Disruptive Innovation In Military Aviation

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

Rahul Kamath (K018)

Chirag Lal(K023)
Mrinal Mishra(K026)
Dezdiar Tawadia(K050)
Prabhmel Singh (K056)

in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

IN

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Under the guidance of

Prof. Sunny Nanade

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MUKESH PATEL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT &
ENGINEERING
MUMBAI, INDIA 400056
 Dec 2019

Acknowledgment

The most pleasant part of any project is to express the gratitude towards all those who
have contributed to the success of the project. Therefore this report acknowledges
contributions of content which proved to be vital for the success of this paper.
Firstly we would like thank Mr. Sunny Nanade for mentoring us. We would also like
to thank a Wing Commander & Flight Lieutenant currently serving in the Indian
Air Force (names undisclosed for security reasons) for his insights on canard
application on Su-30MKI and basic pilot expectations from fighter jets.

We would also like to thank our Head of Department Dr. Ravi Terkar sir for giving
us this opportunity to present our project and ideas. It gives us great pleasure to
submit this project to SVKM’s NMIMS Mukesh Patel School of Technology
Management & Engineering as a part of our curriculum in the MBA Tech course. We
take this opportunity with great pleasure to present before you this project on "
Disruptive Innovation In Military Aviation " which is a result of co-operation, hard
work and good wishes of many people.

2|Page
 DECLARATION

"I/We hereby declare that this project work is my/our own work and that, to

the best of my/our knowledge and belief, it contains no other material or

previously published material written by another person which has been

accepted for the award of any other degree of the university or other

institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgment has been

made in the project report".

Date: Name: Roll No: Signature:

1. Rahul Kamath K018
2. Chirag Lal K023
3. Mrinal Mishra K026
4. Dezdiar Tawadia K050
5. Prabhmel Singh K056

3|Page
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled “ D I S R U P T I V E I N N O V A T I O N

I N M I L I T A R Y A V I A T I O N ” is the original work carried out by

RAHUL KAMATH(K018), MRINAL MISHRA(K026), PRABHMEL

SINGH(K056), CHIRAG LAL(K023) & DEZDIAR TAWADIA (K050) for the

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Degree of Bachelor of

Technology in Mechanical Engineering, Mukesh Patel School of Technology

Management, NMIMS University, Mumbai, during the semesters VII and VIII of

the academic year 2018-19. The project work has been assessed and found to be

satisfactory.

Dr/ Prof. Dr/ Prof.

Assistant Professor Professor

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

MPSTME, NMIMS University MPSTME, NMIMS University

(Project Supervisors)

________________ ________________

Examiner 1 Examiner 2

Name : Name :

Designation: Designation:

Signature of Head of the Department

4|Page
 (Office Seal)

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 LITERATURE SURVEY
Chapter 3 INITIAL DESIGN RESEARCH
Chapter 4 PRANDTL-D WING AND APPLICATION OF CANARDS
Chapter 5 SIMULATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE……………………………6

5|Page
 ABSTRACT

Mechanical engineering is a very integral part of aviation, and the journey of building
a machine that can fly is one of the most interesting and important learning process
for any engineer. Making any kind of aircraft begins with its purpose. From the time
when Wright flyer flew to today's fighter jets, a lot has changed with respect to
definition of an aircraft’s purpose and process of making one.

The above is the foundation of this project report, that is, to carefully analyse a need
for fighter jet in today's air to air combat doctrine, formulate a framework that
satisfies that need and to finally propose an engineered and simulated model.

This report starts with a research on modern wars which involved heavy air to air
engagements. Study of these reports is expected to give out guidelines on how
important a fighter jet is to wartime situations. Secondary research covers all the very
important wars after 1945, essentially scoping the research to era of fighters with jet
engines. So, the report covers Vietnam war, Indo-Pak War of 1965 and 1971,
Falklands War, The gulf war, 6-Day War.
In all the wars there were key similar factors that remained common and important for
the victor. Range and Radar invisibility was key factor against enemy air defense.
Apart from that, the usage of aircrafts to destroy ground targets more than the air
targets was something that was very important in all the wars. Finally, and most
important, an effective air defense capability of Air force was crucial.

The report further proceeds to learnings of performances of era leading aircrafts and
their engineering philosophy to lead on the development of new aircraft. Using these
factors in mind a list of fighters historically successful in the above and various other
war operations was taken into consideration for research. The report would research
on various technology demonstrator aircrafts developed by NASA and Sukhoi and
active service aircraft of various Air Forces around the globe in order to construct a
base to develop a new “ideal jet fighter”.

The next step is model creation and parameter analysis of our design based on
findings made in primary and secondary research. These findings included the current
doctrine of air to air combat and what we predict its future to be. This included things
like air to air combat, air to surface bombing and recon. Also by studying current
technology in aircraft design, we were able to model our own version of a next
generation aircraft that included these technologies and more.

Further research will include incorporating additional functions like stealth and
improvements made into aerodynamic structure of aircraft. Systems integration and
propultion technology improvements are also aspects that are taken into consideration
for future designs and prototypes.

6|Page
 List of Figures

Fig 1 F-14 TOMCAT

Fig 2 F-14 TOMCAT ASYMETRICAL SWEEP 2
Fig 3 X-36 TAILLESS FIGHTER 3
Fig 4 GRUMMAN X-29 4
Fig 5 SUKHOI SU-47 5
Fig 6 SPANWISE AIR FLOW 6
Fig 7 FORWARD/REARWARD AIR FLOW 7
Fig 8 Lc V/S ALPHA GRAPH 8
Fig 9 Dc V/S ALPHA GRAPH 9
Fig 10 Dc V/S Lc GRAPH 10
Fig 11 Dc V/S MACH No. GRAPGH 11
Fig 12 NASA PRANDTTL-D WING 12
Fig 13 CANARD POSSITION 13
Fig 14 FLOW SEPERATION AT ROOT OF WING 14
Fig 15 CANARD LIFT GENERATION 15
Fig 16 BASE WING MODEL 16
Fig 17 TURBULENT FLOW 17
Fig 18 ANSYS MESH 18
Fig 19 ANSYS SOLVER 19
Fig 20 LIFT FORCE FOR 0 DEGREE TWIST 20
Fig 21 DRAG FORCE FOR 0 DEGREE TWIST 21
Fig 22 LIFT FORCE FOR +2 DEGREE TWIST 22
Fig 23 DRAG FORCE FOR +2 DEGREE TWIST 23

7|Page
 Chapter 1

Introduction
The initial part of the project includes an in dept analysis of all the major air-air
combat scenarios seen throughout history, with a focus on those wars fought post
world war 2. This will give us insight into the kind of tacticts and the level of
technology used during these time. According to this analysis we will move further
with the project, getting into the various aircrafts that were developed during this
time.

Vietnam War

The Vietnam War saw a move away from cannon fire to air-to-air missiles. Although
US forces maintained air supremacy throughout the war, there were still occasional
dogfights and US and North Vietnamese aces. The North Vietnamese side claimed the
Vietnam People's Air Force had 17 aces throughout the war, including Nguyen Van
Coc, who is also the top ace of the Vietnam War with 9 kills: seven acknowledged by
the United States Air Force.

The key mission for U.S. Air Force fighter escorts (or MiGCAPs) over North
Vietnam was to prevent enemy MiG fighters from interfering with American strike
aircraft. The MiG pilots' primary goal was to force strike aircrews to jettison their
bombs early, thereby disrupting the bombing mission.

In 1965, the small North Vietnamese Air Force (also known as the Vietnam People's
Air Force or VPAF) was equipped with somewhat outdated, gun-armed MiG-17s. The
entry of missile-armed, supersonic MiG-21s in early 1966, however, dramatically
increased the VPAF threat. The USAF's primary counter to the MiG was the F-4
Phantom II fighter.

Though outnumbered, VPAF MiGs had some significant advantages. Guided by

ground controllers using early warning radar, MiG pilots only attacked under ideal
circumstances, such as when USAF aircraft were bomb-laden, low on fuel, or
damaged. The small, hard-to-see MiGs typically made one-pass attacks at high speed,
then escaped to a sanctuary (either their airfields, which were not bombed until mid-
1967 or to nearby communist China). Since they were always over friendly territory,
MiG pilots could be back in action quickly if they survived being shot down.

8|Page
USAF fighter pilots had better training and superior aircraft, but they endured several
disadvantages. One serious issue was missile reliability and performance. Over one-
half of the missiles fired by the USAF during the SEA War malfunctioned, and only
about 1 in 11 fired scored a victory. The USAF rules of engagement dictated visual
identification of an enemy aircraft before firing, which negated using the Sparrow
missile at long range. USAF F-4s flown during ROLLING THUNDER did not have
an internal gun to use when missiles failed. Although some F-4s carried external gun
pods, it was not until the F-4E arrived in late 1968 that USAF Phantoms finally had
an internal gun. Lastly, USAF pilots had to combat MiGs, SAMs and AAA over
hostile North Vietnam, and if shot down, they were not always rescued.

Even so, enemy MiGs failed in their primary mission to stop US air attacks over
North Vietnam during OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER. In fact, the VPAF
fighter force sometimes retreated to China and stood down from combat operations
due to heavy losses suffered at the hands of American fighter crews.

MiG pilots did little better in December 1972 -- by the end of OPERATION
LINEBACKER II, USAF B-52s and tactical aircraft hit targets at will, forcing the
North Vietnamese to sign a peace treaty. At the end of the Southeast Asia War in
1973, the VPAF had lost nearly 150 MiGs in combat to USAF fighter crews, while
the USAF lost about 70 aircraft (of all types) to MiGs.

As the Vietnam War was the first time a major air to air combat was happening
outside of the cannon era of WW2, the USA did not have a solid frame of reference
when they ventured into the war and subsequently were outplayed many times dude to
unconventional warfare they faced in the war.

In conclusion:

● USA had a technology edge over the enemy which explains the obvious
command in air-to-air engagements
● The primary objective was never air supremacy but attacking enemy on the
ground
● Pilot Skill was a major factor the USA did lose a lot of aircraft to enemy
planes.

9|Page
Reference 1 : Anderson, David L. (2004). Columbia Guide to the Vietnam War. New York: Columbia University
Press. ISBN 978-0231114929.
2: [Link]
Indo-Pak war 1965
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 saw the
Indian and Pakistani Air Forces engaged in
large-scale aerial combat against each other
for the first time since the Partition of India in
1947. The war took place during the course
of September 1965 and saw both air forces
conduct defensive and offensive operations
over Indian and Pakistani airspace. The aerial
war saw both sides conducting thousands of
sorties in a single month. Both sides claimed
victory in the air war; Pakistan claimed to
have destroyed 104 enemy aircraft against its
own losses of 19, while India claimed to have
destroyed 73 enemy aircraft and lost 35 of its
own. Despite the intense fighting, the conflict
was effectively a stalemate.

The war began in early August 1965 and initially, the fighting was confined mainly to
the ground. Later, however, as the war progressed, the war took on another dimension
as the two sides began air operations against each other. Although the two forces had
previously taken part in the First Kashmir War which had occurred shortly after the
Partition of India in 1947, that engagement had been limited in scale compared to the
1965 conflict and the air operations that both sides had undertaken were limited and
largely confined to interdiction and other strategic purposes such as resupply and
troop transport operations. Although there had been one incident where Indian fighter
aircraft intercepted a Pakistani transport, there had been no significant air-to-air
combat. During the 1965 conflict, however, the PAF flew a total 2,364 sorties while
the IAF flew 3,937 sorties.
To summarize:
● Both sides engaged in large-scale aerial combat
● Both, defensive and offensive operations over Indian and Pakistani airspace
● Midway, the air war doctrine shifted from air interdictions to ground attack
and concentrated their efforts on knocking out soft skin targets and supply
lines

10 | P a g e
 ● Attempts were made by both countries to take out enemy airfields with
Pakistan scoring more grounded aircraft kills (lack of early warning radar
systems by India)
● War declared stalemate (mirroring the effect of the war in the skies)
● Importance of radar detection and as a corollary radar invisibility
● The initial use as Close-Air-Support (CAS) and for airstrikes against ground
forces
Reference: Rakshak, Bharat. "Indian Air Force Combat Kills, Indo Pakistan War 1965." Archived 5 November
2006 at the Wayback Machine History. Retrieved 4 November 2010. 1971 East Pakistan war
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a military confrontation between India and
Pakistan that occurred during the liberation war in East Pakistan from 3 December
1971 to the fall of Dacca (Dhaka) on 16 December 1971. The war began with
preemptive aerial strikes on 11 Indian air stations, which led to the commencement of
hostilities with Pakistan and Indian entry into the war of independence in East
Pakistan on the side of Bengali nationalist forces. Lasting just 13 days, it is one of the
shortest wars in history.

The air forces of both countries launched attacks against each other’s bases in the
eastern theater as soon as hostilities commenced in September 1965. The IAF bombed
airfields and airstrips located in East Pakistan (at Chittagong, Dhaka, Lalmunirhat
Airport, and Jessore), while the PAF managed to launch two celebrated raids on the
Indian Air Force base at Kalaikunda, near Kharagpur, in West Bengal. The PAF raids,
a five-plane strike which had achieved total surprise, was followed up by a four-plane
attack, which was opposed by Indian Interceptors, took place on 7 September,
destroying several English Electric Canberra bombers and de Havilland Vampire
aircraft on the ground, while the IAF claimed 2 aerial kills (Pakistani sources record 1
F-86 lost).

The PAF also launched attacks on Bagdogra on 10 September and Barrackpore on 14

September, with varying results. The IAF hit back with more airstrikes on Dacca,
Jessore, and Lalmunirhat, these failed to destroy any aircraft. Mid-air interceptions
and dogfights rarely happened, and barring some skirmishing between the EPR and
BSF along the border, the air forces of both countries were responsible for most of the
combat activity in the eastern theater during the 1965 war. The final tally was 12
Indian aircraft destroyed on the ground (PAF claim 21 aircraft destroyed), 2 Pakistani
Sabres shot down, (the PAF records one aircraft lost), and 1 PAF Sabre lost due to an
accident. Following the war, the IAF continued its steady growth in combat capacity
and logistical capabilities, while Pakistan boosted its squadron strength to 20 Canadair
F-86 Sabres (although it neglected to expand its operational infrastructure
substantially).
In 1971 war,

● Pakistan used its Air Force to transport troops from west to east Pak

11 | P a g e
 ● Above was a vital factor in sustaining the operation of the Pakistan Army in
East Pakistan
● PAF was blown out of the subcontinent's skies within the first week of the
war.
● The reluctance of PAF to deploy Bengali personnel in the Eastern front
● IAF used in effective combined arms strategy: troop support; air combat; deep
penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy
fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance.
● PAF limited to air combat
● Air superiority directly credited for the decisive victory
Reference :"IAF Combat Kills – 1971 Indo-Pak Air War"  (PDF). [Link]. Archived from the original  (PDF) on 13
January 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2011

12 | P a g e
Falklands War

The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) was a 10-week undeclared war
between Argentina and the United Kingdom in 1982 over two British dependent
territories in the South Atlantic: the Falkland Islands and its territorial dependency,
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

The conflict began on 2 April, when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland
Islands, followed by the invasion of South Georgia the next day, in an attempt to
establish the sovereignty, it had claimed over them. On 5 April, the British
government dispatched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air
Force before making an amphibious assault on the islands. The conflict lasted 74 days
and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June, returning the islands to British
control. In total, 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel, and
three Falkland Islanders died during the hostilities.

The conflict was a major episode in the protracted dispute over the territories'
sovereignty. Argentina asserted (and maintains) that the islands are Argentine
territory, and the Argentine government thus characterized its military action as the
reclamation of its own territory. The British government regarded the action as an
invasion of a territory that had been a Crown colony since 1841. Falkland Islanders,
who have inhabited the islands since the early 19th century, are predominantly
descendants of British settlers, and strongly favor British sovereignty. Neither state
officially declared war, although both governments declared the Islands a war zone.
Hostilities were almost exclusively limited to the territories under dispute and the area
of the South Atlantic where they lie.

The Falklands had only three airfields. The longest and only paved runway was at the
capital, Stanley, and even that was too short to support fast jets. Therefore, the
Argentines were forced to launch their major strikes from the mainland, severely
hampering their efforts at forward staging, combat air patrols, and close air support
over the islands. The effective loiter time of incoming Argentine aircraft was low, and
they were later compelled to overfly British forces in any attempt to attack the islands.

The British were significantly constrained by the disparity in deployable air cover.
Royal Air Force had set up the airbase of RAF Ascension Island. The Vulcan bomber
deployed from Ascension flew on an 8,000-nautical-mile round trip dropping
conventional bombs across the runway at Stanley (longest Falkland island runway).
This situation was a logistically daunting and resource intensive task and the
effectiveness remains to be undetermined

The Argentine Air Force was restricted to one base that could support fast fighter jets,
this resulted in effectively reducing loiter time and ability in forward staging of
aircrafts.

13 | P a g e
Refernce: "Falkland Islands History Roll of Honour". Royal Air Force. Archived from the original on 2 April
2015. Retrieved 8 March 2015.

14 | P a g e
6 Day War

The Six-Day also known as the June War, 1967 Arab–Israeli War, was fought
between 5 and 10 June 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at
the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria.

In the months prior to June 1967, tensions became dangerously heightened. Israel
reiterated its post-1956 position that the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli
shipping would be a cause for war (a casus belli). In May Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser announced that the straits would be closed to Israeli vessels and then
mobilized its Egyptian forces along its border with Israel. On 5 June, Israel launched
what it claimed were a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields. The
question of which side caused the war is one of a number of controversies relating to
the conflict.

The Egyptians were caught by surprise, and nearly the entire Egyptian air force was
destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving the Israelis air supremacy. Simultaneously,
the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, which again
caught the Egyptians by surprise. After some initial resistance, Nasser ordered the
evacuation of the Sinai. Israeli forces rushed westward in pursuit of the Egyptians,
inflicted heavy losses, and conquered the Sinai.

Jordan had entered into a defense pact with Egypt a week before the war began; the
agreement envisaged that in the event of war Jordan would not take an offensive role
but would attempt to tie down Israeli forces to prevent them making territorial gains.
About an hour after the Israeli air attack, the Egyptian commander of the Jordanian
army was ordered by Cairo to begin attacks on Israel; in the initially confused
situation, the Jordanians were told that Egypt had repelled the Israeli air strikes.

The Israeli success was the result of a well-prepared and enacted strategy, the poor
leadership of the Arab states, and their poor military leadership and strategy. Israel
seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank, including
East Jerusalem, from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

To summarize,

 Absence of effective air defense was a critical factor to the war

 Israel invested into alpha strikes, effectively destroying entire enemy air force
on the ground.
 With absolutely no opposition Israel brought 3 countries to knees in only 6
days
References: [Link]

15 | P a g e
 Chapter 2

Literature Survey

F-14 Tomcat

Fig 1

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is an American supersonic, twin-engine, two-seat,

twin-tail, variable-sweep wing fighter aircraft. It was the first such U.S. jet fighter
with twin tails. The Tomcat was developed for the United States Navy's Naval
Fighter Experimental (VFX) program after the collapse of the F-111B project. The
F-14 was the first of the American Teen Series fighters, which were designed
incorporating air combat experience against MiG fighters during the Vietnam
War.
The F-14 first flew on 18 December 1540 and made its first deployment in 1974
with the U.S. Navy aboard USS Enterprise (CVN-65), replacing the McDonnell
Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air
superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor, and tactical aerial reconnaissance
platform into the 2000s. The Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for
Night (LANTIRN) pod system were added in the 1990s and the Tomcat began
performing precision ground-attack missions.
In the 1980s, F-14s were used as land-based interceptors by the Islamic Republic
of Iran Air Force during the Iran–Iraq War, where they saw combat against Iraqi
warplanes. Iranian F-14s reportedly shot down at least 160 Iraqi aircraft during the
war, while only 12 to 16 Tomcats were lost; at least half of these losses were due
to accidents.

1|Page
The Tomcat was retired from the U.S. Navy's active fleet on 22 September 2006,
having been supplanted by the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

Design – Variable-Geometry Wings and Aerodynamics Design

The F-14's wing sweep can be varied between 20° and 68° in flight, and can be
automatically controlled by the Central Air Data Computer, which maintains wing
sweep at the optimum lift-to-drag ratio as the Mach number varies; pilots can
manually override the system if desired.

When parked, the wings can be "overswept" to 75° to overlap the horizontal
stabilizers to save deck space aboard carriers. In an emergency, the F-14 can land
with the wings fully swept to 68°, although this presents a significant safety
hazard due to greatly increased stall speed. Such an aircraft would typically be
diverted from an aircraft carrier to a land base if an incident did occur. The F-14
has flown safely with an asymmetrical wing-sweep during testing, and was
deemed able to land aboard a carrier if needed in an emergency. The wing pivot
points are significantly spaced far apart.

This has two benefits. The first

is that weaponry can be fitted on
a pylon on the fixed wing glove,
liberating the wings from having
swiveling pylons fitted, a
feature which had proven to add
significant drag on traditional
fighters of that era. Since less of
the total lifting area is variable,
the center of lift moves less as
the wings moves, reducing trim
drag at high speed. When the
wing is swept back, its
thickness-

Fig 2
to-chord ratio decreases, which allows the aircraft to satisfy the Mach 2.4 top
speed required by the U.S. Navy. The body of the aircraft contributes significantly
to overall lift and so the Tomcat possesses a lower wing loading than its wing area
would suggest. When carrying four Phoenix missiles or other heavy stores
between the engines this advantage is lost and maneuverability is reduced in those
configurations.

Ailerons are not fitted, with roll control being provided by wing-mounted spoilers
at low speed (which are disabled if the sweep angle exceeds 57°), and by
differential operation of the all-moving tailerons at high speed. Full-span slats and

2|Page
flaps are used to increase lift both for landing and combat, with slats being set at
17° for landing and 7° for combat, while flaps are set at 35° for landing and 10°
for combat. An air bag fills up the space occupied by the swept-back wing when
the wing is in the forward position and a flexible fairing on top of the wing
smooths out the shape transition between the fuselage and top wing area.

The twin tail layout helps in maneuvers at high angle of attack (AoA) while
reducing the height of the aircraft to fit within the limited roof clearance of
hangars aboard aircraft carriers. Two triangular shaped retractable surfaces, called
glove vanes, were originally mounted in the forward part of the wing glove, and
could be automatically extended by the flight control system at high Mach
numbers. They were used to generate additional lift (force) ahead of the aircraft's
center of gravity, thus helping to compensate for mach tuck at supersonic speeds.
Automatically deployed at above Mach 1.4, they allowed the F-14 to pull 7.5 g at
Mach 2 and could be manually extended with wings swept full aft. They were
later disabled, however, owing to their additional weight and complexity. The air
brakes consist of top-and-bottom extendable surfaces at the rearmost portion of
the fuselage, between the engine nacelles. The bottom surface is split into left and
right halves; the tailhook hangs between the two-halves, an arrangement
sometimes called the "castor tail".

Refernces: “Research on F-14 by NASA Langley”

[Link]

3|Page
X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research Aircraft

The McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing) X-36 Tailless Fighter Agility Research
Aircraft was an American stealthy subscale prototype jet designed to fly without
the traditional tail assembly found on most aircraft. This configuration was
designed to reduce weight, drag and radar cross section, but increase range,
maneuverability and survivability.

The X-36 was built to

28% scale of a possible
fighter aircraft, and was
controlled by a pilot in a
ground-based virtual
cockpit with a view
provided by a video
camera mounted in the
canopy of the aircraft.

For control, a canard

forward of the wing was
used as well as split
ailerons and an advanced

Fig 3
thrust vectoring nozzle for directional control. The X-36 was unstable in both
pitch and yaw axes, so an advanced digital fly-by-wire control system was used to
provide stability.

First flown on 17 May 1997, it made 31 successful research flights. It handled

very well, and the program is reported to have met or exceeded all project goals.
McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in August 1997 while the test program
was in progress; the aircraft is sometimes referred to as the Boeing X-36.

The X-36 possessed high maneuverability that would be ideal for use as a fighter.
Despite its potential suitability, and highly successful test program, there have
been no reports regarding further development of the X-36 or any derived design
as of 2017.

Reference: [Link]

4|Page
5|Page
Grumman X-29

The Grumman X-29

was an American
experimental aircraft
that tested a forward-
swept wing, canard
control surfaces, and
other novel aircraft
technologies. The X-
29 was developed by
Grumman, and the
two built were flown
by NASA and the

Fig 4
United States Air Force. The aerodynamic instability of the X-29's airframe
required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were
used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept
wings, and to reduce weight. The aircraft first flew in 1984, and two X-29s were
flight tested through 1991.

Design and development

Two X-29As were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom
Fighter airframes (63-8372 became 82-0003 and 65-10573 became 82-0049) after
the proposal had been chosen over a competing one involving a General
Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. The X-29 design made use of the forward
fuselage and nose landing gear from the F-5As with the control surface actuators
and main landing gear from the F-16. The technological advancement that made
the X-29 a plausible design was the use of carbon-fiber composites. The wings of
the X-29, made partially of graphite epoxy, were swept forward at more than 33
degrees; forward-swept wings were first trialed 40 years earlier on the
experimental Junkers Ju 287 and OKB-1 EF 131. The Grumman internal
designation for the X-29 was "Grumman Model 712" or "G-712".

Aircraft cockpit with numerous old circular dials and gauges. In front of the
controls is a black stick control column. The X-29 is described as a three-surface
aircraft, with canards, forward-swept wings, and aft strake control surfaces, using
three-surface longitudinal control. The canards and wings result in reduced trim
drag and reduced wave drag, while using the strakes for trim in situations where
the center of gravity is off provides less trim drag than relying on the canard to
compensate.

6|Page
The configuration, combined with a center of gravity well aft of the aerodynamic
center, made the craft inherently unstable. Stability was provided by the
computerized flight control system making 40 corrections per second. The flight
control system was made up of three redundant digital computers backed up by
three redundant analog computers; any of the three could fly it on its own, but the
redundancy allowed them to check for errors. Each of the three would "vote" on
their measurements, so that if any one was malfunctioning it could be detected. It
was estimated that a total failure of the system was as unlikely as a mechanical
failure in an airplane with a conventional arrangement.

The high pitch instability of the airframe led to wide predictions of extreme
maneuverability. This perception has held up in the years following the end of
flight tests. Air Force tests did not support this expectation. For the flight control
system to keep the whole system stable, the ability to initiate a maneuver easily
needed to be moderated. This was programmed into the flight control system to
preserve the ability to stop the pitching rotation and keep the aircraft from
departing out of control. As a result, the whole system as flown (with the flight
control system in the loop as well) could not be characterized as having any
special increased agility. It was concluded that the X-29 could have had increased
agility if it had faster control surface actuators and/or larger control surfaces.

Aeroelastic considerations

In a forward swept wing configuration, the aerodynamic lift produces a twisting

force which rotates the wing leading edge upward. This results in a higher angle
of attack, which increases lift, twisting the wing further. This aeroelastic
divergence can quickly lead to structural failure. With conventional metallic
construction, a torsionally very stiff wing would be required to resist twisting;
stiffening the wing adds weight, which may make the design unfeasible.

The X-29 design made use of the anisotropic elastic coupling between bending
and twisting of the carbon fiber composite material to address this aeroelastic
effect. Rather than using a very stiff wing, which would carry a weight penalty
even with the relatively light-weight composite, the X-29 used a laminate which
produced coupling between bending and torsion. As lift increases, bending loads
force the wing tips to bend upward. Torsion loads attempt to twist the wing to
higher angles of attack, but the coupling resists the loads, twisting the leading
edge downward reducing wing angle of attack and lift. With lift reduced, the loads
are reduced and divergence is avoided.

Refernce NASA Fact Sheet: [Link]

7|Page
Sukhoi Su-47

The Sukhoi Su-

47 Berkut
(Russian: Сухой
Су-47 Беркут,
lit. 'Golden
Eagle') (NATO
reporting name
Firkin), also
designated S-32
and S-37 (not to
be confused with
the twin-engine
delta canard
design offered by
Sukhoi in the
Fig 5
early 1990s under the designation Su-37) during initial development, was an
experimental supersonic jet fighter developed by Sukhoi Aviation Corporation. A
distinguishing feature of the aircraft was its forward-swept wing that gave the
aircraft excellent agility and maneuverability. While serial production of the type
never materialized, the sole aircraft produced served as a technology demonstrator
prototype for a number of advanced technologies later used in the 4.5 generation
fighter Su-35BM and current fifth-generation jet fighter Sukhoi Su-57.

Development

Originally known as the S-37, Sukhoi redesignated its advanced test aircraft as the
Su-47 in 2002. Officially nicknamed Berkut (Golden Eagle), the Su-47 was
originally built as Russia's principal testbed for composite materials and
sophisticated fly-by-wire control systems.

TsAGI has long been aware of the advantages of forward-swept wings, with
research including the development of the Tsibin LL and study of the captured
Junkers Ju 287 in the 1940s. At high angles of attack, the wing tips remain
unstalled allowing the aircraft to retain aileron control. Conversely to more
conventional rear-swept wings, forward sweep geometrically creates increased
angle of incidence of the outer wing sections when the wing bends under load.
The wings experience higher bending moments, leading to a tendency for the
wings to fail structurally at lower speeds than for a straight or aft-swept wing.

The project was launched in 1983 on order from the Soviet Air Force. But when
the USSR dissolved, funding was frozen and development continued only through

8|Page
funding by Sukhoi. Like its US counterpart, the Grumman X-29, the Su-47 was
primarily a technology demonstrator for future Russian fighters.

Design

The Su-47 is of similar dimensions to previous large Sukhoi fighters, such as the
Su-35. To reduce development costs, the Su-47 borrowed the forward fuselage,
vertical tails, and landing gear of the Su-27 family. Nonetheless, the aircraft
includes an internal weapons bay, and space set aside for an advanced radar.

Like its immediate predecessor, the Su-37, the Su-47 is of tandem-triple layout,
with canards ahead of wings and tailplanes. The Su-47 has two tailbooms of
unequal length outboard of the exhaust nozzles. The shorter boom, on the left-
hand side, houses rear-facing radar, while the longer boom houses a brake
parachute.

Maneuverability

The Su-47 has extremely high agility at subsonic speeds, enabling the aircraft to
alter its angle of attack and its flight path very quickly while retaining
maneuverability in supersonic flight. The Su-47 has a maximum speed of Mach
1.6 at high altitudes and a 9G capability. The swept-forward wing, compared to a
swept-back wing of the same area, provides a number of advantages:

 higher lift-to-drag ratio

 better agility in dogfight situations
 higher range at subsonic speed
 improved stall resistance and anti-spin characteristics
 improved stability at high angles of attack
 a lower minimum flight speed
 a shorter take-off and landing distance

Wings
The forward-swept midwing gives the Su-47 its unconventional appearance. A
substantial part of the lift generated by the forward-swept wing occurs at the inner
portion of the wingspan. This inboard lift is not restricted by wingtip stall and the
lift-induced wingtip vortex generation is thus reduced. The ailerons—the wing's
control surfaces—remain effective at the highest angles of attack, and
controllability of the aircraft is retained even in the event of airflow separating
from the remainder of the wings' surface.

A downside of such a forward-swept wing design is that it geometrically produces

wing twisting as it bends under load, resulting in greater stress on the wing than
for a similar straight or aft-swept wing. This requires the wing be designed to
twist as it bends—opposite to the geometric twisting. This is done by the use of

9|Page
composites wing skins laid-up to twist. The plane was initially limited to Mach
1.6.

Refernce: [Link]

10 | P a g e
 Chapter 3

Initial Design Research

Swept wing designs

A swept wing is a wing planform favoured for high subsonic and supersonic
speeds, and is found on almost all jet aircrafts in one form or another, as well as
some high-speed propeller aircrafts. Compared with straight wings common to
slower aircraft, they have a "swept" wing root to wingtip direction angled beyond
(usually aft ward) the span wise axis. This has the effect of delaying the drag rise
caused by fluid compressibility near the speed of sound, increasing performance.

How this works is that when air flows over the surface of a wing, due to the sweep
of the wing, the airflow is split into two components, the chordwise flow and the
spanwise flow. This splitting causes the air flowing along the chord of the wing to
slow down thus delaying the supersonic shockwave creation over the wing and
ultimately preventing drag generation over the wing.

The term "swept wing" is normally used to mean "swept back", but other swept
variants include forward sweep, variable sweep wings and pivoting wings.

Fig 6

11 | P a g e
Forward Swept Wings

A forward swept wing is an aircraft wing configuration in which the quarter-chord

line of the wing has a forward sweep. Typically, the leading edge also sweeps
forward. Typical sweep angles vary from 0 for a straight-wing aircraft, to 45
degrees or more for fighters and other high-speed designs. The Forward Swept
Wing concept is not entirely new and has in fact been used by design engineers
since World War II.

Span wise airflow over a forward-swept wing is the reverse of a conventional

swept wing. Air flowing over any swept wing tends to move span wise towards
the rearmost end of the wing. On a rearward-swept wing this is outwards towards
the tip, due to this high amount of turbulent air is created at the tip of rearward
swept wings which highly reduces maneuverability and can lead to stalling of the
important flaps and ailerons which poses a dangerous scenario for the aircraft.
While on a forward-swept wing the air flow is inwards towards the root. As a
result, the dangerous tip stall condition of a backwards-swept design becomes a
safer and more controllable root stall on a forward swept design.

Fig 7
Forward Swept V/S Aft Swept Important Parametric
Comparisons

Lift

Airfoil used for forward swept aircraft is highly cambered supercritical airfoil.
Cambered airfoil is beneficial in improving the stalling characteristics of forward
swept wings by delaying leading edge separation. The lift coefficients for the
forward and aft swept models are plotted as a function of angle of attack and for
the low and high Mach number tests, respectively. The aft swept wing produced a
higher lift coefficient for a given angle of attack as compared to the forward swept
wing. As the Mach number was increased to high subsonic values, the aft swept
model lift curves tended to shift toward the forward swept model lift curves until
the - two curves varied by CL equal to 0.035 at M=0.93.

12 | P a g e
The change in angle of zero lift was the major contributor to the shift of the aft
swept model lift curve. At M = 0.63 the zero-lift angle for the aft swept model
was -3.2 degrees whereas at M = 0.93, it became -2.0 degrees. The forward swept
model had an angle of zero lift which varied between -2.0 and -1.6 degrees. The
aft swept model showed signs of stalling at a lower angle of attack than the
forward swept model for all Mach numbers tested.

Fig 8
Drag
For M=0.63 the drag coefficient at zero angle of attack, CDo, was 0.038 for the
forward swept model and 0.042 for the aft swept model. As Mach number was
increased to M = 0.93, the values of CDo changed to 0.042 and 0.051 for the
forward and aft models, respectively. For all Mach numbers tested the forward
swept model displayed less drag up to approximately ten degrees alpha. Above
this angle the two drag curves crossed and the forward swept model produced
more drag for a given alpha.

Fig 9

13 | P a g e
(L/D) Max
The maximum lift to drag ratio may be determined by drawing the tangent to the
CD versus CL curve from the origin. For M=0.63, this yields an L/Dmax for the
aft swept model of 8.3 at a CL of 0.51. For the forward swept model, this ratio
was 8.4 at a CL of 0.48.

Fig 10

This corresponds to an angle of attack of 4.1 degrees and 6.2 degrees for the aft
and forward swept models, respectively.

Fig 11

Referencce: [Link]

14 | P a g e
Findings and Inference
It was concluded that the forward swept aircraft was capable of a higher usable
AOA than aft swept wing. For each Mach no., the lift co-efficient obtained for the
aft swept wing was matched by the forward swept wing but required higher AOA.
When the aft swept wing stalls, the forward swept wing lift curve continued to
increase up to the highest AOA.

Drag co-efficient of forward swept aircraft was constantly lower than aft swept
aircraft for CL<=0.50 and AOA<=8 degrees. It indicates that forward swept wing
can be used more efficiently than aft swept wing, thus required less fuel. But as
Mach no. increases the forward swept wing produces large amounts of drag even
at extremely low AOAs. This is undesirable for supersonic speeds as it reduces
engine efficiency, thus preventing the aircraft from attaining high speeds easily.
Also flow separation at the root of the wing leads to reduced effectiveness of the
wing. So, its recommended to use forward swept wing in conjunction with close
coupled canard.

15 | P a g e
 Chapter 4

Prandtl-D Wing and the Application of Canard

As seen from the results and inferences in the previous chapter, a FSW
configuration produces high amounts of drag and reduced lift in speeds of Mach 1.
To improve these undersirable aerodynamic inefficiencies, we implement the
Prandtld-D wing concept along with closed coupled canards which will have a
combined effect of improving the lift-Drag ratio of the FSW configuration. Hence
the simulations and analysis, carried out in chapter 5, will consist the aerodynamic
analysis of the FSW configuration with the implementation of the Prandtl-D wing
concept.

Benefits and Drawbacks of a FSW

Wing sweep is mainly used to improve handling qualities and aerodynamic
efficiencies of aircrafts at high angles of attack and in supersonic flight regimes.
Although aft swept aircrafts are more common, forward swept aircrafts provide
better aerodynamic efficiencies. This is because by sweeping the wings forward
the flow is made to take place from wing tips towards the root. Therefore, the tip
stall problem inherent in backward swept wings is eliminated. Instead stall tends
to occur at the root of the wings away from the tip keeping the separated flow of
air away from the ailerons and giving the pilot full control over them even beyond
the stall. This tendency of stall tending to happen at rear part induces a high lift
leading to higher pitching moment co-efficient. Higher the pitching moment,
lesser is the stability and hence high manoeuvrability. Benefits of the forward over
aft sweep include improved lateral control at high angles of attack, lower wing
profile drag and trim drag as well as wave drag by utilizing fuselage contouring
and increased fuselage design freedom.

These increased benefits are often offset due to an increase in structural

components, to overcome flutter and wing tip divergence due to high loading of
the wing tips at high angles of attack. These instabilities are mainly produced by
aerodynamic forces that produce a twisting motion about an axis along the wing
span. High loading at wing tips thus create an unstable load case. This wing
loading may lead to flutter or wing tip divergence, and ultimately result in
structural failure. To overcome this airframe failure, out of plane moments must
be coupled with the deformations throughout the wing span. Multiple stiffeners
made out of composite materials are used to increase the coupling forces and
moments in an isotropic wing material. Advances in materials and manufacturing
have increased the strength and reduced the cost of composite materials, allowing
them to become a common feature in many aircraft components. The use of
composite materials and aeroelastic tailoring of the structures eliminates these
instabilities without a significant increase in weight. Composite materials allow
aeroelastic tailoring, so that as the wing approaches the stall it twists as it bends,
so as to reduce the angle of attack at the tips. This ensures that the stall occurs at

16 | P a g e
the wing root, making it more predictable and allowing the ailerons to retain full
control.

Prandtl-D Wing
NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Centre engineers in Edwards, California have
developed a complex wing called the Preliminary Research Aerodynamic Design
to Lower Drag, or Prandtl-D wing. This features a new method for determining
the shape of the wing with a twist that could lead to an 11-percent reduction in
drag. The concept may also lead to significantly enhanced controllability that
could eliminate the need for a vertical tail and potentially to new aircraft designs.
Prandtl-D wings use a twist to tailor the lift distribution across the aircraft’s wing,
which is bell shaped rather than the traditional elliptical shape, which leads to
more efficient flight. In fact, engineers estimate future aircraft could see more than
a 30 percent increase in fuel economy by using the new methods of wing design
and eliminating the weight of the modern aircraft tail and its flight control
surfaces. In that regard, Prandtl-D research also borrows from how birds fly. Birds
turn and bank without vertical tails that are required for such manoeuvres on
traditional aircraft, but not on the Prandtl aircraft.

Fig 12
The implementation of the Prabdtl-D wing to the forward swept wing and
aerodynamical analysis of the new wing configuration obtained will be carried out
in Ansys Fluent. Since forward swept wings have lesser aerodynamic stability
performance characteristics and greater manoeuvrability at transonic and
supersonic Mach ranges than that of aft swept wings, significant changes will
have to be made in the air foil design to improve these performance
characteristics. The application of the Prandtl-D wing is predicted to improve the
performance characteristics of forward swept wings, making it a more viable
option over aft swept wings. A series of forward swept wing configurations will
be modelled in Solidworks and supersonic flow simulations will be run in the
ANSYS software.

17 | P a g e
International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) – Volume 54 Number2 December 2017

Implementation of the Concept

 Modification of the FSW by employing a span-wise twist over a
supercritical air foil and aerodynamic analysis of it using Ansys Fluent.
 Analysis to determine whether the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing
are enhanced upon its modification using the Prandtl-D concept.
The use of Prandtl-D concept includes a span wise twist geometrically. The
position of twist was fixated at the tip chord. The only parameter that was altered
was the twist angle located at the tip chord, angles of +2 were given to the base
wing configuration in order to obtain values. This along with a zero twist, as the
base wing configuration was modelled for testing.

Application of Canards

Fig 13

A canard is a small forewing or foreplane that is placed forward of the main wing.
It essentially acts as an additional lift creating aero device that makes an aircraft
highly manoeuvrable and aerodynamically efficient. Due to these factors it can
also effectively replace an aircraft’s tail. As time progressed, researchers began
seeing canards not for just lift generation but also for control of an aircraft’s
maneuverability. This led to usage of canard configurations to better control the
main wing airflow, to increase maneuverability at high angles of attack and during
stall. At very high angles of attack, with the nose high, the air along the leading
edge of the wing can generate a vortex right along the fuselage. If there is a wing
under it, this generates lift. This additional lift is undesirable as it pitches the
aircraft upwards uncontrollably and also produces high amounts of drag. Canard
configurations is a complex addition to an aircraft and affects the longitudinal
equilibrium, static and dynamic stability characteristics.

18 | P a g e
 Fig14

The idea behind coupling a Canard with FSW is to exploit the advantages of both
technologies. Since towards the end of WW2, Hitler’s Germany had already
researched and test various degrees of such an implementation for military
purpose. While the Canards provides stability and in extension maneuverability,
forward swept wing provide greater lift for less surface area which increases the
efficiency of the aircraft.

Fig 15
In the above cases, for a conventional aircraft a pitch up command would initially
decrease lift and then eventually increase as nose pitches up, but for a canard
configuration a pitch up command achieves a lift increase immediately. This
configuration provides highest degree of agility possible for a certain plane.
Canards can share the lifting load with the wings and also provide primary pitch
control, the forward swept wing would provide extra lift and multiple control

19 | P a g e
surfaces would help with various degrees of freedom of an aircraft. This also
opens an opportunity of a tailless aircraft where asymmetrical usage of ailerons
would provide roll and yaw movements to the aircraft.

Apart from that, researches also found an interesting development, that is, due the
forward swept design of the wing the aircraft will have very low stall speed and
hence provides the aircraft to fly slowly when needed. Incombat aviation, this
would translate to easy air to air refueling and gliding opportunity for recon and
intelligence. To be precise, a forward swept design offers superior
maneuverability, especially in low speeds, retaining an AoA undreamed of by a
conventional fighter. It is essentially spin-proof, it has a better lift/drag ratioand it
has lower stalling speed.

Technological advancements have made it possible to have more complex

application of canards in modern aircrafts, most importantly its application in
assisting forwards swept wings. Thus, to completely eliminate various problems
faced by a FSW, a canard is utilised to direct air flow away from the main wing
and provie additional lift. In forward swept wing designs, implementation of a
canard is a must as the orientation of the forward sweep already crates pitching
motion in the aircraft and due to flow separation at the root of the wing, drag is
created. A canard eliminates and mitigates both these problems.

Base Wing Configuration Selection

The base wing configuration was taken as in the reference paper as it gave us the
opportunity to compare a normal forward swept wing with the one that had a span
wise geometric twist (PRANDTL-D WING CONCEPT) and validate our design
and simulation process at the same time. The specifications of the base wing
configuration along with the image of the model in solidworks are given
[Link] airfoil selected is a supercritical airfoil NACA SC 20714 with
following wing geometry:

1. Wing Plan form Area- 36.6 sq.m

2. Root Chord- 2.96 m

3. Tip Chord- 1.18 m

4. Taper Ratio- 0.4

5. Wing Semi-Span- 4.145 m

6. Wing sweep- -30 degree

(forward)

20 | P a g e
 Fig 16

Chapter 5

Simulation and Analysis

The use of computer aided design and analysis packages allows designers to
analytically predict the aerodynamic and structural performance of aircrafts. This
has greatly increased the capability of the aircraft designer and reliance on these
programs has grown extensively over the years. One such example is the Boeing
777, which was the first jetliner to be almost completely digitally designed using
three-dimensional modelling analysis technology. While more than 3 million parts
were represented in the analysis and virtual mock-up, an iron-bird was still
essential for the integration of the electronics, hydraulics, and internal dynamics
of the aircraft. Although the analysis packages have numerous benefits, each
program has limitations and emphasis must be stressed on the assumptions the
program makes. Complex designs and advanced materials may be affected by the
assumptions and experimental testing is necessary to confirm theoretical
predictions.

Background
Between 1900-2020, a significant amount of data has been collected on forward
swept wings. Data ranging from flat plates in wind tunnel testing to determine
static divergence to the X-29A used for extreme flight testing. All these tests have
increased our knowledge in the realms of aerodynamics, handling and control of
the forward swept wing and its structural divergence. For example, prior
determination led to the understanding that when the FSW is in a moderate lift
range (CL ~ 0.5 to 0.7), vortex generation induces a strong inward flow over the
wing. This results in separation, causing a chord wise redistribution and a
backward shift in the aerodynamic centre accompanied by no loss of lift. As soon
as the lift range exceeds the moderate range, the wing produces vortices at the
leading-edge tip, resulting in separation at the root of the wing. A large forward
shift in the aerodynamic centre occurs due to a decrease in lift and significant
change in span wise loading.

It is not possible for the designer to predict with precision the effect of flow
separation through correlation of prior data, though the general trends of concepts
such as aerodynamics and structural divergence can be concluded from research.
Also, the structural design for the tests consists of different materials, placement
and geometries, hence it results in complications for correlation of structural
divergence of the models. Potential-flow field effects have been observed and
studied, leading to development of predictive methods although that is not the
same for effects as a result of flow separation. Potential flow panel codes are used

21 | P a g e
to calculate the distribution of pressure on an object before the separation of the
flow.

[Link]

One of such codes is the low order panel code PMARC, used at North Carolina
State University which has shown a relationship between theory and experiments
pertaining to pressure distribution when tests were conducted on a 45-degree aft
swept wing at 4-degree angle of attack. Other highly advanced programs such as
MEMS, OVERFLOW and FLUENT use a finite volume method to solve the full
Naviar Stokes equations. This makes it possible to predict the effects on the
pressure distribution for laminar separation bubbles and other regions of limited
flow. Hence in this project, we make use of ANSYS Fluent to simulate complex
pressure and velocity flow fields over the FSW configuration with a supercritical
airfoil.

Navier-Stokes Equations
The Navier-Stokes equations are considered as Newton’s second law of motion
for fluids as they govern the motion of fluids. For compressible fluids, this
translates as:

Here u is the fluid velocity, p is the fluid pressure, ρ(rho) is the fluid density and μ
(mew) is the fluid dynamic viscosity. The different terms in the equation
correspond to the following forces :-

1- The inertial forces

2- Pressure forces
3- Viscous forces
4- External forces applied to the fluid

The Navier-Stokes equation is always solved together with the continuity

equation:

Hence the Navier-Stokes equation represents the conservation of momentum

while the continuity equation represents the conservation of mass. These

22 | P a g e
equations are at the core of fluid flow simulations and modelling. Solving them,
for a particular set of boundary conditions (such as inlets, outlets, and walls),
predicts the fluid velocity and its pressure in a given geometry. Due to the
complexity of these equations, it is relatively tougher to simulate flow over
complex geometries and hence need to be computed with the help of softwares
like ANSYS Fluent.

[Link]

Reynolds and Mach Numbers

In fluid dynamics, different flow regimes are identified using nondimensional
numbers such as the Reynolds number and the Mach number. The Reynolds
number,  Re=ρUL/μ, is the ratio of inertial forces to the viscous forces. It
measures how turbulent the flow is. Low Reynolds number flows are laminar,
while higher Reynolds number flows are turbulent.

The Mach number, M=U/c, corresponds to the ratio of the fluid velocity, U, to

the speed of sound in that fluid, c. The Mach number measures the flow
compressibility.

When the Reynolds number is very small (Re≪1) , the inertial forces are very
small compared to the viscous forces and they can be neglected when solving
the NS equations. But in most engineering applications where the Reynolds
number is very high, the inertial forces are much larger than the viscous forces
and hence are classified as turbulent flow problems. Running such simulations
using the NS equations is often beyond the computational power of most of
today's computers and supercomputers. Instead, we can use a Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) formulation of the Navier-Stokes equations,
which averages the velocity and pressure fields in time. These time-averaged
equations can then be computed in a stationary way on a relatively coarse mesh,
thus drastically reducing the computing power and time required for such
simulations. The Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equation is as
follows:

Here, U and P are the time-averaged velocity and pressure, respectively. The

term μT represents the turbulent viscosity, i.e., the effects of the small-scale time-
dependent velocity fluctuations that are not solved for by the RANS equations.
The turbulent viscosity, μT, is evaluated using turbulence models. The most
common one is the k-ε turbulence model along with various other models that
cater to different applications.

23 | P a g e
Flow Compressibility

The flow compressibility is measured by the Mach number. When the Mach
number is very low, it is ok to assume that the flow is incompressible. This is
often a good approximation for liquids, which are much less compressible than
gases. In this case, the density is assumed to be constant and the continuity
equation reduces to ∇⋅u=0. In some cases, the flow velocity is large enough to
introduce significant changes in the density and temperature of the fluid. These
changes can be neglected for M<0.3. For M>0.3, however, the coupling between
the velocity, pressure, and temperature field becomes so strong that the NS and
continuity equations need to be solved together with the energy equation, the
equation for heat transfer in fluids. The energy equation predicts the temperature
in the fluid, which is needed to compute its temperature-dependent material
properties. Compressible flow can be laminar or turbulent. 

Turbulent Flow Models

Fig 17

The flow models used in CFD are the mathematical models used to simulate
various types of flows. These flow models are usually in the form of governing
equation that is Naiver Stokes equation, Euler equations and energy equations.
There are various flow models available in ANSYS Fluent to simulate wide range
of flows from laminar to turbulent.

The FSW design proposed is supposed to operate in the supersonic regime with
the minimum free stream Mach number being 1. In the supersonic regime, the
formation of shockwaves creates and dissipates a lot of energy and the flow
becomes compressible in nature with a high Reynolds number. Hence the flow
will be highly turbulent and a appropriate flow model will have to be selected. In
the laminar regime, the fluid flow can be completely predicted by solving Navier-
Stokes equations, which gives the velocity and the pressure fields. As the flow
begins to transition to turbulence, oscillations appear in the flow, despite the fact
that the inlet flow rate does not vary with time. It is then no longer possible to

24 | P a g e
assume that the flow is invariant with time. In this case, it is necessary to solve the
time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations.

In this flow regime, we have to use the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

equations, which is based on the observation that the flow field over time
contains small, local oscillations and can be treated in a time-averaged sense. For
one- and two-equation models, additional transport equations are introduced for
turbulence variables, such as the turbulence kinetic energy (k in k-ε and k-ω).

[Link]

Low Reynolds Number Models

Low Reynolds number models are models that correctly reproduces the limiting
behaviors of various flow quantities as the distance to the wall approaches zero.
The notaion “low Reynolds number” does not refer to the flow on a global scale,
but to the region close to the wall where viscous effects dominate.

Most ω-based models are low Reynolds number models by construction. But the
standard k-ε model and other commonly encountered k-ε models are not low
Reynolds number models. Some of them can, however, be supplemented with so-
called damping functions that give the correct limiting behavior. They are then
known as low Reynolds number k-ε models.

k-ε Model

The k-ε model solves for two variables: k, the turbulence kinetic energy; and ε
(epsilon), the rate of dissipation of turbulence kinetic energy. The k-ε model has
historically been very popular for industrial applications due to its good
convergence rate and relatively low memory requirements. It does not very
accurately compute flow fields that exhibit adverse pressure gradients, strong
curvature to the flow, or jet flow. It does perform well for external flow problems
around complex geometries.

k-ω Model

The k-ω model is similar to the k-ε model, but it solves for ω (omega); the specific
rate of dissipation of kinetic energy. It is a low Reynolds number model. It is more
nonlinear, and thereby more difficult to converge than the k-ε model. The k-ω
model is useful in many cases where the k-ε model is not accurate, such as
internal flows, flows that exhibit strong curvature, separated flows, and jets.

Low Reynolds Number k-ε Model

25 | P a g e
The low Reynolds number k-ε model is similar to the k-ε model, except fot the
fact that it can solve for the flow everywhere. It is a logical extension of the k-ε
model and shares many of its advantages, but generally requires a denser mesh;
not only at walls, but everywhere its low Reynolds number properties kick in and
dampen the turbulence. It can sometimes be useful to use the k-ε model to first
compute a good initial condition for solving the low Reynolds number k-ε model.

The low Reynolds number k-ε model can compute lift and drag forces and heat
fluxes can be modeled with higher accuracy compared to the k-ε model. It has also
shown to predict separation and reattachment quite well for a number of cases.

[Link]

SST Model

The SST model is a combination of the k-ε model in the free stream and the k-ω
model near the surface. It is a low Reynolds number model and kind of the “go to”
model for industrial applications. It has similar resolution requirements to the k-ω
model and the low Reynolds number k-ε model, but its formulation eliminates
some weaknesses displayed by pure k-ω and k-ε models.

Selection of the Flow Model and Solver

The selection of the turbulent flow model k-ω-SST was done for flow simulation
of the FSW design in ANSYS Fluent. This was done dor the following reasons:

 The basic k-ω flow model gives very accurate results close to the surface
of the wing, thus helping in the study of the boundary layer.
 The k-ω SST model, which is a modification of the standard k-ω flow
model, is known for its good behaviour in regions of adverse pressure
gradients and separating flow. This will help produce more accurate results
of lift and drag for the specific wing design.
 The SST formulation also switches to a k-ϵ behaviour in the free-stream,
which avoids the k-ω problem of the model being very sensitive to the
inlet free-stream turbulence properties. 

There are many solver setting to choose from in ANSYS Fluent. The solver
settings chosen determine the accuracy of the solution. The main choice between
solvers for supersonic flows is between pressure based solver and density based
solver. Pressure based solver was historically developed and used for low speed,
incompressible laminar flows and the density based solver was developed with
high speed compressible flows in mind. But now both solving techniques have
evolved and can be used for a wide range of flows from low speed incompressible
flows to high speed compressible flows.

26 | P a g e
Initialization of geometry and Meshing
The IGES file of the wing geometry modelled on Solidworks was imported to
ANSYS for pre-processing flow domain around the imported wing geometry and
the two bodies were combined using a Boolean subtract operation using the wing
geometry as the tool body and the domain as the solid. Then the resultant
geometry was meshed with unstructured free mesh of relevance centre as fine.
The meshed files in the wireframe configuration are shown below.

Fig 18

Ansys Solver
After setting up the boundary conditions and the solver, then the number of
iterations is given. The number of iterations may change from one case to another
as the inlet velocity conditions vary as a function of the angle of attack. But the
calculation is continued until convergence of value is achieved in all the important
parameters. Convergence criteria are the criteria that must be met for the solution
to be accurate. In FLUENT, the variation of values of various variables such as x
velocity, y velocity etc. are tracked over each iteration and plotted. If the graph
shows too much variation of the value of the parameter, then additional iterations
are done until convergence is reached. The number of iterations varies from one
simulation to another because of the change in geometry and change in the inlet
velocity conditions.

27 | P a g e
 Fig 19

Results
The plots show a considerable rise in lift force and drop in drag force with the
implementation of a 2-degree twist. This in turn signifies a rise in L/D ratio thus
proving better aerodynamic performance characteristics.

The base wing had a lift force of 459,690 N and a drag force of 13,721 N. Thus an
L/D ratio of 33.5.

Fig 20

28 | P a g e
 Fig 21

For the FSW with the implementation of a positive 2 degree twist we see a greater
lift force value of 538,470 N and a smaller drag force value of 13,412 N. Thus an
L/D ratio of 40.15.

Fig 22

29 | P a g e
 Fig 23

It is evident from the lift and drag graphs obtained after analysis that the
application of the Prandtl-D wing was successful in improving the aerodynamic
characteristics of the forward swept wing. It resulted in an increase of L/D ratio by
19.8% and subsequently an increase in lift by 17% and decrease in drag by 2.5%.
These number can further be refined by increasing span and thus increasing the
surface area affected by the positive twist at the tip.

Chapter 6

Conclusions
With respect to the above discussed results, it can be concluded that the positive
span- wise twist provides an increment in Lift to drag ratio. But when the co-
efficient of lift and drag are being compared, forward swept wing with the 2-
degree twist came out as a configuration with better aerodynamic performance.
Thus, employing a small positive twist in a forward swept wing implies better
aerodynamic performance and hence the better Range, Endurance and other
essential aerodynamic characteristics which could greatly affect military aviation.

Further the use of forward canards with this configuration will improve its
aerodynamic characteristics further and make the aircraft more reliable.

Future scope

30 | P a g e
Only the CFD analysis is being carried out for the forward swept wing with span-
wise twist. Further studies on the concept can be made by fabricating a wind
tunnel testable model with pressure ports and testing in a transonic- supersonic
wind tunnel and calculations can be carried out. The obtained experimental results
can be compared with this simulated data. Research can be brought about to reach
the optimized level of stability and control.

Further an analysis with the actual canard configuration can be carried out to
measure the impact it has on the forward swept wings.

References

[1] International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT) –

Volume 54 Number2 December 2017

[2] Edwin J. Saltzman and John W. Hicks, “In-flight lift-drag characteristics for
a forward-swept wing aircraft”, NASA Technical paper 3414.

[3] Kenneth L. Sims, B.S, “An aerodynamic investigation of a forward swept

wing”, Air University, United States Air Force.

[4] Charles D Harris, “NASA Supercritical airfoils”, NASA Technical paper

2969.

31 | P a g e
[5] W. F. Lindsey, Bernard N. Daley, and Milton D. Humphreys, “The flow and
force characteristics of supersonic airfoils at high subsonic speeds”, NACA
Technical note No.1211.

[6] Richard, “Review of nasa supercritical airfoils”, Whitcomb, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton,
Virginia.

[7] Franklin W Diederich and Barnard Budiansky, “Divergence of swept wings”

NACA TN.1680.

[8] John.D Anderson, “Fundamentals of aerodynamics”, McGrawHill Inc.

[9] John.D Anderson, “Introduction to flight”, McGraw-Hill Inc.

[10] John.D Anderson, Jr, “Computational Fluid Dynamics”, McGraw-Hill In

[11] [Link]
application/

[12] [Link]

[13][Link]
sequence=1

[14] [Link]

32 | P a g e
1|Page