Mach numbers. The Mach 1.6 configuration was designed for a 6500 n.mi. mission with a 250-passenger payload. The baseline configuration has a wing area of 8732 square feet a takeoff gross weight of 591570 lb, and four 41000-lb advanced turbine bypass engines defined by NASA. These engines have axisymmetric mixer-ejector nozzles that are assumed to yield 20 dB of noise suppression during takeoff, which is assumed to satisfy, the FAR Stage III noise requirements. Any substantial reduction in this assumed level of suppression would require oversizing the engines to meet community noise regulations and would severly impact the gross weight of the aircraft at takeoff. These engines yield a ratio of takeoff thrust to weight of 0.277 and a takeoff wing loading of 67.8 lb/square feet that results in a rotation speed of 169 knots. The approach velocity of the sized configuration at the end of the mission is 131 knots. The baseline configuration was resized with an engine having a projected life of 9000 hr for hot rotating parts and 18000 hr for the rest of the engine, as required for commercial use on an aircraft with a service entry date of 2005. Results show an increase in vehicle takeoff gross weight of approximately 58700 lb. This report presents the details of the configuration development, mass properties, aerodynamic design, propulsion system and integration, mission performance, and sizing.

Shields, Elwood W.↗
NASA NTRS1939

The Calculated Effect of Various Hydrodynamic and Aerodynamic Factors on the Take-Off of a Large Flying Boat

Present designs for large flying boats are characterized by high wing loading, high aspect ratio, and low parasite drag. The high wing loading results in the universal use of flaps for reducing the takeoff and landing speeds. These factors have an effect on takeoff performance and influence to a certain extent the design of the hull. An investigation was made of the influence of various factors and design parameters on the takeoff performance of a hypothetical large flying boat by means of takeoff calculations. The parameters varied in the calculations were size of hull (load coefficient), wing setting, trim, deflection of flap, wing loading, aspect ratio, and parasite drag. The takeoff times and distances were calculated to the stalling speeds and the performance above these speeds was studied separately to determine piloting technique for optimum takeoff. The advantage of quick deflection of the flap at high water speeds is shown.

Olson, R.E.↗
NASA NTRS2016

NDARC NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft - Input, Appendix 4

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description consists of all the information, input and derived, that denes the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions. The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for anti-torque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude.

Rotorcraft Input↗
NASA NTRS2022

NDARC - NASA Design and Analysis of Rotorcraft: Input and Data Structures - Vol 2

The NDARC code performs design and analysis tasks. The design task involves sizing the rotorcraft to satisfy specified design conditions and missions. The analysis tasks can include off-design mission performance analysis, flight performance calculation for point operating conditions, and generation of subsystem or component performance maps. Figure 1-1 illustrates the tasks. The principal tasks (sizing, mission analysis, flight performance analysis) are shown in the figure as boxes with heavy borders. Heavy arrows show control of subordinate tasks. The aircraft description (figure 1-1) consists of all the information, input and derived, that defines the aircraft. The aircraft consists of a set of components, including fuselage, rotors, wings, tails, and propulsion. This information can be the result of the sizing task; can come entirely from input, for a fixed model; or can come from the sizing task in a previous case or previous job. The aircraft description information is available to all tasks and all solutions (indicated by light arrows). The sizing task determines the dimensions, power, and weight of a rotorcraft that can perform a specified set of design conditions and missions. The aircraft size is characterized by parameters such as design gross weight, weight empty, rotor radius, and engine power available. The relations between dimensions, power, and weight generally require an iterative solution. From the design flight conditions and missions, the task can determine the total engine power or the rotor radius (or both power and radius can be fixed), as well as the design gross weight, maximum takeoff weight, drive system torque limit, and fuel tank capacity. For each propulsion group, the engine power or the rotor radius can be sized. Missions are defined for the sizing task, and for the mission performance analysis. A mission consists of a number of mission segments, for which time, distance, and fuel burn are evaluated. For the sizing task, certain missions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; and for fuel tank sizing. The mission parameters include mission takeoff gross weight and useful load. For specified takeoff fuel weight with adjustable segments, the mission time or distance is adjusted so the fuel required for the mission (burned plus reserve) equals the takeoff fuel weight. The mission iteration is on fuel weight or energy. Flight conditions are specified for the sizing task, and for the flight performance analysis. For the sizing task, certain flight conditions are designated to be used for design gross weight calculations; for transmission sizing; for maximum takeoff weight calculations; and for antitorque or auxiliary thrust rotor sizing. The flight condition parameters include gross weight and useful load. For flight conditions and mission takeoff, the gross weight can be maximized, such that the power required equals the power available. A flight state is defined for each mission segment and each flight condition. The aircraft performance can be analyzed for the specified state, or a maximum effort performance can be identified. The maximum effort is specified in terms of a quantity such as best endurance or best range, and a variable such as speed, rate of climb, or altitude. The aircraft must be trimmed, by solving for the controls and motion that produce equilibrium in the specified flight state. Different trim solution definitions are required for various flight states. Evaluating the rotor hub forces may require solution of the blade flap equations of motion.

NDARC↗