M # and Off-Design Thrust at Idle Power(N) Thrust at Full AB (N)

Mass Flow Rate

0.6 16698 29642
0.8 17097 31065
1.5 27663 74138

Table 12: Thrust at Idle Power and Full AB (Off Design MFR)

Thrust calculations from CFD results and analytical results shows the direct effect
of mass flow rate through the engine on overall thrust of engine. The results are
calculated for both idle power and full after burner setting. A large deviation in generated
thrust can be observed due to after burner operation at different flight conditions. The
variation of thrust with change in Mach No is quite similar for both design and off-design
mass flow rates. However, the change in thrust between the two mass flow rates is almost
1.5 times at subsonic speeds and 1.2 times at supersonic speed. In actual scenario, it is
not possible for aircraft to reach Mach No 1.5 at sea level with and without AB. However,
the calculations are just carried out for comparative analysis. The variations in thrust
between idle power and AB setting at different mass flow rates are shown in figure below:-

Thrust
100000
90000
80000 Idle (Design MFR)

70000 AB (Design MFR)

60000 Idle (Off-Design MFR)

Thrust

AB (Off-Design MFR)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Mach No

Figure 41: Thrust vs Mach No

56
CHAPTER 8: AIRCRAFT AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS

8.1 Introduction

External and internal flow field analysis was comprehensively carried out in this
research. This chapter presents calculation of different aircraft aerodynamic
characteristics with the help of CFD results. The analysis was carried out at three different
Mach Numbers (0.6, 0.8 and 1.5) at five different angle of attack (-4, 0, 4, 8,12) and two
mass flow rates (design and off design mass flow rates). Hence, a total of 30 simulations
were carried out during the research. In order to study the aerodynamic characteristics
and stability of an aircraft, it is important to analyze its coefficient of lift, drag and moments.
For the current research, lift, drag and pitching moments are calculated to evaluate the
overall behavior of aircraft and analyze the effect of intake duct and exhaust nozzle
integration on aircraft aerodynamic characteristics and behavior. Computed results are
then compared with available Wind Tunnel Data and previous research on same aircraft
with intake integration only.

8.2 Results at Mach 0.6

Aerodynamic forces and moments such as lift, drag and pitching moments were
evaluated from CFD analysis and their coefficients were plotted. The plots for these
characteristics at Mach 0.6 for different mass flow rates are shown below:-

Coefficient of Lift
0.8

0.6

0.4
MFR 44
0.2
Cl

MFR 30
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.2

-0.4
AOA

Figure 42: Coefficient of Lift vs AOA

57
 Coefficient of Drag
0.1

0.08

0.06
Cd

MFR 44
0.04
MFR 30
0.02

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
AOA

Figure 43: Coefficient of Drag vs AOA

Coefficient of Pitching Moment

0.01

0.005 MFR 44
MFR 30
0
Cm

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.005

-0.01

-0.015
AOA

Figure 44: Coefficient of Pitching Moment vs AOA

58
 Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Design MFR)
0.01 With Exhaust and Intake

0.005 With Intake only

Without Exhaust and Intake
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.005

-0.01
Cm

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03

-0.035
AOA

Figure 45: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Design MFR)

Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Off-Design MFR)

0.015
With Exhaust and Intake
0.01
With Intake only
0.005
Without Exhaust and Intake
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
-0.005
Cm

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

-0.025

-0.03

-0.035
AOA

Figure 46: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Off Design MFR)

8.2.1 Analysis at Mach 0.6

It can be observed that there is no significant change in lift and drag coefficients
due to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft. A slight increase in lift is observed when

59
the mass flow rate is decreased from design mass flow rate to off-design mass flow rate.
Due to reduction in mass flow rate, the pressure in the vicinity of intake and exhaust
increases. This increase in static pressure results in reduction of flow velocity in lower
part of aircraft wing and tail surfaces. Thus increased pressure difference occurs at lower
mass flow rate which increase in the overall lift of aircraft.
Static longitudinal stability is directly affected by power effects and exhaust
behavior. As longitudinal stability depends upon moment coefficients, exhaust effects
becomes more dominant when the aircraft is at low airspeed and high power settings
such as landing and takeoff. Power effects may be direct or indirect. Direct effects are
related with forces generated by propulsion unit, whereas indirect effects are due to slip
stream and other phenomenon which changes the aerodynamic forces and moments.
The vertical location of the propulsion system and thrust vector contributes directly to
longitudinal stability. It the thrust vector is below the centre of gravity of aircraft, thrust will
produce a positive moment which will move the aircraft in pitch up position, hence a
unstable condition would be generated. However, if the thrust vector is above the centre
of gravity, then the thrust will produce a negative moment and hence a stable condition
would be generated [48]. The propulsion unit and exhaust nozzle of RD-93 produces a
thrust vector above the centre of gravity and hence it contributes towards longitudinal
stability of aircraft. A significant change in pitching moment coefficient can be observed.
This fact authenticates the importance of exhaust nozzle integration in overall
aerodynamic behavior of aircraft. The overall slope of coefficient of pitching moment for
all configurations is quite similar, however, there is a significant rise in zero lift pitching
moment (Cmo) of aircraft due to exhaust nozzle which helps in improving the longitudinal
stability of aircraft and shifts the trim point of aircraft. This aspect allows the aircraft to trim
at positive angle of attack. The exhaust nozzle of the aircraft is slightly titled at 5 degrees
above the longitudinal axis of aircraft. This fact helps in generating the thrust at a certain
angle above the longitudinal axis. The direction of thrust forces and location of exhaust
nozzle is such that it helps in increasing the overall stability of aircraft. A similar trend was
observed at off-design mass flow rate with a slightly higher values of Cm o at low mass
flow rates. This is due to the fact that at low mas flow rates, the overall thrust of engine
decreases and hence the component of vector effecting the pitching moment of aircraft

60
also varies. Longitudinal stability of aircraft requires that the slope of Cm versus angle of
attack remains negative while its y-intercept should be positive to allow the aircraft to trim
easily at positive angle of attack. It is observed that for both mass flow rates, the
longitudinal stability parameters are met, however, there is a slight shift in trim point of
aircraft.

8.3 Results at Mach 0.8

Aerodynamic forces and moments such as lift, drag and pitching moments were
evaluated from CFD analysis and their coefficients were plotted. The plots for these
characteristics at Mach 0.8 for different mass flow rates are shown below:-

Coefficient of Lift
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
MFR 50
0.4
Cl

MFR 20
0.2
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2
-0.4
AOA

Figure 47: Coefficient of Lift vs AOA

61
 Coefficient of Drag
0.2

0.16

0.12
Cd

MFR 50
0.08
MFR 20
0.04

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AOA

Figure 48: Coefficient of Drag vs AOA

Coefficient of Pitching Moment

0.008

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.008 MFR 50
MFR 20
Cm

-0.016

-0.024

-0.032

-0.04
AOA

Figure 49: Coefficient of Pitching Moment vs AOA

62
 Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Design MFR)
0.005
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
Cm

-0.025
-0.03
-0.035
-0.04
With Exhaust and Intake
-0.045
With Intake only
-0.05
AOA Without Exhaust and Intake

Figure 50: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Design MFR)

Coefficient of Pitching Moment (Off-Design MFR)

0.005
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.005
-0.01
-0.015
-0.02
Cm

-0.025
-0.03
-0.035
-0.04
With Exhaust and Intake
-0.045
With Intake only
-0.05
AOA Without Exhaust and Intake

Figure 51: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Comparison (Off Design MFR)

8.3.1 Analysis at Mach 0.8

It can be observed that there is no significant change in lift and drag coefficients
due to exhaust nozzle integration with aircraft at Mach 0.8. A slight increase in lift is

63
observed when the mass flow rate is decreased from design mass flow rate to off-design
mass flow rate.
A significant change in pitching moment coefficient can be observed. The overall
slope of coefficient of pitching moment for all configurations is quite similar, however,
there is a significant rise in zero lift pitching moment (Cm o) of aircraft due to exhaust
nozzle which helps in improving the longitudinal stability of aircraft and shifts the trim point
of aircraft. This aspect allows the aircraft to trim at positive angle of attack. A similar trend
was observed at off-design mass flow rate with a slightly higher values of Cmo at low
mass flow rates. This is due to the fact that at low mas flow rates, the overall thrust of
engine decreases and hence the component of vector effecting the pitching moment of
aircraft also varies. At AoAs greater than 6 degrees, the pitching moment slope becomes
positive and hence the aircraft becomes longitudinally unstable at high AoA. This behavior
is due to the fact that the exhaust nozzle is tilted only 5 degrees above the longitudinal
axis and its contribution in making the aircraft longitudinally stable is negated by high AoA.

8.4 Results at Mach 1.5

Aerodynamic forces and moments such as lift, drag and pitching moments were
evaluated from CFD analysis and their coefficients were plotted. The plots for these
characteristics at Mach 1.5 for different mass flow rates are shown below:-

Coefficient of Lift
1

0.8

0.6

0.4 MFR 115

Cl

0.2 MFR 90

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.2

-0.4
AOA

Figure 52: Coefficient of Lift vs AOA

64
 Coefficient of Drag
0.24

0.2

0.16
Cd

0.12
MFR 115
0.08
MFR 90
0.04

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AOA

Figure 53: Coefficient of Drag vs AOA

Coefficient of Pitching Moment

0.1
0.05
0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.05
Cm

-0.1 MFR 115

-0.15 MFR 90
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
AOA

Figure 54: Coefficient of Pitching Moment vs AOA

65