Ana C. Meinicke, Roberto G. A. da Silva, Patrice L. Guedes

DOI Number: N/A

Conference number: IFASD-2019-038

The design of the conventional configuration of commercial aircraft, composed by a tube fuselage, a cantilever wing and an empennage, has been improved since its introduction in the 1950s and it is unlikely that great improvements should occur without drastic changes. The strut braced wing aircraft presents itself as an option. The main difference lies on a strut connecting the wing to the fuselage, reducing the bending moment of the wing and, consequently, its weight. Alternatively, the wing span could be increased, or even the wing thickness decreased, without great weight penalties. This combination of geometric changes reduces drag and improves performance. To evaluate possible aeroelastic issues that might hinder the development of this configuration, a parametric flutter analysis is performed based on aircraft of regional aviation size. As a result it was observed that: (a) increasing the wing aspect ratio from 8.3 to 12 decreases the flutter speed in 20%; (b) if the engine is positioned exactly at the wing and strut intersection at 70% of the wing span instead of 50%, an increase of 30% in flutter speed is obtained; (c) and that the flutter speed can be increased by 35% if the spanwise wing and strut intersection is moved from 70% to 30 % of the span.

Read the full paper here

Email
Print
LinkedIn
The paper above was part of  proceedings of a CEAS event and as such the author has signed a publication agreement to have their paper published in the repository. In the case this paper is found somewhere else CEAS always links to the other source.  CEAS takes great care in making the correct content available to the reader. If any mistakes are found  in the listings please contact us directly at papers@aerospacerepository.org and we will correct the listing promptly.  CEAS cannot be held liable either for mistakes in editorial or technical aspects, nor for omissions, nor for the correctness of the content. In particular, CEAS does not guarantee completeness or correctness of information contained in external websites which can be accessed via links from CEAS’s websites. Despite accurate research on the content of such linked external websites, CEAS cannot be held liable for their content. Only the content providers of such external sites are liable for their content. Should you notice any mistake in technical or editorial aspects of the CEAS site, please do not hesitate to inform us.