Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:35:54.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of aircraft surface smoothness requirements on cost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. K. Kundu ,
S. Raghunathan  and
R. K. Cooper
A. K. Kundu
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Engineering, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, N. Ireland, UK
S. Raghunathan
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Engineering, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, N. Ireland, UK
R. K. Cooper
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautical Engineering, The Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast, N. Ireland, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reduction of aircraft manufacturing cost benefits aircraft direct operating cost (DOC). The degree of stringency in specifying aircraft smoothness influences cost, i.e. the tighter the tolerance, the higher is the manufacturing cost. Discrete surface roughness arising from manufacturing tolerance at the wetted surface may be seen as an ‘aerodynamic’ defect. Features such as steps, gaps, waviness and fastener flushness (termed excrescence), seen as defects, contribute to aircraft parasitic drag.

The study is conducted on an isolated nacelle which is considered to be representative of an entire aircraft. Eleven key manufacturing features at the wetted surface of a generic long duct nacelle are identified, each associated with surface roughness. The influence of tolerance allocation at each of the key features is investigated to establish a relationship between aircraft aerodynamics and associated costs. The initial results offer considerable insight to a relatively complex problem in a multi-disciplinary environment.

Excrescence drag arising out of these ‘aerodynamic’ defects is assessed by using CFD and semi-empirical methods. Cost versus tolerance relationships are established through in-house methods using industrial data.

The aircraft unit price typically contributes from two to four times more than the fuel burn to aircraft direct operating costs. A trade-off study between manufacturing cost and aircraft drag indicates that, in general, there is scope for some relaxation of present-day tolerance allocation, to reduce aircraft acquisition cost, which would in turn reduce direct operating costs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 104 , Issue 1039 , September 2000 , pp. 415 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1979 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kundu, A.K. Morris, W.H. and Raghunathan, S. CFD verification of excrescence drag. 35th AIAA Conference Paper No: AIAA 97-0354.Google Scholar
2. Rubbert, P.E. CFD and changing world of aircraft design. AIAA Wright Brothers Lecture, September 1994.Google Scholar
3. Jones, B.M. The streamline aeroplane, J Aeronaut Soc, May 1929, 33, (221), pp 357–385.Google Scholar
4. Schlichting, H. Experimental investigation of the problems of surface roughness NACA TM 823, 1937.Google Scholar
5. Williams, D.H. and Brown, A.F. Tests on rivets and backward lap joints in compressed air tunnel. ARC R&M 1789, 1937.Google Scholar
6. Williams, D.H. and Brown, A.F. Experiment on riveted wing in the compressed air tunnel ARC R&M 1855, 1938.Google Scholar
7. Young, A.D., Serby, J.E. and Morris, D.E. Flight test on the effect of surface finish on wing drag. ARC R&M 2258, 1939.Google Scholar
8. Hood, M.J. The effects of some common surface irregularities on wing drag. NACA TN 695, 1939.Google Scholar
9. Wieghart, K. Increase of the turbulent frictional resistance caused by surface irregularities, NAP R&T No: 103 June 1946 (translation of FB 1563 ZWB 1942).Google Scholar
10. Gaudet, L. and Johnson, P. Measurement of the drag of various 2D excrescences immersed in turbulent boundary layers at Mach numbers between 0-2 and 2-8. RAE TR 70190, 1970.Google Scholar
11. Gaudet, L and Winter, K.G. Measurement of drag of some characteristic aircraft ecrescences in turbulent boundary layers. (RAE) AGARD CP 124, 1973.Google Scholar
12. Nash, J.F. and Bradshaw, P. The magnification of roughness drag by pressure gradients, J Royal Aero Soc, January 1967, 71, (673), pp 44–46.Google Scholar
13. Haines, A.B. Subsonic aircraft drag: An appreciation of present standards, Aeronaut J, March 1968, 72, (687), pp 253–266.Google Scholar
14. Kranczock, M. Widerstandverbesserungs program VFW614, teil, Schaderlicher Ober flachen wider-stand, VFW-Fokker, 1978.Google Scholar
15. Peterson, J.H., Macwilkenson, D. and Blackerby, W. A survey of drag prediction techniques applicable to subsonic and transonic aircraft design. AGARD CP 124 Paper 1. 1973.Google Scholar
16. ESDU data sheets (updated up to 1995).Google Scholar
17. Hoerner, S.F. Fluid Dynamic Drag, 1965.Google Scholar
18. AGARD 264 Aircraft Excrescence Drag, 1981.Google Scholar
19. Soderberg, R, Tolerance allocation in a CAD environment considering quality and manufacturing cost. IMC, 1994.Google Scholar
20. Dong, Z, Hu, W. and Xue, D. New production cost-tolerance models for tolerance synthesis, J Engineering for Industry,May 1994.Google Scholar
21. Sanchez, M., Kundu, A.K., Hinds, B. and Raghunathan, S. A methodology for assessing Manufacturing cost due to tolerance of aerodynamic surface features on turbofan nacelles, Int J Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1998, pp 894–900.Google Scholar
22. Chen, H.C., Yu, N.J. Rubbert, P.E. and Jameson, A. Flow simulation for general nacelle configurations using Euler equations. Conference paper No: AIAA 83-0539, 1983.Google Scholar
23. Uanishi, K. Pearson, N.S. Lahnig, T.R. and Leon, R.M. CFD-based 3D turbofan nacelle design system. AIAA paper No: A91-16278.Google Scholar