Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 1103–1109 | Cite as

Passive control of pitch-break of a BWB UCAV model using vortex generator

  • HoJoon Shim
  • Seung-O ParkEmail author


To examine the effect of vortex generator on pitch-break control for a BWB model having lambda wing configuration, wind tunnel experiments were conducted. Tests were carried out at two freestream velocities of 30 m/s and 60 m/s. Experimental results of the BWB model, which was modified slightly from UCAV 1303, at various angles of attack are presented. Aerodynamic force and moment coefficients and chordwise pressure distributions at several spanwise stations are included. Spanwise location of a vortex generator was selected based on pressure distributions of the BWB model at several angles of attack and through a preliminary test. Well known pitch-break or pitch-up phenomenon was identified to occur at a specific angle of attack for the case without vortex generator. When the vortex generator was installed, this pitch-break was found to be delayed to a much larger angle of attack, which might well be adopted for efficient flight control.


Flow separation Flow control Wind tunnel UCAV Vortex generator 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Schütte, D. Hummel and S. M. Hitzel, Flow physics analyses of a generic unmanned combat aerial vehicle configuration, Journal of Aircraft, 49 (6) (2012) 1638–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    T. D. Loeser, D. D. Vicroy and A. Schütte, SACCON static wind tunnel tests at DNW-NWB and 14′×22′ NASA LaRC, AIAA, 2010–4393, Jul. (2010).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Vallespin, A. D. Ronch, K. J. Badcock and O. Boelens, Vortical flow prediction validation for an unmanned combat air vehicle model, Journal of Aircraft, 48 (6) (2011) 1948–1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. M. Cummings and A. Schütte, Integrated computational/experimental approach to unmanned combat air vehicle stability and control estimation, Journal of Aircraft, 49 (6) (2012) 1542–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. C. McParlin, R. J. Bruce, A. G. Hepworth and A. J. Rae, Low speed wind tunnel tests on the 1303 UCAV concept, AIAA, 2006-2985, Jun. (2006).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    K. Petterson, Low speed aerodynamic and flowfield characteristics of a UCAV, AIAA, 2006-2986, Jun. (2006).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. J. Chung and T. Ghee, Numerical investigation of UCAV 1303 configuration with and without simple deployable vortex flaps, AIAA, 2006-2989, Jun. (2006).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M. E. Milne and M. T. Arthur, Evaluation of bespoke and commercial CFD methods for a UCAV configuration, AIAA, 2006-2988, Jun. (2006).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. D. Sosebee, Flow visualization and detailed load measurements over a maneuvering UCAV 1303, Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA (2011).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. J. Lawson and G. N. Barakos, Evaluation of DES for weapons bays in UCAVs, Aerospace Science and Technology, 14 (2010) 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Schütte, R. M. Cummings and T. Loeser, An integrated computational/experimental approach to X-31 stability & control estimation, Aerospace Science and Technology, 20 (2012) 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    O. J. Boelens, CFD analysis of the flow around the X-31 aircraft at high angle of attack, Aerospace Science and Technology, 20 (2012) 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. R. Mendenhall, S. C. Perkins Jr., M. Tomac, A. Rizzi and R. K. Nangia, Comparing and benchmarking engineering methods for the prediction of X-31 aerodynamics, Aerospace Science and Technology, 20 (2012) 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Schütte, O. J. Boelens, M. Oehlke, A. Jirásek and T. Loeser, Prediction of the flow around the X-31 aircraft using three different CFD methods, Aerospace Science and Technology, 20 (2012) 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    K. P. Werrell, Sabres over Mig alley: the F-86 and the battle for air superiority in Korea, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis (2005).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
  17. [17]
    R. Whitford, Four decades of transonic fighter design, Journal of Aircraft, 28 (12) (1991) 805–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. Chung, B. Sung and T. Cho, Wind tunnel test of MRP model using external balance, KSAS International Journal, 1 (2) (2000) 68–74.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    T. Cho, J. Chung, S. Yoon, Y. Kim and B. Sung, Upgrading and re-calibration of the KARI LSWT external balance, 2005 KSAS Conference (2005).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    AIAA R-091-2003, Calibration and Use of Internal Strain-Gage Balance with Application to Wind Tunnel Testing (2003).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Shindo, Simplified tunnel correction method, Journal of Aircraft, 32 (1) (1995) 210–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. S. Selig, R. W. Deters and G. A. Williamson, Wind tunnel testing airfoils at low Reynolds numbers, AIAA, 2011-875, Jan. (2011).Google Scholar
  23. [23]

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Aerospace EngineeringKAISTDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations