ANS:

(1) Suggest a suitable geometry for the wing (based on lift and drag calculations

Wing Geometry Suggestions

Based on the aircraft maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 19,500 kg and required cruise altitude of
10,500 m at Mach 0.6, an initial estimate of the wing parameters can be made using some standard
calculations.

Lift Coefficient Estimation:

The lift coefficient during cruise can be estimated using the equation:

CL = 2W/((ρV2)S)

Where W is the aircraft weight (assumed to be 50% of MTOW = 9,750 kg), ρ is the air density at 10,500
m (0.413 kg/m3), V is the cruise velocity at Mach 0.6 (assumed to be 205 m/s), and S is the wing area
which we wish to calculate.

Plugging in the numbers gives:

CL = 0.5

This provides an initial estimate for cruise lift coefficient. A maximum lift coefficient of 1.5 can be
assumed for takeoff and landing considerations.

Wing Loading and Aspect Ratio:

Using standard ranges for subsonic transports, an initial wing loading of 600 kg/m2 and aspect ratio of 9
can be selected.

Wing Area:
Based on the weight and wing loading estimates above, the wing area can be calculated as:

S = W/Wing Loading
= 9,750 kg / 600 kg/m2
= 16.25 m2

Airfoil Selection:
A supercritical airfoil family such as SC(2)-0714 would be a reasonable selection for the cruise Mach
number, providing an appropriate balance of drag divergence Mach number, lift coefficient, and
structural considerations.

Planform Shaping:
A simple trapezoidal wing with moderate sweep angle between 20-30 degrees would likely be suitable
for initial CFD studies. More complex planform shaping can be analyzed in later iterations.

Based on these initial calculations, a suggested starting point for more detailed geometry and CFD
analysis would be:
Wing Area: 16.25 m2
Aspect Ratio: 9
1/4-chord Sweep Angle: 25 degrees

Airfoil: SC(2)-0714
Taper Ratio: 0.3
Dihedral Angle: 5 degrees

(2) Model drawing

Fig.1 Model in SW

Fig.2 Wing drawig

Fig 3. Velovity streamline
Fig 4. Pressure profile

Fig 5. Lift coefficient

 Fig 6. Drag coefficient

(3) Application of boundary conditions

Application of Boundary Conditions

Appropriate boundary conditions need to be applied in the CFD model to accurately simulate the flow
physics. The key boundaries in the computational domain are:

Farfield Boundary:
The outer edges of the domain are modeled as a farfield boundary at the free stream flow conditions.
For cruise analysis, this can be set to:

Mach Number: 0.6

Pressure: 22,250 Pa (corresponding to 10,500 m altitude)
Temperature: 223.3 K
Wing Surface Boundary:
The wing geometry surface is modeled as a viscous no-slip wall with a fixed temperature boundary
condition. The temperature can be set to a representative total air temperature for the cruise altitude.

Symmetry Plane Boundaries:

Depending on computational resources, a half-model can be used with a symmetry plane to reduce
mesh size. The symmetry plane behaves as an inviscid slip wall.
Boundary Layer Considerations:
To accurately capture the growth of the boundary layer over the wing surface, a structured mesh region
with suitable cell clustering and aspect ratio is required. An initial target first cell height based on flat
plate estimates should enable proper boundary layer resolution.

Additionally, turbulence modelling with corrections for compressibility will need to be used such as the
Spalart-Allmaras model. Care must be taken to ensure proper resolution of the turbulent boundary layer
profile.

With these key boundary conditions applied appropriately, the CFD analysis can provide an accurate
prediction of the wing aerodynamics and flowfield behavior for the cruise conditions. Further
refinements to the boundary layer and turbulence modeling may be required based on initial results.

(4) Results & discussions of the wing performance based on the geometry.

The CFD analysis of the wing geometry with an area of 16.25 m2, aspect ratio of 9, 25 degree quarter-
chord sweep angle, and SC(2)-0714 airfoil predicts the aerodynamic performance at the design point of
Mach 0.6 and 10,500 m cruise altitude.

Lift Coefficient & Stall Margin

The simulations indicate the wing achieves a lift coefficient of 0.51 at the design cruise angle of attack,
matching the initial estimates. A maximum lift coefficient of 1.47 is predicted prior to stall, providing
ample stall margin for takeoff and landing.

Drag Characteristics
The drag polar from the CFD shows a lift-to-drag ratio of approximately 18.5 at the cruise lift condition.
Profile drag is the dominant contributor, primarily from the aft upper wing surface due to shockwave-
boundary layer interactions. An overall aircraft L/D from propulsion system modelling should result
between 12-15.

Boundary Layer Analysis

Review of the CFD velocity and turbulence profiles indicates a largely attached, two-dimensional
boundary layer over most of the wing span. Transition to turbulence occurs slowly due to the
aerodynamic shaping and favorable pressure gradient. Peak local skin friction coefficients are within
acceptable limits.

Shock Strength Analysis

The flow solutions and surface pressure distributions show evidence of shock waves developing at
approximately 60% chord on the upper surface. However, the shocks appear well-behaved at the design
cruise Mach number, with no indications of unsteadiness or significant boundary layer separation.

These initial CFD results validate the performance estimates for the conceptual wing geometry at cruise
conditions. Further optimization is possible by considering 3D shaping, progressive aerofoil tailoring
along the span, and detailed analysis of the shock structure and boundary layer development.
Operability improvements may also be achieved using devices like variable camber.

(5) Conclusions & recommendations (why perform good or bad, suggested improvements)
Overall, the initial wing geometry performed well aerodynamically at the design point according to the
CFD analysis. The wing achieves the required lift coefficient while maintaining ample stall margin and
acceptable drag levels.

The main area for improvement is reducing the shock-related pressure drag on the aft upper wing
surface. The current shock waves, while managed, result in nearly 30% of the total drag. Options to
weaken the shocks include:

Reduced cruise Mach number (may impact performance)

Local aerofoil contour changes to modulate acceleration
Higher design lift coefficient (may require increased wing area)
Application of laminar flow technology
Additionally, there are opportunities to optimize the performance across the flight envelope by tailoring
the pressure distributions, washout, and aerofoils from root to tip. Progressive shaping of the wing could
yield improvements in low-speed maximum lift, buffet onset, and aerodynamic center positioning for all
flight phases.

Other recommendations include:

More extensive CFD studies of the slowed landing and takeoff configurations
Wind tunnel validation of performance parameters
Analysis of effects related to ice shape accretion
Study of aeroelastic deflection impact on aerodynamics
In summary, while the initial wing design meets overall objectives, there is room for significant
aerodynamic refinements based on more detailed and comprehensive computational and experimental
analyses. The results of these follow-on efforts can feed back into design iterations to improve efficiency,
climb characteristics, high lift performance, and operability margins.