Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “WINGS - POLARS”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1946

Effects of Wing Flaps and Wing Duct Inlet on the Lift and Stalling Characteristics of a 1/4-Scale Partial-Span Model of the Republic XF-12 Airplane in the Langley 19-Foot Pressure Tunnel

An investigation was conducted in the Langley 19-foot pressure tunnel to determine the lift, drag, pitching-moment and stalling characteristics fo a 1/4 -scale partial-span model of the left wing of the Republic XF-12 airplane. The effects of a duct inlet, located between the nacelles at the leading edge of the wing, on those characteristics were also investigated. The Reynolds numbers for the investigation covered a range from 4,500,000 to 8,600,000. The results of the investigation indicated that maximum lift coefficients of 1.36, 1.71, and 2.11 were measured on the model with flaps neutral and deflected 20 deg and 55 deg, respectively at a Reynolds number of 8,600,000. When the duct inlet was replaced by a basic airfoil nose the flap-neutral maximum-lift coefficient was increased from 1.36 to 1.41. The results also showed that at maximum lift with flaps neutral or deflected 55 deg. most of the area between the nacelles were stalled while only small areas on other portions of the model were stalled; when the duct inlet was replaced by the basic airfoil nose the stall was delayed to a slightly higher angle of attack but the nature of the stall was relatively unaffected.

Graham, Robert R.↗
NASA NTRS1949

On the Installation of Jet Engine Nacelles on a Wing Fourth Partial Report: Pressure-Distribution Measurements on a Sweptback Wing with Jet Engine Nacelle

The present report, which deals with pressure-distribution measurements made on a sweptback wing with a jet engine nacelle, is similar to a report on pressure-distribution measurements on a rectangular wing with a jet engine nacelle (second partial report). Here, in investigations preliminary to high-speed measurements, as in the second partial report, useful arrangements and fillet designs have been discovered.

Buschner, R.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics and Wing Pressure Distributions of a Blended-Wing-Body Configuration at Low and High Reynolds Numbers

Force balance and wing pressure data were obtained on a 0.017-Scale Model of a blended-wing-body configuration (without a simulated propulsion system installation) to validate the capability of computational fluid dynamic codes to predict the performance of such thick sectioned subsonic transport configurations. The tests were conducted in the National Transonic Facility of the Langley Research Center at Reynolds numbers from 3.5 to 25.0 million at Mach numbers from 0.25 to 0.86. Data were obtained in the pitch plane only at angles of attack from -1 to 8 deg at Mach numbers greater than 0.25. A configuration with winglets was tested at a Reynolds number of 25.0 million at Mach numbers from 0.83 to 0.86.

Re, Richard J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Aircraft Wing for Over-The-Wing Mounting of Engine Nacelle

An aircraft wing has an inboard section and an outboard section. The inboard section is attached (i) on one side thereof to the aircraft's fuselage, and (ii) on an opposing side thereof to an inboard side of a turbofan engine nacelle in an over-the-wing mounting position. The outboard section's leading edge has a sweep of at least 20 degrees. The inboard section's leading edge has a sweep between -15 and +15 degrees, and extends from the fuselage to an attachment position on the nacelle that is forward of an index position defined as an imaginary intersection between the sweep of the outboard section's leading edge and the inboard side of the nacelle. In an alternate embodiment, the turbofan engine nacelle is replaced with an open rotor engine nacelle.

Hahn, Andrew S.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Aero-Structural Modeling of the Truss-Braced Wing Aircraft Using Potential Method with Correction Methods for Transonic Viscous Flow and Wing-Strut Interference Aerodynamics

This paper describes an aero-structural modeling method for the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) aircraft using VSPAERO. A vortex-lattice model of the TTBW aircraft is developed, and a transonic and viscous flow correction method is implemented in the VSPAERO models to account for transonic and viscous flow effects. A correction method for the wing-strut interference aerodynamics is developed and applied to the VSPAERO solver. Also, a structural dynamic finite-element model of the TTBW aircraft is developed. This finite-element model includes the geometric nonlinear effect due to the tension in the struts which cause a deflection dependent nonlinear stiffness. The VSPAERO models are coupled to the finite-element model to provide a rapid capability for aero-structural modeling and flutter analysis. A flight-optimized jig twist model is being developed and will be applied for the purpose of generating a full flight dynamic model of the TTBW aircraft.

Fugate, Jason↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantification of Design Trade-Offs When Comparing Transonic Truss-Braced Wing to Advanced Tube and Wing Aircraft

Interest in novel aircraft configurations has continued to grow in response to increasing demand for improved fuel efficiency. One such configuration of interest is the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW). Because the improvement of the TTBW comes from increased efficiency during cruise, it offers increasing returns as the mission distance increases. As a result, there is often a crossover point which represents the minimum mission range where the TTBW will offer a fuel burn reduction relative to a similar Tube and Wing aircraft with similar component technology levels. Aircraft rarely fly missions at their maximum range, so it is important to investigate not only the maximum benefit, but also the most likely benefit. Design decisions and analysis assumptions that significantly impact this crossover point include whether to put fuel in body tanks, how weight build-up estimation is calibrated, engine technology selection, and flight Mach number. This study, conducted under NASA’s Sustainable Flight Demonstration project and inspired by differing assumptions made by different research teams, details the impacts of changing these design decisions and assumptions.

Carl J Recine↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quantification of Design Trade-Offs When Comparing Transonic Truss-Braced Wing to Advanced Tube and Wing Aircraft

Interest in novel aircraft configurations has continued to grow in response to increasing demand for improved fuel efficiency. One such configuration of interest is the Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW). Because the improvement of the TTBW comes from increased efficiency during cruise, it offers increasing returns as the mission distance increases. As a result, there is often a crossover point which represents the minimum mission range where the TTBW will offer a fuel burn reduction relative to a similar Tube and Wing aircraft with similar component technology levels. Aircraft rarely fly missions at their maximum range, so it is important to investigate not only the maximum benefit, but also the most likely benefit. Design decisions and analysis assumptions that significantly impact this crossover point include whether to put fuel in body tanks, how weight build-up estimation is calibrated, engine technology selection, and flight Mach number. This study, conducted under NASA’s Sustainable Flight Demonstration project and inspired by differing assumptions made by different research teams, details the impacts of changing these design decisions and assumptions.

Carl J Recine↗
NASA NTRS1949

Experimental Pressure Distributions over Wing Tips at Mach Number 1.9 I : Wing Tip with Subsonic Leading Edge

An investigation was conducted at a Mach number of 1.91 to determine spanwise pressure distribution over a wing tip in a region influenced by a sharp subsonic leading edge swept back at 70 degrees. Except for pressure distribution on the top surface in the immediate vicinity of the subsonic leading edge, the maximum difference between linearized theory and experimental data was 2 1/2 percent (of free-stream dynamic pressure) for angles of attack up to 4 degrees and 7 percent for angles of attack up to 8 degrees. Pressures on the top surface nearest the subsonic edge indicated local expansions beyond values predicted by linearized theory.

FLOW, SUPERSONIC↗