{"id":354,"date":"2016-09-18T15:06:20","date_gmt":"2016-09-18T20:06:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/charles-oneill.com\/blog\/?p=354"},"modified":"2016-09-18T15:06:20","modified_gmt":"2016-09-18T20:06:20","slug":"low-aspect-ratio-wings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/charles-oneill.com\/blog\/low-aspect-ratio-wings\/","title":{"rendered":"Low Aspect Ratio Wings"},"content":{"rendered":"

Back in 2006 as part of an independent study course, I used an inviscid CFD solver to estimate the aerodynamic performance of actual low aspect ratio wing configurations. The report (lowargeometryco2006.pdf<\/a>) was written in a handbook style inspired by the classic Hoerner Lift and Drag<\/a> books.\u00a0 \"lowarconfigs\"<\/a>The configurations were: monoplane, biplane, joined-tip biplane “box”, disc, monoplane with endplates, and a shroud cowl. Biplane gap, stagger, and decalage were considered. Performance criteria such as lift slope, induced drag, lift to drag ratio (L\/D) were compared for multiple configurations and aspect ratios.\"lowar-liftslope\"<\/a>The final portion of the report provides a visual display of the pressures and flow fields near the configurations.<\/p>\n

Wake rollup of an AR=1 wing:<\/p>\n

\"lowarwakerollup\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Wake aft of a biplane:<\/p>\n

\"lowarbiplanewake\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Pressure field interference with respect to biplane gap.<\/p>\n

\"lowarbiplanegap\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The full report from 2006 is available: LowARGeometryco2006<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The report was intended to support the OSU 2007 AIAA Design\/Build\/Fly teams during a competition year where the total aircraft span was severely limited:<\/p>\n