Science Fair Project
02-21-2005 | 02:12 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: oxf,
FL
Science Fair Project
My Science fair Project on the study of the airfoil took 4th place at the Iternational Science and Engineering Fair. I thought you guys might enjoy having a gander at it. Let me know what you think.
www.freewebs.com/drewpscience
www.freewebs.com/drewpscience
02-21-2005 | 02:46 PM
#3
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Warner Robins,
GA
RE: Science Fair Project
Quite interesting. I'm curious, where did you get the idea to try "seeing" air via temperture variations? Thats a pretty cool idea.
As far as I know the military has done similar testing, but their testing was done to see temperture variations on the leading edge of SR-71's during supersonic flight. I wonder if they ever checked the data to really take a look at airflows.
Ive also thought about a variable wing as you were talking about in your "planned projects".
Ive got some ideas on how to accomplish this too.
Basically a wing constructed of small airbags in sections. A computer program to "fill" or "empty" each airbag. You could vary shape of the airfoil by programming the computer to "blow-up" individual airbags in sequence.
Picture a plane equipped with a wing of this type. It could change its airfoil shape mid-flight. From say full symmetrical for cruising to a high lift airfoil for landing.
Your other idea about offensive counter-measures is interesting too. I think you maybe going the wrong direction in EMP, as EMP is difficult to reproduce without an explosion of some sort, and would likely take out your fellow competitors projects if activated at the wrong time.
Another option would be to make the incoming missle detonate far before reaching the target. By activating its detonation circuit pre-maturely. The problem with this is you would have to have a pretty thorough knowledge of the electronic circuits used in the weapons you plan to circumvent, and this isnt exactly public info.
As far as I know the military has done similar testing, but their testing was done to see temperture variations on the leading edge of SR-71's during supersonic flight. I wonder if they ever checked the data to really take a look at airflows.
Ive also thought about a variable wing as you were talking about in your "planned projects".
Ive got some ideas on how to accomplish this too.
Basically a wing constructed of small airbags in sections. A computer program to "fill" or "empty" each airbag. You could vary shape of the airfoil by programming the computer to "blow-up" individual airbags in sequence.
Picture a plane equipped with a wing of this type. It could change its airfoil shape mid-flight. From say full symmetrical for cruising to a high lift airfoil for landing.
Your other idea about offensive counter-measures is interesting too. I think you maybe going the wrong direction in EMP, as EMP is difficult to reproduce without an explosion of some sort, and would likely take out your fellow competitors projects if activated at the wrong time.
Another option would be to make the incoming missle detonate far before reaching the target. By activating its detonation circuit pre-maturely. The problem with this is you would have to have a pretty thorough knowledge of the electronic circuits used in the weapons you plan to circumvent, and this isnt exactly public info.
02-21-2005 | 07:11 PM
#5
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: St. Charles, MO
RE: Science Fair Project
Rockhound I am glad to see your mind looking for new good stuff. Let me give you a few quick comments and thoughts.
When we ran the windtunnels on the test I was involved in we made an effort to get the operating temperatures at a steady state value for the reasons you mentioned. When ever you have heat variations from the wing to the airflow you also effect the pressures and velocities. It is a question then of where is the most error.
Remember that fine smoke particles are effected by Brownian motions in air. As such when injected in an airstream they almost instantly achieve the same velocity as the air stream. The high drag and low mass of the particles assures this. And the smoke can be injected with no change in the aero characteristics of the air.
About the EMP process. You have to be certain of one thing, that a stray bullet doesn't hit the electronics making the EMP or it's all over. Several ejectors dropping flares or decoys have a redundancy in their operation so one stay bullet won't but the system at risk. Also each time you release the weight of the decoy your airplane performance increases (lower weight - granted not much but take all you can get in a battle environment).
The problem of using a missle to shoot down the oncoming missile is the tech needed to make it work. The speed of the computations and precision of guidance to hit an 8 inch diameter AIM-7 is tremendous compared to what is needed to hit an airplane of any size. The anti-missile missile will be bigger than the missile you are trying to hit - a funny thought at first but as you think about what is needed it starts to creep up on you. You don't see too many anti-missile missiles being designed for that reason. Decoys are much more broad spectrum and it is easy to make something that radiates all over the place compared to any thing else :-)
The variable camber wing has been attempted before. At Boeing we called it an Adaptive Wing Technology. The promise of being able to adjust the camber and thickness to suit the desired flight profile is a pretty neat thing to consider. What we run into in practice is that the structure in a modern fighter or freighter is really minimized. To quote Dick H. - see what breaks and make the rest of the structure lighter. There isn't a lot of extra meat anywhere on a modern airplane. With that light structure they are able to perform pretty well within their design missions.
When you go to a structure that uses hydraulics or whatever to push and pull on the wing outer surfaces things happen. The weight of the systems to push and pull on the structures is large. You need hydraulic fluid, tubing, cylinders and the like all through the wing. They go in and replace a very light system of fixed internal bracing that was there. It is replacing a .10 inch web on a rib with a half inch diameter piston. There will have to be hundreds of them with the tubing needed to provide the pressure and drain the fluid the other way. You have to have electronics and actuators to control the flluid. Sensors to determine wing configuration and so on.
The net result is the wing and associated support equipment in the airplane causes a really big weight increase. That weight so far has been so determental to the flight of experimental designs that it is not worth the effort. Also consider the possible headaches due to maintainence problems with miles of tubing and hundreds of actuators.
Again it is every aero engineer's dream, the variable camber wing is like the Holy Grail in the Indiania Jones and the Last Crusade movie. Everyone wants it. It is just darn nearly impossible to do with our best techology at present, whether or not it will ever be practical to use in an operational airplane is yet to be determined.
Don't want to sound like a downer, but this gives you an idea of what has been done and where the technology is going.
Ben
When we ran the windtunnels on the test I was involved in we made an effort to get the operating temperatures at a steady state value for the reasons you mentioned. When ever you have heat variations from the wing to the airflow you also effect the pressures and velocities. It is a question then of where is the most error.
Remember that fine smoke particles are effected by Brownian motions in air. As such when injected in an airstream they almost instantly achieve the same velocity as the air stream. The high drag and low mass of the particles assures this. And the smoke can be injected with no change in the aero characteristics of the air.
About the EMP process. You have to be certain of one thing, that a stray bullet doesn't hit the electronics making the EMP or it's all over. Several ejectors dropping flares or decoys have a redundancy in their operation so one stay bullet won't but the system at risk. Also each time you release the weight of the decoy your airplane performance increases (lower weight - granted not much but take all you can get in a battle environment).
The problem of using a missle to shoot down the oncoming missile is the tech needed to make it work. The speed of the computations and precision of guidance to hit an 8 inch diameter AIM-7 is tremendous compared to what is needed to hit an airplane of any size. The anti-missile missile will be bigger than the missile you are trying to hit - a funny thought at first but as you think about what is needed it starts to creep up on you. You don't see too many anti-missile missiles being designed for that reason. Decoys are much more broad spectrum and it is easy to make something that radiates all over the place compared to any thing else :-)
The variable camber wing has been attempted before. At Boeing we called it an Adaptive Wing Technology. The promise of being able to adjust the camber and thickness to suit the desired flight profile is a pretty neat thing to consider. What we run into in practice is that the structure in a modern fighter or freighter is really minimized. To quote Dick H. - see what breaks and make the rest of the structure lighter. There isn't a lot of extra meat anywhere on a modern airplane. With that light structure they are able to perform pretty well within their design missions.
When you go to a structure that uses hydraulics or whatever to push and pull on the wing outer surfaces things happen. The weight of the systems to push and pull on the structures is large. You need hydraulic fluid, tubing, cylinders and the like all through the wing. They go in and replace a very light system of fixed internal bracing that was there. It is replacing a .10 inch web on a rib with a half inch diameter piston. There will have to be hundreds of them with the tubing needed to provide the pressure and drain the fluid the other way. You have to have electronics and actuators to control the flluid. Sensors to determine wing configuration and so on.
The net result is the wing and associated support equipment in the airplane causes a really big weight increase. That weight so far has been so determental to the flight of experimental designs that it is not worth the effort. Also consider the possible headaches due to maintainence problems with miles of tubing and hundreds of actuators.
Again it is every aero engineer's dream, the variable camber wing is like the Holy Grail in the Indiania Jones and the Last Crusade movie. Everyone wants it. It is just darn nearly impossible to do with our best techology at present, whether or not it will ever be practical to use in an operational airplane is yet to be determined.
Don't want to sound like a downer, but this gives you an idea of what has been done and where the technology is going.
Ben
02-22-2005 | 02:12 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: oxf,
FL
RE: Science Fair Project
This site is quite old and since then I've developed different interests. Flying planes rather than studying their physics seemed more exciting.
I've been following lockheed martin's morphing wing technology with the F/A-18. It seems that one of the first applicable uses of nano-fiber technology will be towards a morphing wing.
As for the emp airborne electronic counter measure. I would have planned on usinga a HERF as oppossed to an emp. A High Energy Radio Frequency guided by an electromagnetic lense of some sort would be ideal. The IR window on a sidewinder missile would be the target as it is obviously Electromagneticly transmissive. It would have to be designed with very low side-lobe radiation. I've contacted on of my old science fair judge buddies who works with lockheed martin about conducting the research and experimentation. Im waiting on his reply. Thanks for checking out the sight Guys! I appreciate your feedback. I'll keep you posted
I've been following lockheed martin's morphing wing technology with the F/A-18. It seems that one of the first applicable uses of nano-fiber technology will be towards a morphing wing.
As for the emp airborne electronic counter measure. I would have planned on usinga a HERF as oppossed to an emp. A High Energy Radio Frequency guided by an electromagnetic lense of some sort would be ideal. The IR window on a sidewinder missile would be the target as it is obviously Electromagneticly transmissive. It would have to be designed with very low side-lobe radiation. I've contacted on of my old science fair judge buddies who works with lockheed martin about conducting the research and experimentation. Im waiting on his reply. Thanks for checking out the sight Guys! I appreciate your feedback. I'll keep you posted
