Engineering topics

Alexander, Michael G.

Publications and source records attributed to Alexander, Michael G..

7 records

NASA NTRS2016

Active Flow Control (AFC) and Insect Accretion and Mitigation (IAM) System Design and Integration on the Boeing 757 ecoDemonstrator

This paper presents a systems overview of how the Boeing and NASA team designed, analyzed, fabricated, and integrated the Active Flow Control (AFC) technology and Insect Accretion Mitigation (IAM) systems on the Boeing 757 ecoDemonstrator. The NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project partnered with Boeing to demonstrate these two technology systems on a specially outfitted Boeing 757 ecoDemonstrator during the spring of 2015. The AFC system demonstrated attenuation of flow separation on a highly deflected rudder and increased the side force generated. This AFC system may enable a smaller vertical tail to provide the control authority needed in the event of an engine failure during takeoff while still operating in a conventional manner over the rest of the flight envelope. The AFC system consisted of ducting to obtain air from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), a control valve to modulate the system mass flow, a heat exchanger to lower the APU air temperature, and additional ducting to deliver the air to the AFC actuators located on the vertical tail. The IAM system demonstrated how to mitigate insect residue adhesion on a wing's leading edge. Something as small as insect residue on a leading edge can cause turbulent wedges that interrupt laminar flow, resulting in an increase in drag and fuel use. The IAM system consisted of NASA developed Engineered Surfaces (ES) which were thin aluminum sheet substrate panels with coatings applied to the exterior. These ES were installed on slats 8 and 9 on the right wing of the 757 ecoDemonstrator. They were designed to support panel removal and installation in one crew shift. Each slat accommodated 4 panels. Both the AFC and IAM flight test were the culmination of several years of development and produced valuable data for the advancement of modern aircraft designs.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

NASA NTRS2016

An Overview of Active Flow Control Enhanced Vertical Tail Technology Development

This paper summarizes a joint NASA/Boeing research effort to advance Active Flow Control (AFC) technology to enhance aerodynamic efficiency of a vertical tail. Sweeping jet AFC technology was successfully tested on subscale and full-scale models as well as in flight. The subscale test was performed at Caltech on a ~14% scale model. More than 50% side force enhancement was achieved by the sweeping jet actuation when the momentum coefficient was 1.7%. AFC caused significant increases in suction pressure on the actuator side and associated side force enhancement. Subsequently, a full-scale Boeing 757 vertical tail model equipped with sweeping jets was tested at the National Full-Scale Aerodynamics Complex 40- by 80-Foot Wind Tunnel at NASA Ames Research Center. There, flow separation control optimization was performed at near flight conditions. Greater than 20% increase in side force were achieved for the maximum rudder deflection of 30deg at the key sideslip angles (0deg and -7.5deg) with a 31-actuator AFC configuration. Based on these tests, the momentum coefficient is shown to be a necessary, but not sufficient parameter to use for design and scaling of sweeping jet AFC from subscale tests to full-scale applications. Leveraging the knowledge gained from the wind tunnel tests, the AFC-enhanced vertical tail technology was successfully flown on the Boeing 757 ecoDemonstrator in the spring of 2015.

Lin, John C.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Innovative Flow Control Concepts for Drag Reduction

This paper highlights the technology development of two flow control concepts for aircraft drag reduction. The NASA Environmentally Responsible Aviation (ERA) project worked with Boeing to demonstrate these two concepts on a specially outfitted Boeing 757 ecoDemonstrator during the spring of 2015. The first flow control concept used Active Flow Control (AFC) to delay flow separation on a highly deflected rudder and increase the side force that it generates. This may enable a smaller vertical tail to provide the control authority needed in the event of an engine failure during takeoff and landing, while still operating in a conventional manner over the rest of the flight envelope. Thirty-one sweeping jet AFC actuators were installed and successfully flight-tested on the vertical tail of the 757 ecoDemonstrator. Pilot feedback, flow cone visualization, and analysis of the flight test data confirmed that the AFC is effective, as a smoother flight and enhanced rudder control authority were reported. The second flow control concept is the Insect Accretion Mitigation (IAM) innovation where surfaces were engineered to mitigate insect residue adhesion on a wing's leading edge. This is necessary because something as small as an insect residue on the leading edge of a laminar flow wing design can cause turbulent wedges that interrupt laminar flow, resulting in an increase in drag and fuel use. Several non-stick coatings were developed by NASA and applied to panels that were mounted on the leading edge of the wing of the 757 ecoDemonstrator. The performance of the coated surfaces was measured and validated by the reduction in the number of bug adhesions relative to uncoated control panels flown simultaneously. Both flow control concepts (i.e., sweeping jet actuators and non-stick coatings) for drag reduction were the culmination of several years of development, from wind tunnel tests to flight tests, and produced valuable data for the advancement of modern aircraft designs. The ERA systems analysis studies performed by NASA indicated that AFC-enhanced vertical tail could produce approximately 0.9% drag reduction for a large twin aisle aircraft and IAM coatings could enable approximately 1.2% drag reduction recovery for a potential total drag reduction of approximately 3.3% for a single aisle aircraft with a natural laminar flow (NLF) wing design.

Lin, John C.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Requirement Assurance: A Verification Process

Requirement Assurance is an act of requirement verification which assures the stakeholder or customer that a product requirement has produced its "as realized product" and has been verified with conclusive evidence. Product requirement verification answers the question, "did the product meet the stated specification, performance, or design documentation?". In order to ensure the system was built correctly, the practicing system engineer must verify each product requirement using verification methods of inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. The products of these methods are the "verification artifacts" or "closure artifacts" which are the objective evidence needed to prove the product requirements meet the verification success criteria. Institutional direction is given to the System Engineer in NPR 7123.1A NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements with regards to the requirement verification process. In response, the verification methodology offered in this report meets both the institutional process and requirement verification best practices.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

NASA NTRS2005

A Wind Tunnel Experiment for Trailing Edge Circulation Control on a 6 Percent 2-D Airfoil up to Transonic Mach Numbers

A wind tunnel test was conducted on a six percent thick slightly cambered elliptical circulation control airfoil with both upper and lower surface blowing. Parametric evaluations of jet slot heights and Coanda surface shapes were conducted at mass flow coefficients (C(sub mu)) from 0.0 to 0.12. The test data was acquired in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel at Mach numbers of 0.8 and 0.3 at Reynolds numbers per foot of 1.05 x 10(exp 6) and 2.43 x 10(exp 5) respectively. For the transonic condition, (Mach = 0.8 at alpha = +3 deg), it was generally found that the smaller slot and larger Coanda surface were more effective overall than other slot/Coanda surface combinations. Generally it was found at Mach = 0.3 at alpha = 6 deg that the smaller slot and smaller Coanda surface were more effective overall than other slot/Coanda surface combinations.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

NASA NTRS2005

Trailing Edge Blowing on a Two-Dimensional Six-Percent Thick Elliptical Circulation Control Airfoil Up to Transonic Conditions

A wind tunnel test was conducted in the NASA Langley Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) on a six percent thick slightly cambered elliptical circulation control airfoil with both upper and lower surface blowing capability. Parametric evaluations of jet slot heights and Coanda surface shapes were conducted at momentum coefficients (Cm) from 0.0 to 0.12. Test data were acquired at Mach numbers of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.84 at Reynolds numbers per foot of 2.43 x 105 to 1.05 x 106. For a transonic condition, (Mach = 0.8 at alpha = 3 degrees), it was generally found the smaller slot and larger Coanda surface combination was overall more effective than other slot/Coanda surface combinations. Lower surface blowing was not as effective as the upper surface blowing over the same range of momentum coefficients. No appreciable Coanda surface, slot height, or slot blowing position preference was indicated transonically with the dual slot blowing.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Maneuvering technology for advanced fighter aircraft

The need for increased maneuverability has its genesis from the first aerial combat engagement when two adversaries entangled themselves in a deadly aerial dance trying to gain the advantage over the other. It has only been in the past two decades that technologies have been investigated to increase aircraft control at maneuver attitudes that are typically dominated by highly separated flows. These separated flow regions are aggravated by advanced fighter aircraft shapes required to defeat an electronic enemy. This paper discusses passive and active devices that can be used to enhance the maneuverability of advanced fighter aircraft through vortex flow control, boundary layer control, and innovative flow manipulation.

Alexander, Michael G.↗