Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, 60:62 | Cite as

Performance improvements of helicopter basic fuselage model by passive vortex generators

  • Fabrizio De GregorioEmail author
Research Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Wind-tunnel tests of a heavy-class helicopter model were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of a passive flow control system in alleviating fuselage parasite drag. An array of counter-rotating vortex generators was installed to reduce/remove the flow separation occurring on the rear-loading ramp responsible for the high-pressure drag. Novel technical solutions for the VGs’ design and location were selected compared to the previous work. A geometrically scaled 1:7 basic fuselage of a heavy-class helicopter was investigated with and without a passive flow control system using various measurement techniques. In particular, pressure measurements and stereo particle image velocimetry surveys were performed to obtain physical insights into load measurements. This paper reports promising results from wind-tunnel experiments, including the observation of significant drag reduction for a wide range of fuselage angles of attack and side slip angles without a negative impact on other aerodynamic characteristics.

Graphical abstract

List of symbols

\({B_{{\text{VG}}}}\)

VG base (m)

\({C_{\text{D}}}\)

Fuselage drag coefficient, drag/(qACS)

\({C_{\text{L}}}\)

Fuselage lift coefficient, lift/(qACS)

\({C_{\text{p}}}\)

Pressure coefficient, (p − ps)/q

\(D\)

Fuselage drag force in the wind axis (N)

\(H\)

Fuselage height (maximum) (m)

\({H_{{\text{VG}}}}\)

VG height (maximum) (m)

\(L\)

Fuselage length (m)

\({L_{{\text{VG}}}}\)

VG length (m)

\(Re\)

Reynolds number, U L/ν

\({U_\infty }\)

Freestream velocity (m/s)

\({\text{VG}}\)

Vortex generator

\(W\)

Fuselage width (maximum) (m)

\(x/L\)

Normalized streamwise coordinate

\(y/W\)

Normalized spanwise coordinate

\(z/H\)

Normalized vertical coordinate

\(\alpha\)

Fuselage angle of attack (°)

\({\alpha _{{\text{VG}}}}\)

VG pitch angle (°)

\(\beta\)

Fuselage yaw angle (°)

δ*

Boundary layer displacement thickness

\(\phi\)

Upsweep angle (°)

\(\nu\)

Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

\(\rho\)

Density (kg/m3)

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work has been partially founded by the European Union in the framework of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement number: CSJU-GAM-GRC-2008-01. The author would like to acknowledge P. L. Vitagliano, G. Ceglia, G. Spaziani, F. Michaux, S. Kallweit and the LWTE colleagues for the valuable support provided during the measurement campaign. A special thank you to my friend Prof. Nathan Tubliz for his help in making the article legible.

References

  1. Allan BG, Schaeffler NW (2011) Numerical investigation of rotorcraft fuselage drag reduction using active flow control. In: Proceedings of 67th annual forum of American Helicopter Society, paper 111, Virginia Beach, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. Barlow JW, Rae WH, Pope A (1999) Wind tunnel testing, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Batrakov AS, Kusyumov AN, Mikhailov SA, Pakhov VV, Sungatullin AR, Zherekhov VV, Barakos GN (2013) A study in helicopter fuselage drag. In: Proceeding of 39th European rotorcraft forum, Moskow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Hamou E, Arad E, Seifert A (2007) Generic transport aft-body drag reduction using active flow control. Flow Turbul Combust 78:365.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10494-007-9070-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boniface CA (2014) Computational framework for helicopter fuselage drag reduction using vortex generators. In: Paper AHS2014-000224, 70th annual forum, Montréal, Québec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Breitsameter C, Grawunder M, Reß R (2014) Aerodynamic design optimization for a helicopter configuration including a rotating head. In: Proceedings of 29th international congress of the aeronautical sciences, San Petersburg, Russia ICAS 2014_0686_paperGoogle Scholar
  7. Çengel YA, Cimbala JM (2004) Fluid mechanics. Fundamentals and applications. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 510–560Google Scholar
  8. De Gregorio F (2012) Flow field characterization and interactional aerodynamics analysis of a complete helicopter. Aerosp Sci Technol J 19:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Gregorio F (2019) Helicopter fuselage model drag reduction by active flow control systems. J Am Helicopter Soc 64(2):1–15Google Scholar
  10. Gad-el-Hak M (1996) Modern developments in flow control. Appl Mech Rev 49:365–379.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3101931 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gatard J, Costes M, Kroll N, Renzoni P, Kokkalis A, Rocchetto A, Serr C, Larrey E, Filippone A, Wehr D (1997) High Reynolds number helicopter fuselage test in the ONERA F1 pressurized wind tunnel. In: Proceeding of the 23rd European rotorcraft forum, paper 167, Dresden, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibertini G, Boniface JC, Zanotti A, Droandi G, Auteri F, Gaveriaux R, Le Pape A (2015) Helicopter drag reduction by vortex generators. Aerosp Sci Technol 47:324–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grawunder M, Reβ R, Breitsamter C (2014) Helicopter haft-body drag reduction by passive flow control. In: 40th European rotorcraft forum, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  14. Jimenez R, De Gregorio F, Legrand M, Nogueira J (2016) Characterization of the flow around a fuselage equipped with vortex generators for drag reduction. In: 18th international symposium on the application of laser and imaging techniques to fluid mechanics, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  15. Joslin RD, Miller DN (2009) Fundamentals and applications of modern flow control. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics series, vol 231. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, RestonGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin PB, Tung C, Hassan AA, Cerchie D, Roth J (2005) Active flow control measurements and CFD on a transport helicopter fuselage. In: Proceedings of 61st annual forum of American Helicopter Society, paper 61, Grapevine, TXGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin PB, Overmeyer AD, Tanner PE, Wilson JS, Jenkins LN (2014) Helicopter fuselage active flow control in the presence of a rotor. In: Proceedings of 70th annual forum of American Helicopter Society, paper 335, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. Raffel M, De Gregorio F, de Groot K, Schneider O, Sheng W, Gibertini G, Seraudie A (2011) On the generation of a helicopter aerodynamic database. Aeronaut J 115:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Renaud T, Le Pape A, Pèron S (2012) Numerical analysis of hub and fuselage drag breakdown of a helicopter configuration. In: Proceeding of the 38th European rotorcraft forum, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  20. Schaeffler NW, Allan BG, Lienard C, Le Pape A (2010) Progress towards fuselage drag reduction via active flow control: a combined CFD and experimental effort. In: Proceedings of 36th European rotorcraft forum, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  21. Seddon J (1983) Further studies in helicopter body aerodynamics. In: Proceeding of 9th European rotorcraft forum, Stresa, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Seddon J (1990) Basic helicopter aerodynamics. BSP Professional Books, Boston (ISBN 0-632-02032-6) Google Scholar
  23. Stroub RH, Rabbot JP (1975) Wasted fuel another reason for drag reduction. In: Proceeding of 31st annual forum of the American Helicopter Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Zanotti A, Droandi G, Auteri F, Gibertini G, Le Pape A (2016) Robustness and limits of vortex generator effectiveness in helicopter drag reduction. J Am Helicopter Soc 61(3):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aerodynamic and Icing Measurement Methodologies LaboratoryItalian Aerospace Research Centre-CIRACapuaItaly

Personalised recommendations