Dynamic similar models are designed to study the flight behavior of the full-scale aircraft in early design stages. Due to physical and operational constraints, full dynamic similarity between the scaled-down model and full-scale aircraft is not feasible. Thus, the scale model would be flying at different Reynolds number and Mach number. A given aircraft configuration with specific aerodynamic characteristics will have different performance if Mach number and Reynolds number are changed considerably, which results in different dynamic behavior of the scale model. To compensate for these dissimilarities, it is proposed to modify the airfoil geometry of the scale model to preserve aerodynamic similarity. In this study, based on the flight regime and design requirements, maximum thickness of the airfoil, maximum camber, and their respective location are modified to preserve aerodynamic characteristics at different Mach and Reynolds numbers. Geometry optimization was performed using Particle Swarm Optimization and the geometry optimization results show that it is possible to mitigate the change in Reynolds and Mach number in various flight conditions. It has been shown that optimized geometries of all test cases had airfoils with lower maximum thickness and slightly higher maximum camber.
WangLZuoXLiuH, et al.Flying qualities evaluation criteria design for scaled-model aircraft based on similarity theory. Aerospace Sci Techn2019; 90: 209–221.
2.
ChambersJ. Modeling Flight NASA Latest Version: The Role of Dynamically Scale Free Flight Models in Support of NASA Aerospace Programs. USA: Joseph Chambers, 2015.
3.
OwensBBrandonJCroomM, et al.Overview of dynamic test techniques for flight dynamics research at NASA LaRC. In: 25th AIAA aerodynamic measurement technology and ground testing conference, San Francisco, California, 05–08 June 2006. 2006-3146.
IgnatyevDISidoryukMEKolinkoKA, et al.Dynamic rig for validation of control algorithms at high angles of attack. J Aircraft2017; 54: 1760–1771.
6.
PéniTVanekBSzabóZ, et al.Supervisory fault tolerant control of the NASA AirStar aircraft. In: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 4–6 June 2014, 666–671.
7.
HooverCBShenJ. Whirl flutter analysis of a free-flying electric-driven propeller aircraft. J Aircraft2019; 56: 831–836.
8.
StoutEG. Development of precision radio-controlled dynamically similar flying models. J Aeronaut Sci1946; 13: 335–345.
9.
WolowiczCHBowmanJSGilbertWP. Similitude requirements and scaling relationships as applied to model testing. USA: NASA. Technical Paper.
10.
LiuT. Comparative scaling of flapping- and fixed-wing flyers. AIAA J2006; 44: 24–33.
11.
CurtisWDLoganJDParkerWA. Dimensional analysis and the pi theorem. Linear Algebra Its Appl1982; 47: 117–126.
12.
OuelletteJAPatilMJKapaniaRK. Scaling laws for flight control development and testing in the presence of aeroservoelastic interactions. In: AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference 2012, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 13–16 August 2012. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
13.
BetinA VShakooriABetinDA, et al.Assessment influence of incomplete similarity of dynamically scaled models on flight-test results. Aerospace Engineering Technology2015; 5: 40–47.
14.
KittirungsiBFathyHKSteinJL. Approximate dynamic similitude in energetic multi-domain systems: quantification and use in multiobjective scaling. In: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings,WA, United States, 11–15 November 2007. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 853–864.
15.
JouannetCLundströmDAmadoriK, et al.Design of a very light jet and a dynamically scaled demonstrator. In: 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 07–10 January 2008. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Epub ahead of print 7 January 2008.
16.
BanazadehAHajipouzadehP. Using approximate similitude to design dynamic similar models. Aerospace Sci Techn2019; 94: 105375.
17.
HeineBMackSKurzA, et al.Aerodynamic scaling of general aviation airfoil for low Reynolds number application. In: 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, Washington, 23–26 June 2008, p. 4410.
18.
KulkarniARRoccaG LaVeldhuisLLM. Degree of similitude estimation for sub-scale flight testing. In: AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, California, 7–11 January 2019, p. 1208.
19.
RibeiroAFPAwruchAMGomesHM. An airfoil optimization technique for wind turbines. Appl Math Model2012; 36: 4898–4907.
ValarezoWODominikCJMcGheeRJ, et al.Multi-element airfoil optimization for maximum lift at high Reynolds numbers. In: 9th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Baltimore,MD,USA, 23–25 September 1991, p. 3332.
22.
LutzTWürzWWagnerS. Numerical optimization and wind-tunnel testing of low reynolds number airfoils. Fixed Flapping Wing Aerodyn Micro Air Veh Appl2001; 195: 169–190.
23.
FusiFCongedoPMGuardoneA, et al.Assessment of robust optimization for design of rotorcraft airfoils in forward flight. Aerospace Sci Techn2020; 107: 106355.
24.
LiWHuyseLPadulaS. Robust airfoil optimization to achieve drag reduction over a range of Mach numbers. Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization2002; 24: 38–50.
25.
ShiYMaderCAHeS, et al.Natural laminar-flow airfoil optimization design using a discrete adjoint approach. AIAA J2020; 58(11): 4702–4722.
26.
WangKYuSWangZ, et al.Adjoint-based airfoil optimization with adaptive isogeometric discontinuous Galerkin method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2019; 344: 602–625.
GocmenTOzerdemB. Airfoil optimization for noise emission problem and aerodynamic performance criterion on small scale wind turbines. Energy J2019; 344: 602–625.
29.
QuQJiaXWangW, et al.Numerical study of the aerodynamics of a NACA 4412 airfoil in dynamic ground effect. Aerospace Sci Techn2014; 38: 56–63.
30.
ChiXZhuBShihTIP, et al.CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a business-jet airfoil with leading-edge ice accretion. In: 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 05–08 January 2004, pp. 4931–4940.
31.
NarsipurSPomeroyBWSeligMS. CFD analysis of multielement airfoils for wind turbines. In: 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 25-28 June 2012, pp. 474–491.
32.
CakmakciogluSCSertIOTuglukO, et al.2-D and 3-D CFD investigation of NREL S826 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers. J Phys Conf Ser2014; 524: 12028.
33.
HepperleM. JAVAFOIL User’s Guide. available, www.mh-aerotoolsde/airfoils/java/JavaFoil%20Users%20Guide.pdf. (accessed on 12 October 2015).
34.
DrelaM. XFOIL: an analysis and design system for low Reynolds number airfoils. In: Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics. Proc. Conf, Notre Dame, USA, 5–7 June 1989. T.J. Mueller. Lecture Notes in Engineering. Springer, 1989, pp. 1–12.
35.
DrelaM. Elements of airfoil design methodology. Appl Comput Aerodyn1990; 125: 167–189.
36.
DrelaM. Low-Reynolds-number airfoil design for the M.I.T. Daedalus prototype- A case study. J Aircraft1988; 25: 724–732.
37.
MorgadoJVizinhoRSilvestreMAR, et al.XFOIL vs CFD performance predictions for high lift low Reynolds number airfoils. Aerospace Sci Techn2016; 52: 207–214.
38.
AndersonJD. Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. AIAA J2010; 48: 2983–2983.
39.
MalikBAkhtarSMasudJ. Aircraft spin characteristics with high-alpha yawing moment asymmetry. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerospace Eng2018; 232(15): 2793–2806.
40.
MalikBMasudJAkhtarS. A review of experimental techniques to predict aircraft spin and recovery characteristics. Aeat2021; 94(2): 187–197.
41.
GolovkinMAGorbunovVGEfremovAA, et al.A Method to Improve the Aircraft Aerodynamic Characteristics at High Angles of Attack and in Spin. Russ Aeronaut2019; 62(4): 604–611.
42.
CookLWJarrettJP. Robust airfoil optimization and the importance of appropriately representing uncertainty. AIAA J2017; 55: 3925–3939.
43.
Painchaud-OuelletSTribesCTrépanierJ-Y, et al.Airfoil shape optimization using a nonuniform rational B-splines parametrization under thickness constraint. AIAA J2006; 44: 2170–2178.
44.
KiranyazSInceTGabboujM. Particle swarm optimization. In: Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 45–82.
45.
GandomiAHYangXSTalatahariS, et al.Metaheuristic Applications in Structures and Infrastructures. Amsterdam: Elsevier (Epub ahead of print 2013).
46.
ZhangYWangSJiG. A comprehensive survey on particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications. Math Probl Eng2015; 2015: 931256, Epub ahead of print 2015.
47.
HuangCLiYYaoX. A survey of automatic parameter tuning methods for metaheuristics. IEEE Trans Evol Computat2020; 24: 201–216.
