Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dirk Schawe, Claas-Hinrik Rohardt, Georg Wichmann
Dirk Schawe, Claas-Hinrik Rohardt, Georg Wichmann
www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte
Abstract
Currently, there is a large interest worldwide in the development of High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs) for a number of civil and military missions, such as routine weather reconnaissance, surface reconnaissance (forest fires, etc.),
earth observation, border patrol and monitoring, fisheries and wildlife refuge management, chemical and biological agent detection, law
enforcement, disaster assistance and monitoring, telecommunications relay, movie production, agricultural surveying and control, and
provision of targeting information. Passenger and transport airplanes operate at cruising altitudes of maximum 12 000 m where the density is
about 25% compared to sea level. HALE-UVAs are foreseen to operate in the stratosphere at altitudes of 24 000 m, twice as high, where the
density drops to about 3.6% of the sea level value influencing the lift of the aircraft strongly. The environmental conditions in such altitudes
pose strong requirements for the aerodynamic layout and the power plant of an aircraft. In Europe Strato 2C – a manned civil research aircraft
– was until nowadays the only aircraft which reached altitudes above 18 000 m. In this paper Strato 2C’s aerodynamic design and propulsion
layout will be presented and critically reviewed for its suitability for these high altitudes. 2002 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier
SAS. All rights reserved.
Zusammenfassung
Derzeit gibt es weltweit ein grosses Interesse für die Entwicklung unbemannter Fluggeräte für zivile, als auch militärische Missionen,
die in grossen Höhen und über einen langen Zeitraum operieren sollen (HALE-UAVs – High Altitude Long Endurance Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles). Angedachte Missionen sind Wetterbeobachtung, Umweltüberwachung (Waldbrände, etc.), Erderkundung, Überwachung und
Schutz der Staatsgrenzen, Kontrolle von Fisch- und Tierschutzgebieten, Nachweis chemischer und biologischer Stoffe in der Atmosphäre,
Strafverfolgung, Katastrophenschutz, Telekommunikation, Filmproduktion, Kontrolle und Überwachung der Landwirtschaft und militärische
Aufklärung und Zielerfassung. Passagier- und Transportflugzeuge operieren in Reiseflughöhen von maximal 12 000 m. In diesen Höhen
hat sich die Luftdichte auf ungefähr 25% des Druckes in Meereshöhe reduziert. Die hochfliegenden unbemannten Fluggeräte sollen in
der Stratosphäre bis in Höhen von 24 000 m betrieben werden. Hier sinkt die Luftdichte auf 3.6% des Druckes in Meereshöhe, wodurch
der Auftrieb des Luftfahrzeuges stark beeinflusst wird. Die Umweltbedingungen in solchen Höhen beeinflussen damit sehr stark die
aerodynamische Auslegung des Flugkörpers und die Auswahl und Auslegung des Antriebes. Bis zum heutigen Tag war das zivile bemannte
Forschungsflugzeug Strato 2C in Europa das einzige Fluggerät, das Flughöhen oberhalb 18 000 m erreichte. In diesem Artikel werden die
aerodynamische und antriebsseitige Auslegung von Strato 2C vorgestellt and kritisch auf ihre Eignung für grosse Flughöhen überprüft.
2002 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.
1270-9638/02/$ – see front matter 2002 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 2 7 0 - 9 6 3 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 2 7 - 0
44 D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51
Nomenclature
Fig. 1. History of manned and unmanned high altitude and long endurance aircrafts.
D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51 45
dynamics plays an important role for operating manned or Variable Value Comp. to S.L.
unmanned aircrafts in high altitudes for extended periods of Altitude 24 384 km (80 000 ft) –
time (Fig. 1). The aerodynamic design of such a vehicle is Density 0.04353 kg m−3 3.6%
greatly complicated because of the dramatic atmospheric im- Pressure 2716.62 Pa 2.7%
Temperature 221.03 K 76.8%
plication at an altitude of e.g. 24 000 m (see Table 1). Am- Speed of sound 298.04 m s−1 87.6%
bient density and pressure are just a vanishing fraction of Kin. viscosity 3.26 × 10−4 m2 s−1 2 227%
their sea level values. The lower speed of sound increases lo-
cal Mach numbers, and higher kinematic viscosity decreases
Reynolds number. This denotes, that airfoils for HALE-
UAVs operate on fairly high lift coefficients (CL ≈ 1.2−1.5)
at relatively low Reynolds numbers (≈ 1.0 × 106 ) and rela-
tively high Mach numbers (≈ 0.4 − 0.6). For these condi-
tions we are not able to draw upon already in the past de-
veloped airfoils. Sailplane airfoil data are very near, but are
designed for operating on low Mach numbers (≈ 0.05−0.2).
They might serve as starting geometries for computational
airfoil design and optimization procedures ([1,2]).
Another important issue for operating aircraft in the
stratosphere, is the selection of the power plant. Turbofan
engines are reliable, of compact size and therefore easy to
integrate into the aircraft airframe, with high acquisition Fig. 2. Dimensions of the Strato 2C.
costs, low maintenance efforts but moderate operation costs
and high climbing performance. Unfortunately the thrust de-
creases proportional with the density, i.e. unmodified tur-
bofans are limited to about 20 000 m. On the other hand
piston engines with all their accessories (compressors, tur-
bochargers, heat exchangers, two-stage gear box, propeller,
etc.) have a low but constant performance with increasing
altitude but are much more difficult to integrate. The maxi-
mum altitude for turbocharged and liquid cooled piston en-
gines is about 26 000 m. The propeller layout for high alti-
tude operation must provide the aircraft with enough thrust
till density ratios of 1: 28.
2. Strato 2C – introduction
Fig. 3. Strato 2C on its maiden flight on 31 March 1995.
Strato 2C is designed as an instrument for ozone and
climate research which was a programme of the German
Ministry of Education and Technology (BMBF). The project • observation of land, ocean and polar icecaps from high
coordinator was DLR (German Aerospace Center) who was altitude.
responsible for the project management, the flight operations
and the scientific instrumentation and mission preparation. The aircraft was designed for altitudes up to 24 000 m
The construction was commissioned 1992 by the German and long endurance and range operations (18 000 km) in the
company Grob. stratosphere. It was supposed to carry a scientific payload of
Its main capabilities have been devoted to: 800 to 1 000 kg depending on the flight mission. Strato 2C is
fully built of fiber composite materials with a takeoff weight
• research of the dynamics and chemistry of the atmo- of about 12 000 kg and a wingspan of 56.5 m and a length
sphere; and height of 23.98 m and 7.76 m, respectively (see Fig. 2).
• environmental research (e.g. pollution produced by air The first successful flight was on 31 March 1995 (see
traffic); Fig. 3). 29 test flights were scheduled successfully until
• exchange process between troposphere and strato- August 1995. At the last flight Strato 2C reached its
sphere; maximum ceiling at 18 500 m.
46 D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51
Fig. 4. (a) Altitude design mission; and (b) long endurance mission.
3. Strato’s missions
Re = 1.2 × 106 is pretty small until cl = 1.5. For higher Strato 2C has a slight dihedral (1◦ ) triple swept wing with
lift coefficients the drag increases significantly but without a straight trailing edge and is equipped with an aileron and a
cl -breakdown, which indicates too that the stall behaviour conventional Schempp–Hirth flap.
of the airfoil is noncritical. The shapes of both polars are For the empennage symmetric laminar flow Eppler air-
very similar although the simulated one achieved lower drag. foils were selected.
The lower drag values of the simulated one is caused by the
restricted mathematical description of the flow physics on 4.1. Wing-engine nacelle interference
which the computer program is based.
The engine-nacelle is bluntly mounted on top of the wing
without fillets/fairings. In such regions flow separations
occur because of an appearing cross-flow caused by the
pressure differences between the flow around the nacelle
and the suction side of the airfoil. Due to the pressure
gradients a cross-flow from nacelle to wing is caused. The
boundary layer of the wing in the near region of the nacelle
will be thickened and therefore susceptible to separation,
especially when the wing operates at high lift coefficients.
Furthermore a vortex developes in the intersection of the
wing and nacelle. The separation area is wedge shaped,
running on the upper surface of the wing from the pressure
minimum under an angle of 45◦ spanwise to the trailing edge
(see Fig. 8).
Several methods could possibly weaken or dampen the
affinity of separation. Most methods provoke increasing
the energy in the boundary layer against positive pressure
gradients:
Fig. 7. Drag polar for the airfoil LH37 for Ma = 0.39 and Re = 1.2 × 106 . Fig. 8. Flow separation area in the wing-nacelle intersection.
48 D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51
(a)
CL is calculated using
mg
Fig. 13. Reynolds number distribution of one propeller blade at four CL = ρ 2
altitudes. 2v S
with m = 12 000 kg.
The propeller was designed for operating in the strato- e is the Oswald’s efficiency factor which depends
sphere from 12 000 m up to the maximum mission altitude only on the Mach number. A value of e = 1 indicates
of 24 000 m. In other words, the propeller must cover a re- an elliptical lift distribution. For the calculations e =
markable Reynolds number range from 1.8 × 105 to far be- 0.865 = const, A = 21.28.
yond 1.0 × 106 (see Fig. 13). For the performance evalua-
tion four discrete flight levels 12 000 m, 18 500 m, 22 000 m However, in the incompressible theory for positive pro-
and 24 000 m have been selected. Therefore one propeller peller thrust TP it will be assumed that the flow through the
blade was discretized into four airfoil sections (see Fig. 12). propeller disk is incompressible and irrotational. From this
The pressure distributions and the drag polars for these four theory we are able to calculate the perfect/ideal propeller ef-
airfoils were calculated with the two-dimensional viscous ficiency ηid as follows:
aerodynamic design and analysis code ISES of Drela and 1/3
Giles [1] and published in [6]. The problem of calculating 2P
v = ηid , (2)
the drag polars of various propeller slices are the very low πρd 2 (1 − ηid )
Reynolds numbers below 200 000 at relatively high Mach with P the power output and d the diameter of the propeller.
numbers between 0.6 and 0.8. Up to now ISES still offers Here, the thrust of a perfectly working propeller is
the highest accuracy for such flow conditions. But its error
ηid P
should not be underestimated, and 20% to 30% error should Tid = . (3)
be taken into account. The performance characteristics of the v
propeller are calculated on the basis of the afore determined If we pursue the propeller thrust and the aircraft drag (re-
aerodynamic characteristics with a computer program devel- mark: propeller thrust given for one engine and aircraft drag
oped by Hepperle [3]. This computer code is based on the refers only to the half aircraft. The additional jet thrust of
combined blade-element and momentum theory which ac- about 12% of the gas generator is not considered.) for main-
counts for details of the propeller airfoil geometry and their taining level flight with increasing altitude in Fig. 15 and
50 D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51
Fig. 14. Drag polar of the propeller airfoil section at 60% and 80% radius. The roman numbers (I, II, III, IV) indicate the four operation altitudes which are
specified in Table 2.
Table 2
Physical properties for four discrete operation altitudes. Comparison of the aircraft drag in level flight with the thrust provided
by the propeller. (Remark: Drag, Thrust and Power are referred to one engine without considering the 12% additional thrust of
the gas generator.)
Operation altitude I II III IV
Altitude H [m] 12 000 18 500 22 000 24 000
Density ρ [kg m−3 ] 0.30 0.11 0.064 0.047
Flight velocity v [m s−1 ] 62.2 101.3 131.3 153.8
Mach number Ma [–] 0.21 0.34 0.45 0.52
Lift coefficient CL [–] 1.35 1.37 1.42 1.41
Zero–lift drag coefficient CD0 [–] 0.023 0.025 0.026 0.027
Drag coefficient CD [–] 0.054 0.057 0.061 0.062
Twist angle β75 [◦ ] 26.0 43.5 48.5 64.0
Advance ratio v/n d [–] 1.088 1.772 2.066 2.418
RPM n [ 1/min] 572 572 636 636
Power output P [kW] 179 298 300 300
Efficiency η [–] 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.64
Perfect efficiency ηid 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97
η/ηid 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.66
Comparison aircraft drag in level flight D with propeller thrust TP
D [N] 2 376.9 2 468.1 2 524.3 2 563.3
TP [N] 2 502 2 556 1 909 1 252
6. Conclusion
Fig. 15. Propeller thrust and aircraft drag versus altitude. (Remark: both
forces refer to one Propeller or in lieu of the drag, of the half aircraft.) Airborne platforms for altitudes above 20 000 m are until
nowadays a challenge for the aerodynamic design. Each
Table 2 we observe that for 18 500 m level flight with only a meter altitude for a given payload is hard-won through
very modest climbing capability could be ensured. However, optimizing each detail of the aircraft. This is aggravated
above 19 000 m the drag exceeds the propeller thrust. For by the fact that these details are interdependent. The main
further climbing to higher altitudes additional power equal design challenges are:
D. Schawe et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 6 (2002) 43–51 51
• a laminar wing, producing drag as low as possible at velocities 18 500 m was reached. Further climbing is
high lift coefficients; possible but not practical because of the vanishing
• a drag minimized fuselage; climbing rate.
• a flow optimized wing-fuselage intersection with only
low pressure gradients in order to avoid flow separation; The preliminary layout of such aircrafts is still afflicted
• the selection of a suitable power plant, and its integra- with errors which should not be underestimated. The reasons
tion into the airframe without interfering the flow too are the lack of suitable and accurate tools on the theoretical
much; and side (CFD codes) as well on the practical side (wind-
• if the power plant is a piston engine the propeller should tunnels) to determine the aerodynamics of a body flying at
be adjusted optimally to the shaft power of the engine low Reynolds numbers with high lift coefficients and high
and the altitude range to be covered. Mach numbers. Nevertheless the available tools point out the
trends with 20–30% accuracy.
The research aircraft Strato 2C accomplished these re-
quirements for its design altitude of 24 000 m only with re-
gard to the wing design based on the airfoil LH37 and the References
selection of a turbocharged piston engine as power plant.
The other points need improvement. The specific problems [1] M. Drela, M.B. Giles, ISES: A two-dimensional viscous aerodynamic
in summary were: design and analysis code, AIAA paper 87-0424, 1987.
[2] R. Eppler, D. Somers, A Computer Program for the Design and
• the belly fairing for the landing gear at the fuselage Analysis of Low-Speed Airfoils, NASA-TM-80210, 1980.
[3] M. Hepperle, Ein Computerprogramm für den Entwurf und Analyse
generates high drag vortical flow; von Propellern, Institut für Flugzeugbau der Universität Stuttgart, 1984.
• the wing was mounted in high wing configuration [4] R. Johnstone, N. Arntz, CONDOR – High altitude long endurance
without suitable fairings; (HALE) automatically piloted vehicle (APV), AIAA paper 90-3279,
• the large nacelles are just put on the wing with sharp 1990.
intersections. No additional devices influencing the flow [5] Ph. Tölke, A. Quast, Untersuchungen zur Ablösung im Bereich
der Flügel-Gondel-Verschneidung am Forschungsflugzeug Strato 2C,
in the intersection are envisioned. Large flow separation
DLR-IB 129-96/36, 1996.
areas were the result;
[6] G. Wichmann, H. Köster, Leistungsnachrechnung des Propellers des
• the propeller together with the 300 kW piston engine Höhenforschungsflugzeugs Strato 2C, DLR-IB 129-96/31, 1996.
is not capable to bring Strato 2C in its current layout [7] G. Wichmann, C.H. Rohardt, P. Hirt, Kenndaten für Profile: Profil DLR-
into altitudes of 24 000 m. With reasonable climbing LH37, Luftfahrttechnisches Handbuch – LTH, Band Aerodynamik AD
41102-24, 1998.