Use of Vortex Lattice Method in Transonic Applications

Click For Summary
A user seeks to model a transonic wing using the MATLAB-based VLM code Tornado, which includes a Prandtl-Glauert correction, despite its limitations at M=0.8. They question the reliability of span loading outputs for preliminary design and drag estimates, suggesting that uniform span loading might still provide useful insights. Responses indicate that assuming uniform span loading is flawed due to the non-uniform nature of shock formation across the wing. Additionally, another user shares their experience with LamDes, noting that the Prandtl-Glauert correction had minimal impact at high Mach numbers, resulting in a 15% relative error in span loading compared to Fluent. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities of transonic flow modeling and the potential inaccuracies of using simplified approaches.
Harmonic
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm looking for an aerodynamic code to model a transonic (say around M=0.8) wing for some basic structural sizing and performance estimation. I'm hoping to use the MATLAB based VLM code Tornado. It has an inbuilt Prandtl-Glauert correction option. I realize that this is technically applicable only below transonic speeds (say M<0.7) but I was wondering if:

  1. The span loading outputs would be acceptable for some preliminary design studies and spar/cover sizing?
  2. The drag estimates would be useful in any way?

My initial thoughts are that the span loading could be used for preliminary sizing as although the model will not include the effect of shocks, my thinking is that this will be approximately uniform along the span. Therefore a difference in lift (between the P-G correction and a model including shocks) will be the same along the span and so the loading will be the same. How does that sound?

As far as performance estimate goes... Given my above argument I also believed the induced drag values will be usable. I could then tack on viscous and wave drag data and bob's your mother's brother!

I'd really appreciate any thoughts on my reasoning here, if it's good/bad/needs modification, other points to consider that I've missed or suggested relevant reading (as I'm struggling to find anything specifically on this topic). Thanks for reading!

David
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not think that will work. First, assuming a uniform span load distribution is probably not a great approximation. More importantly though the effects of shocks are not uniform across the span. The shock will not necessarily form everywhere on the wing at once. Even at a sufficient speed to generate a shock along the entire span the shock will not be at the chord wise location and will therefore not affect each part of the wing in the same way.

Transonic flow is harder because the governing potential flow equation is no longer linear.

I do not work in transonic flow so perhaps someone else can provide more insight than me.
 
Thanks for your reply random guy.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that I'd use a uniform span load distribution, because then why use a VLM code at all!

I understand that the effect of the shock will not be the same everywhere on the wing, but I was thinking this might not be too bad a first order model of it to get a span loading, and I suppose that's what I was looking for comments on.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

I´ve been using LamDes (also some VLM, for modelling lifting surfaces as thin plates)
and the used Prandtl-Glauert correction was insignifcant for high Mach numbers (M>0,8).
The span loading from the planforms calculated with LamDes had an relative error about 15% (validated with Fluent).
Unfortunately I have no experience with tornado.
 
Thread 'General principle of turbomachinery: true also for rocket turbopumps?'
A rule of thumb of aircraft engineers is every 10% increase in the power level engines are run at corresponds to a 50% decrease in engine lifetime. This is a general phenomenon of turbomachinery. Then it is likely it also holds for rocket turbopumps. Then quite key is the rule also holds in reverse, every decrease in power level by 10% can result in doubling the lifetime of the engine. Then by running the engine at 0.9^5 = 0.60 power level can result in 2^5 = 32 times longer lifetime. For...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K