1 s2.0 S1000936123002091 Main

CJA 2697 No.
of Pages 21
1 July 2023
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2023), xxx(xx): xxx–xxx
1
Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com
2 FULL LENGTH ARTICLE
of
4 Performance analysis and flow mechanism of
5 channel wing considering propeller slipstream
o
6 Xiaoxuan MENG a, Ziyi XU a, Min CHANG b,c,*, Junqiang BAI b
Pr
a
7 School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
b
8 Unmanned System Research Institute, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
c
9 Shenzhen Research Institude of Northwestern Polytechnical University, Shenzhen 518057, China
10
11
ed
Received 3 November 2022; revised 20 June 2023; accepted 20 June 2023
13 KEYWORDS Abstract The development of the Urban Air Mobility concept has proposed stringent require-
ct
14
15 Channel wing; ments for the fixed-wing vehicle’s Short/Vertical Take-Off and Landing (S/VTOL) performance.
16 Computational fluid dynam- With its lift-enhancing impact, the channel wing, can improve aircraft low-speed performance
17 ics; and STOL capability. It is critical for the performance analysis and flow mechanism study of a
18 Flow interactions; channel wing that considers the influence of propeller slipstream to guide the design of S/VTOL air-
re
19 Mechanisms; craft. The law and mechanism for the effect of the enclosing angle of the arc wing, the phase angle
20 Slipstream effect of the propeller, the tip clearance, the rotational speed and the chordwise position of the propeller
on the channel wing are explored in this paper utilizing the quasi-steady multi reference frame
method. A channel wing with a larger enclosing angle has a better ability to enhance lift and reduce
or
drag using propeller slipstream. The effect of propeller phase angle on channel wing aerodynamic
forces is periodic and weak. Increasing propeller rotational speed is helpful to enhance lift and resist
flow separation for channel wing. It can reduce drag for tractor configuration but increase drag for
pusher configuration. However, the nose-down pitching moment of a channel wing will grow dra-
matically, making longitudinal trimming in aircraft layout design challenging.
nc
21 Ó 2023 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and
Astronautics. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
U
22 1. Introduction Electric Propulsion1 (DEP) technology is considered a sustain- 29

able alternative to ground transportation for reducing pollu- 30
23 With the expansion of metropolitan areas, traffic congestion tion and greenhouse gas emissions and relieving traffic 31
24 and environmental pollution have become more severe in con- congestion.2,3 32
25 temporary urban areas with dense populations. Urban Air Due to the need for oversized rotors designed for vertical 33
26 Mobility (UAM) is regarded as a potentially viable mode of takeoff, VTOL aircraft are typically incapable of achieving 34
27 transport. The development of unconventional Vertical high cruise speeds and a large range in comparison to conven- 35
28 Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft utilizing Distributed tional fixed-wing aircraft. Short-Takeoff and Landing (STOL) 36
aircraft concepts offer a compromise between fixed-wing cruise 37
* Corresponding author.
performance and VTOL capabilities. Using aerodynamic lift- 38
ing surfaces and a variety of lift-enhancement systems, STOL 39
E-mail address: changmin@nwpu.edu.cn (M. CHANG).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2023.06.022
1000-9361 Ó 2023 Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: MENG X et al. Performance analysis and flow mechanism of channel wing considering propeller slipstream, Chin J Aeronaut (2023),
CJA 2697 No. of Pages 21
1 July 2023
2 X. MENG et al.
40 aircraft can be efficient in cruise flight while also delivering Others have also investigated the possibility of combining 102
41 enhanced takeoff and landing performance.4 The channel channel wing with other high-lift technologies. Englar and 103
42 wing, invented by Willard Ray Custer in the late 1940s, is an Campbell12,13 proposed a combined lift configuration from 104
43 example of such a lift-enhancing concept.5 The channel wing 2002 to 2005 by combining the channel wing with trailing edge 105
44 consists of a straight wing and an arc wing, with the propeller flow control technology based on the Konda effect, resulting in 106
45 mounted on the arc wing. Even though the channel wing is fly- stall delay of the channel wing and a significant increase in lift 107
46 ing at a low speed when the propeller starts to turn, a signifi- on the channel. However, as propeller power increases, the 108
47 cant amount of lift is produced on the channel wing because nose-down pitching moment of the channel wing increases dra- 109
48 of the fast airflow over the arc wing. In 1953, the Custer Chan- matically, requiring hard trimming. From 2012 to 2014, Müller 110
49 nel Wing-5 (CCW-5) aircraft prototype with a channel wing et al.14–16 studied the aerodynamic characteristics of a takeoff 111
50 completed its maiden flight. The CCW-5 aircraft can take off configuration that combines a channel wing with a flap. It has 112
51 in 3 seconds with a taxiing distance of approximately 30.5 been demonstrated that the channel wing can significantly 113
of
52 meters, and it can fly and be operated effectively in the speed increase the lift on the wing, but the uneven inflow causes peri- 114
53 range of 35 km/h to 354 km/h. odic load changes on the propeller disc, which reduces the pro- 115
54 Since then, numerous researchers have focused on the aero- peller’s net thrust. Increasing the enclosing angle of the arc 116
55 dynamic properties of channel wings. In 1953, NASA con- wing can improve the lift-drag ratio of the channel wing but 117
56 ducted a series of wind tunnel tests on the channel wing reduce the efficiency of the propeller. The analysis also 118
o
57 aircraft in the Langley full-scale wind tunnel to examine the lift revealed that if the channel wing is meticulously designed, 119
58 characteristics of the propeller-channel wing combination, par- comprehensive improvements in takeoff performance, noise 120
59 ticularly its static lift characteristics at zero airspeed. Addition- shielding, and pitching moment trim are possible. Marcus 121
Pr
60 ally, the general stability and control characteristics of the et al.17 tested the propeller over the wing configuration with 122
61 channel-wing aircraft were investigated. In 1970, Blick and a Fowler flap in a wind tunnel, investigating the effect of the 123
62 Homer6 proposed a method for predicting lift using standard wing and the propeller at various chordwise locations and 124
63 airfoil pressure coefficient data in order to predict the lift of inclination angles. The results demonstrated a bilaterally dis- 125
64 the channel wing with the rear propeller installed. The lift on tinct aerodynamic coupling between the wing and propeller. 126
65 the channel wing predicted by this method agreed well with ed With the advancement of numerical simulation technology, 127
66 the data from the wind tunnel test, indicating that the channel it is now possible to simulate the flow of a propeller-wing cou- 128
67 wing can achieve significant lift gain. Based on the lifting line pling with greater accuracy, and more flow field data can be 129
68 theory, Edgington7 later investigated the aerodynamic charac- obtained to analyze its flow mechanism.18 Wang et al.19 inves- 130
69 teristics of the channel wing with various airfoils and aspect tigated several layouts for distributed multi-propeller configu- 131
70 ratios. The results indicated that the channel wing’s lift effi- rations, including propeller over the wing configuration and 132
71 ciency is greater than that of the conventional elliptical wing. channel wing, utilizing the ANSYS Fluent software, and stud- 133
ct
72 Circulation on the arc wing is greater than that on the elliptical ied the effects of propeller positions. From 2017 to 2018, Deere 134
73 wing, whereas circulation at the tip of the channel wing is less et al.20–24 conducted a computational study of the interaction 135
74 than that at the tip of the elliptical wing, resulting in less between distributed propellers and wing for the DEP X-57 136
75 induced drag on the channel wing. Nangia and Palmer8 inves- Maxwell airplane configuration during cruise and takeoff/- 137
re
76 tigated the difference between the channel wing and the landing using three Navier-Stokes computational fluid dynam- 138
77 straight wing at low speed in 2001. The results indicated that ics methods: FUN3D, USM, and Kestrel. Using Kestrel, Aref 139
78 the channel wing can achieve a significant lift gain compared et al.25 studied the interaction between the propeller and wing 140
79 to the straight wing, and that the lift and pitching moment of the C130J aircraft in 2018. The results showed that the pro- 141
on the channel wing can be enhanced if the sweep angle is peller slipstream improves wing lift distribution and delays
or
80 142
81 meticulously designed. When the wing gradually transitions wing flow separation behind it. By solving Navier–Stokes 143
82 from a straight wing to a channel wing, the lift on the arc wing equations, Guruswamy26 investigated the dynamic aeroelastic- 144
83 increases dramatically as the enclosing angle of the arc wing ity of wings with tip propellers in 2019. Wang et al.27 devel- 145
84 changes from 0° to 135°, but only slightly as the enclosing oped a hybrid design frame of propeller/wing integration for 146
nc
85 angle of the arc wing changes from 135° to 180°. In 2015, DEP aircraft in 2021 using the Momentum Source method. 147
86 Keane PM and Keane AJ9 proposed a small unmanned aerial This improved the aerodynamic efficiency of the propeller/ 148
87 vehicle with a channel wing and conducted a series of numer- wing integration. Gong et al.28 investigated the effect of the 149
88 ical simulations, wind tunnel tests, and flight tests. The results propeller–duct interaction on the wake dynamics of a ducted 150
89 demonstrated that aircraft with a channel wing can fly at a propeller through the detached eddy simulation method. 151
lower speed than aircraft with a conventional complex lift Alvarez and Ning29, and Tugnoli et al.30 used the Vortex Par-
U
90 152
91 device. However, the aircraft’s stability is drastically reduced ticle Method (VPM) to simulate the wakes of propellers and 153
92 due to the drastic reduction in control surface efficiency. In capture the aerodynamic interactions between the propellers 154
93 2019, Shafie et al.10 conducted experiments to figure out the and wing/airframe in recent years. Using the Momentum 155
94 impact of chord length on the channel wing. It was demon- Source method and ground tests, Zhao et al.31 investigated 156
95 strated that increasing the chord length of the channel wing the interaction mechanism for a distributed propeller channel 157
96 increases lift on the channel wing but decreases the propeller’s wing in 2022. Under the interaction of a channel wing, the 158
97 net thrust slightly. In 2022, Mihalik and Keane AJ11 created a wakes of the propellers may distort and dissipate faster than 159
98 Custer unmanned aircraft with a channel wing. Wind tunnel with an isolated propeller. For a multi-propeller channel wing, 160
99 and flight tests confirmed that channel wings can provide addi- the interaction between the channels was not negligible. 161
100 tional lift and delay stall, both of which are beneficial for As noted in the aforementioned citations, the majority of 162
101 STOL. studies on the aerodynamic characteristics of channel wings 163
1 July 2023
Performance analysis and flow mechanism of channel wing 3
164 were conducted via experiments and simplified low-fidelity state simulation with a frozen rotor approach to transfer veloc- 220
165 numerical methods. These studies can readily determine the ities entering the rotational domain around the blades to a 221
166 aerodynamic characteristics of a channel wing under the influ- rotating reference frame: 222
223
167 ence of a propeller slipstream, but they typically lack a com- vMRF ¼ v x r ð2Þ 225
168 prehensive analysis of the flow mechanism. In this paper, the
169 aerodynamic performance of a channel wing considering the where vMRF is the velocity in the MRF; v is the velocity in the 226
170 effect of propeller slipstream is investigated using a high- global (stationary) reference frame; x is the rotational vector; r 227
171 fidelity numerical simulation method, and the influence mech- is the position vector in the rotational domain. The MRF 228
172 anism is analyzed. First, the effect of the arc wing’s enclosing method can convert complex unsteady motion into a quasi- 229
173 angle on the channel wing’s aerodynamic performance is stud- steady flow problem, lowering the computational difficulty 230
174 ied. Then, the effects of the propeller’s phase angle, rotational and improving the computational efficiency. 231
175 speed, and chordwise position on the channel wing’s aerody-
2.3. Validation
of
176 namic performance are studied. 232
177 2. Numerical approach The experimental propeller model from Ref. 34 was chosen 233
and numerically simulated to validate the MRF method. A ser- 234
2.1. Governing equations ies of tests were conducted on the propeller model in the low-
o
178 235
speed wind tunnel at Wichita State University in Kansas, Uni- 236
179 Solving three-dimensional Reynolds Average Navier-Stocks ted States. Fig. 2 depicts the geometry and hybrid mesh of the 237
Pr
180 (RANS) equations, numerical simulations were performed to propeller with nacelle. The propeller model is generated using 238
181 evaluate the aerodynamic performance of a channel wing. In an Eppler 387 airfoil as its section, and its twist distribution is 239
182 one control volume, the RANS equations can be expressed a function of local blade radius r, as twist angle bp = 1714.5/r, 240
183 as follows: where propeller radius rp = 152.4 mm and the twist angle bp is 241
184 calculated in degrees. Its chord length cp (mm) is also described 242
@ as cp = –0.0033r2 + 0.6r–4.5, where the blade thickness
D QdD þS FðQÞ ndS ¼S GðQÞ ndS ð1Þ 243
186 @t ed remains constant relative to chord length, 9.06%. The compu- 244
187 where t is time; D is the computational domain of the control tational mesh of the propeller used for simulation is a hybrid 245
188 volume; S is the surface of the control volume with unit nor- mesh composed of the propeller-included rotational domain 246
189 mal vector n = [nx, ny, nz]T; Q is the vector of conservative mesh and the external stationary domain mesh. The total num- 247
190 variables, Q = [q, qu, qv, qw, qE]T, in which q is the fulid den- ber of grid points in the hybrid mesh is approximately 4.3 248
191 sity, u, v, and w are the speeds in different directions, E is the million. 249
192 total energy; F(Q) and G(Q) are the inviscid flux and viscosity The simulation results of the thrust coefficient CT, power 250
ct
193 flux, respectively. coefficient CP, and efficiency g of the propeller operating at 251
194 The RANS equations are discretized using a second-order, rotational speed n = 6 103 rev/min were obtained using 252
195 central-difference, finite volume method. In the RANS formu- the MRF method based on wind tunnel test conditions.34 A 253
196 lation, a new source term with unknown parameters, the so- comparison of CT, CP and g on the propeller obtained from 254
re
197 called Reynolds stress term, was introduced. To close this sys- simulation and experiment is shown in Fig. 3, where J is the 255
198 tem of equations, additional equations in the form of turbu- propeller advance ratio. The maximum error between numeri- 256
199 lence models were required. In this case, turbulence is cal simulation results and wind tunnel test data is 9.1% for the 257
200 modeled using k-x Shear Stress Transport (SST) equations.32 propeller thrust coefficient CT, 10.1% for the propeller power 258
or
coefficient CP, and 5.6% for the propeller efficiency g, when 259
201 2.2. Multi reference frame method the propeller advance ratio J is less than 0.70. As shown in 260
Fig. 3(c), the best efficiency point for propeller is acquired 261
202 With the help of commercial CFD software, ANSYS-CFX when J is about 0.53, where the error between simulation 262
17.2, the Multiple Reference Frame (MRF) method33 is results and test data is 8.91% for CT, 9.01% for CP, and 263
nc
203
204 employed to simulate the rotational motion of the propeller 1.68% for g. Although the error between the simulation using 264
205 in order to assess the influence of the propeller slipstream on MRF method and experiment increases when the advance 265
206 the aerodynamic performance of the channel wing. The ratio is very high or very low, it can still reflect the changing 266
207 MRF method is a quasi-steady simulation for non-rotating trend of propeller performance with the advance ratio. This 267
208 propeller blades. For simulating the propeller’s rotational demonstrates that the MRF method is accurate enough to sim- 268
U
209 motion, the MRF method establishes the rotational domain, ulate the flow of a propeller in motion at a specific time and 269
210 which consists of a closed cylindrical region surrounding the assess a propeller’s aerodynamic performance. 270
211 propeller. Other regions of computation are known as station-

212 ary domains, as shown in Fig. 1. The rotational and stationary 3. Results and discussions 271
213 domain meshes are generated independently and combined

214 into a hybrid mesh. The rotational and stationary domains 3.1. Description of channel wing 272
215 are simulated independently, and flux is transferred through
216 their interface. As shown in Fig. 4, the channel wing is composed of an arc 273
217 In rotational domains, the governing equations are solved wing, a left wing, and a similar right wing. The span of the 274
218 in a rotating reference frame, and in stationary domains, they channel wing is bw = 1.5 m, and its chord length is 275
219 are solved in a fixed reference frame. It can be used in a steady- cw = 0.5 m. The arc wing is produced by sweeping a control 276
1 July 2023
4 X. MENG et al.
of
Fig. 1 Sketch of computational domain used by MRF method.
o
As shown in Fig. 5, the mesh used to evaluate the channel 286
wing’s performance is a hybrid unstructured hexahedral mesh 287
Pr
that was converted from a structured mesh with a grid size of 288
approximately 11.1 million. The hybrid mesh consists of the 289
stationary domain meshes (approximately 9.6 million grid 290
points) that simulate the flow around the wing and the rota- 291
tional domain meshes (approximately 1.5 million grid points) 292
that simulate the propeller-driven rotating flow. The first grid 293
distance is kept at a value of y+ < 1. 294
ed The simulation of flow coupling between the channel wing
and propeller utilizes the MRF method based on solving
295
296
RANS equations, the aerodynamic forces on the channel wing 297
are obtained by integrating the pressure and shear stress on its 298
surface, excluding the propeller force. Define the coordinate 299
ct
origin as the reference center for the pitching moment, which 300
is located at the leading edge of the wing along the x axis. A 301
positive value for the pitching moment denotes a nose-up 302
pitching moment, whereas a negative value denotes a nose- 303
down pitching moment. In this case, the pitching moment will
re
304
have a negative value, indicating a nose-down pitching 305
moment. 306
3.2. Effect of enclosing angle 307

or
3.2.1. Effect on channel wing 308
To investigate the effect of the enclosing angle on channel 309

wings under the propeller slipstream, channel wings with var- 310
nc
ious enclosing angles dw, are presented here. As the baseline, a 311
clear rectangular wing with the same span and chord and no 312
slipstream influence is also introduced. The simulation condi- 313
tion for these channel wings is displayed in Table 1. 314
The aerodynamic performance of these wings is displayed 315
Fig. 2 Propeller’s geometry and computational hybrid mesh. in Table 2. Channel wings have greater lift and less drag than 316
U
clear wings due to the power coupling effect between the pro- 317
peller and them. As the enclosing angle increases, the lift and 318
277 profile along the arc leading edge with a radius of nose-down pitching moment of the channel wing increase, 319
278 rw = 0.202 m and an enclosing angle of dw. The channel wing whereas its drag decreases. The reason for this variation will 320
279 configuration can be changed to the propeller over the wing be discussed in greater detail below. 321
280 configuration when dw = 0° by adjusting the enclosing angle Table 3 provides additional data regarding the lift compo- 322
281 of dw. The control profiles for the three wings are all CLARK nent on the left wing, right wing, and arc wing of the channel 323
282 Y airfoils with zero twist angles. The nacelle that the propeller wing with an enclosing angle, dw. The clear wing is also decom- 324
283 revolves around is mounted at the center of the arc wing. posed into three components with identical projection shapes 325
284 According to the right-hand rule, the propeller’s rotation is to those of the channel wing. It has been determined that the 326
285 positive when it points in the direction of the positive x axis. arc wing contributes the most to the lift increase under the pro- 327
1 July 2023
of
Fig. 3 Comparison of CT, CP, and g obtained from simulation and experiment on propeller.
o
Pr
ed
ct
Fig. 5 Hybrid unstructured mesh of channel wing.
re
Table 1 Simulation conditions for analyzing effect of enclos-

ing angle on channel wing.
Category Parameter Value
Wing Enclosing angle dw (°) 0, 120, 180
or
Propeller Rotational speed n (103 rev/min) 6

Phase angle u (°) 0
Chordwise position Front
Free inflow Airspeed V (m/s) 6.68
Angle of attack a (°) 0
nc
Fig. 4 Sketch of electric propulsion channel wing with varying

enclosing angle.
328 peller slipstream, accounting for approximately 90% of the lift

U
329 increase for a channel wing with dw = 180°. the nacelle, causing the slipstream to accelerate again, as 340
330 The reason for the increase in lift is evident from the pres- shown in Fig. 6(b). Because the stream tube is more convergent 341
331 sure contour of the channel wing in Fig. 6, where Cp is the in channel wings with dw = 180° than in channel wings with 342
332 pressure coefficient. Due to the effect of suction in front of dw = 120°, the phenomenon is more obvious, as shown in 343
333 and induced slipstream behind the propeller disk, a low- Fig. 6(c). As the enclosing angle increases, the lift performance 344
334 pressure region has clearly appeared on the upper surface of of an arc wing improves significantly due to the expansion of 345
335 the power coupled channel wing. Secondary flow acceleration the low-pressure region. Although the propeller-driven rotat- 346
336 appears downstream on channel wings with dw = 120°, where ing flow induces the downwashing on the left wing and the 347
337 the static pressure is much lower than the pressure at infinity, upwashing on the right wing, resulting in an asymmetric pres- 348
338 compared to channel wings with dw = 0°. It can be explained sure distribution and asymmetric lift on the channel wing, the 349
339 that a convergent stream tube forms between the arc wing and effect of the slipstream has a negligible effect on them because 350
1 July 2023
6 X. MENG et al.
Table 2 Performance of channel wings with varying enclosing

angles.
Model Lift Drag Pitching moment
coefficient coefficient CD coefficient Cm
CL
Clear 0.1822 0.0191 –0.1061
wing
dw = 0° 0.2877 0.0033 –0.1276
dw = 120° 0.3637 0.0008 –0.1592
dw = 180° 0.4790 0.0007 –0.2103
Fig. 7 Spanwise lift distribution of channel wing with various
enclosing angles.
of
351 it is concentrated within the diameter range of the propeller angle of 120° shows the best drag characteristics because the 370
352 disk along the flow direction. pressure drag decreases significantly while the skin friction 371
353 As presented in Fig. 7, the lift enhancement effect for chan- drag increases slightly. Compared to a channel wing with 372
o
354 nel wings can be observed in its spanwise lift distribution. dw = 120°, the increase in skin friction drag on a channel wing 373
355 Compared to the clear wing, the propeller slipstream enhances with dw = 180° is greater than the decrease in pressure drag, 374
356 the local lift along the spanwise direction for a channel wing resulting in an increase in its total drag. 375
Pr
357 with dw = 0°. As the enclosing angle of the arc wing gets lar- Compared to a clear wing, the skin friction drag of a chan- 376
358 ger, the local lift on the left and right wings does not change nel wing increases from 104% to 187% as the enclosing angle 377
359 much, but it increases a lot on the arc wing. This makes the dw changes from 0° to 180°, whereas its wetting area only 378
360 total lift on the channel wing increase. increases from 100% to 115%. The contours of the skin fric- 379
361 In order to analyze the drag characteristics of channel tion drag on the upper surface of the channel wings are illus- 380
362 wings with different enclosing angles, the drag on channel ed trated in more detail in Fig. 8, where Cf is the coefficient of 381
363 wings is decomposed into the skin friction drag and the pres- skin friction. On the upper surface of a channel wing, propeller 382
364 sure drag, as shown in Table 4. In comparison to a clear wing, slipstream has been observed to increase the skin friction drag. 383
365 the skin friction drag increases on all channel wings, whereas Slipstream injects additional kinetic energy into the boundary 384
366 the pressure drag decreases to a negative value on the arc wing. layer, resulting in a rapid increase in shear stress at the surface. 385
367 Both skin friction drag and pressure drag increase gradually as As the enclosing angle increases, the region blown by the slip- 386
368 the enclosing angle increases from 0° to 180°. Among the three stream of the propeller expands on the channel wing, resulting 387
ct
369 different configurations, the channel wing with the enclosing in an increase in total skin friction drag. In comparison to a 388
re
Table 3 Performance of lift and its component for channel wings with varying enclosing angle.
Model Lift coefficient
Total Growth ratio (%) Arc wing Left wing Right wing
Clear wing 0.1822 0.0502 0.0660 0.0660
or
dw = 0° 0.2877 57.9 0.1006 0.0923 0.0949

dw = 120° 0.3637 99.6 0.1516 0.1032 0.1088
dw = 180° 0.4790 162.9 0.2936 0.1016 0.0838
nc
U
Fig. 6 Pressure contour on upper surface of channel wing and spatial pressure contour behind propeller.
1 July 2023
Table 4 Drag and its component performance of channel wings with varying enclosing angles.
Model Pressure drag coefficient CD,p Friction drag coefficient CD,f
Arc wing Left wing Right wing Arc wing Left wing Right wing
Clear wing 0.0018 0.0031 0.0031 0.0025 0.0043 0.0043
dw = 0° –0.0062 0.0014 0.0002 0.0022 0.0030 0.0029
dw = 120° –0.0093 0.0010 –0.0007 0.0031 0.0034 0.0034
dw = 180° –0.0222 0.0020 0.0029 0.0112 0.0033 0.0031
o of
Pr
Fig. 8 Skin friction drag contour on upper surface of these channel wings.
389 channel wing with dw = 180°, the surface of a channel wing ed right wing. In arc wings, as displayed in Fig. 9(b), the conver- 425
390 with dw = 120° is far from the propeller and little affected gent zone between the arc wing and nacelle causes the flow to 426
391 by slipstream when the propeller’s phase angle is 0°, so its skin accelerate again at the rear of the arc wing. As the enclosing 427
392 friction drag has not significantly increased. Fig. 6 illustrates angle increases from 0° to 180°, the phenomenon of flow accel- 428
393 the reason for the decrease in pressure drag as the enclosing eration becomes more apparent. Consequently, the increased 429
394 angle increases. Due to propeller-driven airflow acceleration, lift was concentrated at the rear portion of the arc wing, result- 430
395 the static pressure near the leading edge of the arc wing on ing in a significant increase in the nose-down pitching moment 431
ct
396 the channel wing is lower than that of the clear wing, which of the channel wing. The nose-down pitching moment of the 432
397 helps to reduce pressure drag. As the enclosing angle increases, arc wing varies significantly with the enclosing angle and plays 433
398 the distance between the propeller and the arc wing decreases, a significant role in the total nose-down pitching moment of 434
399 resulting in a gradual decrease in pressure drag. However, as the channel wing. As shown in Fig. 9(c), the increase in the 435
re
400 the enclosing angle dw increases from 120° to 180°, the stream enclosing angle prevents the spanwise spread of the propeller 436
401 tube becomes more convergent and the flow accelerates again high-speed slipstream on the right wing. As the enclosing angle 437
402 at the middle rear of the arc wing, which has a negative effect increases from 0° to 180°, the flow acceleration induced by slip- 438
403 on the reduction of pressure drag. The drag characteristics of stream decreases gradually, and the pressure distribution on 439
the channel wing with dw = 120° are superior to those of the the upper surface of the channel wing converges gradually to
or
404 440
405 channel wing with dw = 180° because the increase in skin fric- that of the clear wing. 441
406 tion drag on the channel wing exceeds the reduction in its pres- However, the flow phenomenon on the left wing differs 442
407 sure drag as the enclosing angle increases from 120° to 180°. from that on the right wing due to the opposite direction of 443
408 Table 5 lists the coefficients of nose-down pitching moment blade motion. As the slipstream is over the left wing when 444
nc
409 for these channel wings and their components. Under the influ- the phase angle of the propeller is 0°, the spread of slipstream 445
410 ence of propeller slipstream, the nose-down pitching moment along the spanwise direction is not restricted on the left wing. 446
411 on all wings of a channel wing with dw = 0° increases com- As shown in Fig. 10, as the enclosing angle increases, the 447
412 pared to a clear wing. The nose-down pitching moment slipstream-affected region on the right wing gradually 448
413 increases by approximately 4% on the left wing, 8% on the decreases, whereas the region on the left wing is almost unaf- 449
right wing, and 18% on the arc wing. The nose-down pitching fected and even expands slightly. As shown in Fig. 9(d), the
U
414 450
415 moment of the left wing and right wing gradually increases as pressure distribution at profile y = –0.25 m on the left wing 451
416 the enclosing angle of the arc wing increases from 0° to 180° deviates more from that on the clear wing as the enclosing 452
417 for channel wings, with a growth margin of approximately angle increases. 453
418 10%. The arc wing is significantly affected by propeller slip- Moreover, Fig. 11 demonstrates the pressure distribution of 454
419 stream. Its nose-down pitching moment increases by approxi- the channel wing and clear wing at profiles y = –0.5 m and 455
420 mately 220%. y = 0.5 m. Induced by the propeller’s slipstream, the lift on 456
421 Fig. 9 shows the results of pressure distribution for clear both the left and right wings increases, resulting in a greater 457
422 wing and channel wing with various enclosing angles at the nose-down pitching moment. Due to propeller rotation, the 458
423 profile of y = 0 m on the arc wing, the profile of y = – effect of an increase in enclosing angle on the right wing differs 459
424 0.25 m on the left wing, and the profile of y = 0.25 m on the from that on the left wing. As the enclosing angle increases 460
1 July 2023
8 X. MENG et al.
Table 5 Performance of pitching moment and its component for channel wing.
Model Coefficient of nose-down pitching moment
Total Arc wing Left wing Right wing
Clear wing –0.1061 –0.0281 –0.0390 –0.0390
dw = 0° –0.1276 –0.0372 –0.0456 –0.0448
dw = 120° –0.1592 –0.0603 –0.0490 –0.0500
dw = 180° –0.2103 –0.1202 –0.0479 –0.0422
o of
Pr
ed
ct
re
or
nc
Fig. 9 Pressure distribution at profiles of channel wing.
461 from 120° to 180°, the constraint to slipstream of the propeller drag significantly due to the suction of the propeller disk and 474
462 for the arc wing becomes stronger, resulting in the gradual the induction of slipstream. Nevertheless, a channel wing with 475
U
463 weakening of the slipstream effect on the right wing, as shown dw = 180° causes an excessive increase in the nose-down pitch- 476
464 in Fig. 11(a). The pressure distribution on the right wing con- ing moment, limiting its application. In aircraft layout design, 477
465 verges gradually to that of the clear wing. Consequently, the extra attention must be paid to the implementation of longitu- 478
466 nose-down pitching moment on the right wing decreases grad- dinal nose-down pitching moment trimming. Extra care must 479
467 ually. As the enclosing angle increases from 120° to 180°, the be taken in aircraft layout design to implement longitudinal 480
468 pressure distribution on the left wing changes very little, so nose-down pitching moment trimming for the channel wing. 481
469 the nose-down pitching moment on the left wing stays almost
470 the same. 3.2.2. Effect on propeller 482
471 Through the study of the effect of enclosing angle on chan- The effect of the enclosing angle of the channel wing on the 483
472 nel wing, it has been determined that a channel wing with propeller is investigated. The aerodynamic performance of 484
473 dw = 180° can achieve the greatest lift gain while reducing the propeller of the channel wing system with different enclos- 485
1 July 2023
of
Fig. 10 Speed isosurface of V = 8 m/s for channel wings.
o
Pr
ed
ct
Fig. 11 Pressure distribution at profiles of left wing and right wing.
re
486 ing angles is displayed in Table 6. The clear propeller model required power of the propeller for channel wing reach the 500
487 that is composed of the propeller and nacelle is provided here. maximum. When the enclosing angle increases to 180°, the 501
488 It is simulated at the same conditions as the other channel wing aerodynamic load on the blade tip of the propeller gets smaller 502
489 configurations, and its results are also listed in Table 6. Fig. 12 than that with dw = 120°, as shown in Fig. 12, leading to the 503
or
490 displays the distribution of the aerodynamic load of the pro- decrease of the thrust on the propeller with dw = 180°. 504
491 peller at various enclosing angles.
492 Under the influence of the channel wing, the propeller of 3.2.3. Effect on whole system 505
493 the channel wing system has greater thrust and requires more The variation of the overall aerodynamic performance of the 506
494 power than the clear propeller. As shown in Fig. 12, due to the channel wing system with increasing enclosing angle is investi-
nc
507
495 effect of the arc wing on the propeller of the channel wing sys- gated here, considering the propeller slipstream. For the condi- 508
496 tem, the distribution of aerodynamic load on it gets larger than tion that the angle of attack of the channel wing is zero, the net 509
497 that on the clear propeller at the tip of the blade, leading to an thrust of the whole system is defined as the thrust of the pro- 510
498 increase in the thrust on it. Among these channel wing config- peller minus the drag of the channel wing. It acts in the hori- 511
499 urations, when the enclosing angle is 120°, the thrust and
U
Table 6 Aerodynamic performance of propeller with varying enclosing angle.

Model CT Difference of CT CP Difference of CP g Difference of g
Clear propeller 0.0832 0.0582 0.2860
dw = 0° 0.0855 0.0023 0.0593 0.0011 0.2886 0.0026
dw = 120° 0.0876 0.0044 0.0615 0.0033 0.2851 –0.0009
dw = 180° 0.0867 0.0035 0.0611 0.0029 0.2837 –0.0023
1 July 2023
10 X. MENG et al.
o of
Fig. 12 Variation of aerodynamic load of propeller with varying enclosing angle.
Pr
512 zontal direction. The lift of the whole system is still expressed the propeller at 0°, which means that a full rotation cycle 539
513 as the lift of the channel wing, acting in the vertical direction. has been completed. 540
514 The required power of the whole system is equal to the Fig. 14 shows the variation of aerodynamic forces on the 541
515 required power of the propeller. channel wing with propeller phase angle, u. The lift, drag, 542
516 Then the variation of the aerodynamic performance of the and nose-down pitching moment of the channel wing fluctuate 543
517 whole system with the increase of the enclosing angle is ana- through a full cycle as the propeller rotates from u = 0° to 544
518 lyzed, as shown in Table 7. As the enclosing angle increases, u = 180°. The lift of the channel wing decreases as u varies 545
519
520
521
although the required power of the whole system increases
slightly, the net thrust of the whole system increases slightly,
and the lift of the whole system increases significantly. It can
ed from 0° to 45°, then increases as u varies from 45° to 90°,
and then decreases once more as u varies from 90° to 180°.
The minimum lift occurs at u = 45° and the maximum lift
546
547
548
522 be seen that the channel wing system can obtain the great lift occurs at u = 90°. The drag of the channel wing decreases 549
523 gain while paying only a small extra power cost, thus effec- as u changes from 0° to 90°, then increases as u changes from 550
524 tively improving its take-off and landing performance. 90° to 135°, and finally decreases as u changes from 135° to 551
ct
180°. The minimum drag occurs at u = 45° and the maximum 552
525 3.3. Effect of propeller phase angle drag occurs at u = 135°. The nose-down pitching moment of 553
the channel wing increases first as u changes from 0° to 90°, 554
then decreases as u changes from 90° to 180°. When the pro- 555
re
526 During the rotation of the propeller, for the channel wing, dif-
527 ferent phases of the blades will have different effects on its sur- peller rotates to u = 180°, the blade of the propeller coincides 556
528 face, thereby altering its aerodynamic performance. Hence, the with that of the propeller rotating to u = 0°, and the new fluc- 557
529 effect of propeller phase angles on the aerodynamic perfor- tuation period of aerodynamic forces on the channel wing 558
530 mance of the channel wing is investigated further using the begins. The main contributor to the change in aerodynamic 559
or
531 MRF method. forces on a channel wing is the arc wing. The aerodynamic 560
532 According to the right-hand rule, as illustrated in Fig. 13, forces on the channel wing’s left and right wings just show a 561
533 the rotation axis of the propeller coincides with the x-axis small periodic change with the rotation of the propeller, and 562
534 and points in the positive direction of the x-axis. The phase the fluctuation trends of the aerodynamic forces on the left 563
535 angle of the propeller, u, is 0° when the propeller is in the hor- and right wings are opposite due to the downwashing on the 564
nc
536 izontal position, 90° when the propeller is in the vertical posi- left wing and the upwashing on the right wing caused by the 565
537 tion, and 180° when the propeller is back in the horizontal propeller rotation. 566
538 position. At this point, the propeller at 180° coincides with As the propeller rotates from u = 0°to u = 90°and to 567
u = 180°, the low-pressure region induced by the high-speed 568
U
Table 7 Variation of aerodynamic performance of whole system with varying enclosing angle.
Model Net thrust Lift Required power
Value (N) Growth rate (%) Value (N) Growth rate (%) Value (W) Growth rate (%)
dw = 0° 12.970 5.897 301.736
dw = 120° 13.345 2.89 7.454 26.3 313.029 3.74
dw = 180° 13.199 1.76 9.817 66.47 311.108 3.11
1 July 2023
Fig. 13 Geometric description of channel wing with propeller at Fig. 16 Spanwise lift distribution of channel wing with varying
varying phase angles. propeller phase angles.
of
569 slipstream at the tip of the blade moves along the circumferen- pressure region moves to the side of the arc wing, causing 581
570 tial direction on the upper wall of the arc wing, as displayed in the lift on the channel wing to decrease simultaneously. 582
571 Fig. 15. This causes the peak of local lift on the arc wing to Due to the periodic motion of high-speed slipstream at the
o
583
572 shift from the left to the right, as shown in Fig. 16. When tip of the blade along the circumferential direction on the 584
573 the propeller rotates to u = 90°, a low-pressure region will upper wall of the arc wing, the drag on the channel wing fluc- 585
574 appear at the bottom of the arc wing, causing a significant tuates periodically as the propeller rotates. As shown in
Pr
586
575 increase in the peak of the local lift there. Consequently, the Fig. 17, following the rotation of the propeller from u = 0° 587
576 lift on the channel wing reaches its maximum at this time. to u = 180°, the pressure drag on the channel wing increases 588
577 The local lift peak on the arc wing can be maintained until at first, then decreases, and reaches its maximum at 589
578 the propeller reaches u = 135°. Nevertheless, as the propeller u = 135°, whereas the skin friction drag on the channel wing 590
579 rotates from u = 135° to u = 180°, the effective lift compo- decreases at first, then increases, and reaches its minimum at 591
580 nent in the vertical direction decreases because the low- ed u = 90°, causing the total drag on the channel wing to fluctu- 592
ate periodically, as shown in Fig. 14(b). Because the high-speed 593
ct
re
or
Fig. 14 Variation of aerodynamic force on channel wing with propeller phase angle.
nc
U
Fig. 15 Contour of spatial pressure distribution along axis on arc wing.
1 July 2023
12 X. MENG et al.
594 slipstream induced by the propeller is limited within the arc ratio of tip clearance increases, the aerodynamic force on the 633
595 wing, the phase angle of the propeller has a significant effect left wing and right wing is almost unaffected by the tip clear- 634
596 on the arc wing but little effect on the left and right wings. ance because they are far away from the propeller, while lift, 635
597 As the propeller rotates, the pressure drags on the left and drag, and the nose-down pitching moment on the arc wing 636
598 right wings fluctuate with a small amplitude, as shown in decrease, leading to a decrease in these on the channel wing 637
599 Fig. 17(a). Due to the asymmetric washing flow induced by as well. The variation of the tip clearance has less effect on 638
600 propeller swirling flow, the pressure drag on the left wing the lift and nose-down pitching moment of the channel wing 639
601 increases at first and then decreases, while that on the right but has a great effect on the drag of the channel wing. 640
602 wing decreases at first and then increases. As shown in Fig. 19 provides the spanwise lift distribution of these chan- 641
603 Fig. 17(b), the propeller phase angle has little effect on the skin nel wings with different tip clearances. As the tip clearance 642
604 friction drag of the left and right wings. increases, the local lift on the arc wing decreases, leading to 643
605 The lift, drag, and nose-down pitching moment of the chan- a decrease in the total lift on the channel wing. The effect of 644
of
606 nel wing change periodically with the periodic motion of the the tip clearance on the local lift only exists in the arc wing 645
607 propeller phase angle caused by the propeller’s rotation. How- because the propeller is limited in the arc wing. 646
608 ever, their amplitudes are small, so the change in the propeller Further, the pressure distribution at the profile of y = 0 m 647
609 phase angle has little effect on the channel wing’s aerodynamic on the channel wing with different tip clearances is provided in 648
610 performance. Fig. 20. There is a high negative pressure peak in front of the 649
o
propeller disk, and the pressure increases rapidly behind the 650
611 3.4. Effect of tip clearance propeller disk. As the tip clearance increases, the negative pres- 651
sure peak in front of the propeller and the pressure on the wing 652
Pr
612 To investigate the effect of tip clearance between the channel behind the propeller decreases gradually, which means that the 653
613 wing and the propeller on their aerodynamic performance, lift on the channel wing decreases as the tip clearance increases. 654
614 the channel wing is configured with dw = 180° and the pro- Fig. 21 displays the contour of the skin friction drag on the 655
615 peller’s phase angle is set to 90°, so that the propeller has upper surface of the channel wing with different tip clearances. 656
616 one blade near the arc wing and the other blade away from As the tip clearance decreases, the blade tip of the propeller 657
617 the arc wing. A dimensionless parameter, the ratio of tip clear-
ed will get closer to the wall of the arc wing, thus the high- 658
618 ance Rtc, which is defined as the ratio of the tip clearance speed slipstream induced by the propeller will also get closer 659
619 between channel wing and propeller to the radius of the pro- to the wall of the arc wing, leading to an increase in the veloc- 660
620 peller, is introduced here. By keeping the geometry of the pro- ity gradient in the normal direction and an increase in the 661
621 peller unchanged and adjusting the radius of the arc wing shear stress on the wall, as shown in Fig. 21. Therefore, the 662
622 slightly, a series of channel wing configurations with different drag on the channel wing will increase as the tip clearance 663
623 tip clearances can be obtained. The aerodynamic performance decreases. 664
ct
624 of six configurations with different tip clearances is compared,
625 and their tip clearance ratio Rtc = 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%. 3.4.2. Effect on propeller 665
626 Because the tip clearance is small in comparison to the radius The variation of aerodynamic force on the propeller with the 666
627 of the arc wing, the effect of the radius change on the aerody- different ratios of tip clearances Rtc is shown in Fig. 22. As 667
re
628 namic force of the channel wing is ignored in the result the tip clearance increases, the thrust and propulsion efficiency 668
629 analysis. of the propeller of the channel wing system are both reduced 669
but still higher than those of the isolated propeller. For the 670
630 3.4.1. Effect on channel wing power required by the propeller of the channel wing system, 671
or
631 The variation of aerodynamic force on channel wings with the it also reduces as Rtc increases, and when Rtc gets larger than 672
632 different ratios of tip clearances Rtc is shown in Fig. 18. As the 4%, it will get smaller than that required by the clear propeller. 673
nc
U
Fig. 17 Variation of pressure drag and skin friction drag on channel wing with phase of propeller.
1 July 2023
of
Fig. 18 Variation of aerodynamic force on channel wing with ratio of tip clearance.
o
Pr
ed
Fig. 19 Spanwise lift distribution of channel wing with varying
tip clearances.
ct
re
or
nc
Fig. 20 Pressure distributions at profiles of y = 0 m for channel

wings with different tip clearances.
U
674 The reason why the power required by the propeller of a chan-
675 nel wing system decreases with an increase in Rtc can be
676 explained by Fig. 21. With increased tip clearance, the pro-
677 peller’s high-speed slipstream moves further away from the
678 arc wing’s wall, the arc wing’s influence on the slipstream at
Fig. 21 Skin friction drag contour on upper surface of these
679 the propeller tip is weakened, and the torque of the propeller
channel wings with different tip clearances.
680 is reduced, resulting in a reduction in the power required by
681 the propeller. Fig. 23. Due to the influence of the arc wing on the propeller, 684
682 The distribution of aerodynamic load along the radial the load on both blade tips of the propeller of the channel wing 685
683 direction of the propeller with the different Rtc is provided in system gets higher than that on the clear propeller, leading to 686
1 July 2023
14 X. MENG et al.
of
Fig. 22 Variation of aerodynamic performance of propeller with varying ratio of tip clearance.
o
687 an increase in the propeller’s thrust. As the tip clearance affecting its aerodynamic performance. Here is the investiga- 710
688 increases, the aerodynamic load at the tip of the blade tends tion into the effect of propeller speed on the aerodynamic force 711
689 to decrease gradually, but when the ratio of tip clearance Rtc of the channel wing. 712
Pr
690 gets larger than 4%, the effect of the variation of the tip clear- Fig. 24 shows the relationship between the aerodynamic 713
691 ance on the load distribution of the blade nearly disappears, as forces on the channel wing and the propeller’s rotational 714
692 shown in Fig. 23(a), and thus the thrust on the propeller also speed. As the rotational speed of the propeller increases, the 715
693 decreases at first and then remains unchanged as the tip clear- lift on the channel wing increases significantly, while the drag 716
694 ance increases. For the blade far away from the arc wing, as decreases to a negative value, and the nose-down pitching 717
695 shown in Fig. 23(b), the variation of the tip clearance has little
ed moment also increases due to the increase in lift. Because the 718
696 effect on it all the time. high-speed slipstream of the propeller is restricted within the 719
arc wing, the arc wing is the primary contributor to the change 720
697 3.5. Effect of propeller on channel wing in the aerodynamic forces of the channel wing. The increase in 721
propeller rotational speed has little effect on the aerodynamic 722
698 The channel wing and propeller are tightly coupled in aspects forces of the left and right wings. As the propeller rotational 723
699 of aerodynamics and thrust. The working condition of the pro- speed increases, the drag on the left and right wings does not 724
ct
700 peller will significantly impact the aerodynamic performance change much, while the lift and nose-down pitching moment 725
701 of the channel wing. Here, a channel wing with dw = 180° is increase marginally. 726
702 chosen to further investigate the effect of the rotational speed, In addition, Fig. 25 illustrates the variation of skin friction 727
703 and chordwise position of the propeller on the aerodynamic drag and pressure drag on a channel wing and its components 728
re
704 performance of the channel wing. Table 8 lists the simulation as a function of propeller rotation speed. As the propeller’s 729
705 conditions for analyzing the effect of the propeller on the aero- rotational speed increases, the pressure drag on the arc wing 730
706 dynamic performance of the channel wing. decreases and the skin friction drag on the arc wing increases. 731
However, the pressure drag and skin friction drag on the left 732
wing and right wing are hardly affected by the propeller’s rota- 733
or
707 3.5.1. Rotational speed of propeller

tional speed. It can be seen that increasing the propeller rota- 734
708 The high-speed slipstream of the propeller will alter the pres-
tional speed causes an increase in skin friction drag and a 735
709 sure and shear stress on the wall of the channel wing, thereby
nc
U
Fig. 23 Variation of aerodynamic load of propeller with ratio of tip clearance.
1 July 2023
Table 8 Simulation conditions for analysis of effect of propeller on channel wing.

Category Parameter Simulation condition for analysis
Effect of rotational speed Effect of chordwise position
Wing Enclosing angle dw (°) 180 180
Propeller Phase angle u (°) 0 0
Rotational speed n (103 rev/min) 4–8 6
Chordwise position Front Front, rear
Free inflow Airspeed V (m/s) 6.68 6.68
Angle of attack a (°) 0 0
of
736 decrease in pressure drag on the arc wing, which causes an 3.5.2. Chordwise position of propeller 768
737 increase in skin friction drag and a decrease in pressure drag As illustrated in Fig. 28, there are typically two propeller-wing 769
738 on the whole channel wing. coupling configurations for channel wings: the tractor configu- 770
739 Fig. 26 demonstrates the pressure distributions at various ration with the front propeller mounted inside the arc wing 771
o
740 channel wing profiles. As shown in Fig. 26(a), the propeller’s and the pusher configuration with the rear propeller mounted 772
741 high-speed slipstream induces a low-pressure region behind inside the arc wing. The lift-increasing mechanism for the two 773
742 the propeller disk on the arc wing, which reduces the pressure configurations differs slightly. The lift increase for the tractor 774
Pr
743 drag on the channel wing. As the propeller’s rotational speed configuration is primarily caused by high-speed slipstream 775
744 increases, the pressure on the upper surface of the arc wing behind the propeller disk, whereas the lift increase for the 776
745 decreases, further reducing the pressure drag. Although the pusher configuration is primarily caused by suction in front 777
746 skin friction drag on the arc wing increases due to the of the propeller disk. Hence, the effect of propeller chordwise 778
747 slipstream-induced increase in shear stress, the decrease in installation position on the aerodynamic performance of a 779
748 pressure drag is greater than the increase in skin friction drag channel wing is examined. 780
749 on the channel wing. Therefore, as the propeller’s rotational
750
751
speed increases, the total drag on the channel wing continues
to decrease. As shown in Fig. 26(b) and (c), the slipstream of
ed Fig. 29 shows the relationship of lift and nose-down pitch-
ing moment on a channel wing with propeller speed for tractor
and pusher configurations of channel wing. The variation
781
782
783
752 the propeller has almost no effect on the pressure distribution trend of the lift and nose-down pitching moment on a pusher 784
753 on the left and right wings. Hence, the aerodynamic forces on configuration with propeller speed is similar to that of a tractor 785
754 these wings are mostly unaffected. configuration. Nevertheless, compared to the tractor configu- 786
ct
755 The effect of the propeller slipstream on the velocity profile ration, the pusher configuration achieves greater lift enhance- 787
756 in the boundary layer at different positions on the upper sur- ment, which further contributes to an increase in nose-down 788
757 face of the wing is shown in Fig. 27 when the propeller rotates pitching moment. In addition, as propeller rotational speed 789
758 at n = 4 103, 6 103, 8 103 rev/min, where yn is the nor- increases, the growth rate of nose-down pitching moment on 790
re
759 mal height relative to wall, U is the flow speed of air near pusher configuration is greater than that of tractor configura- 791
760 the wall. The velocity at the top of the boundary layer tion, because the lift increment point on pusher configuration 792
761 increases significantly on the arc wing and slightly on the left is farther away from the pitching moment reference point. It 793
762 and right wings as the rotational speed of the propeller can be demonstrated through pressure distribution at 794
763 increases. This indicates that the propeller’s high-speed slip- y = 0 m profiles for both the tractor and pusher configura- 795
or
764 stream can inject more kinetic energy into the boundary layer tions, as shown in Fig. 30. As the rotational speed of the pro- 796
765 of the channel wing, resulting in a fuller velocity profile in the peller increases, the pressure at the propeller disk sharply 797
766 boundary layer and improving the channel wing’s ability to decreases. As a result, the tractor configuration’s lift increment 798
767 resist flow separation. concentrates on the front portion of the wing, whereas the 799
nc
U
Fig. 24 Variation of aerodynamic force on channel wing with rotational speed of propeller.
1 July 2023
16 X. MENG et al.
o of
Fig. 25 Variation of drag and its component on channel wing with rotational speed of propeller.
Pr
ed
ct
Fig. 26 Pressure distribution at profiles of arc wing.
re
or
nc
U
Fig. 27 Velocity profile in boundary layer of channel wing.
1 July 2023
configuration’s arc wing and an increase on the pusher config- 825

uration’s arc wing. 826
The significant lift enhancement effect of channel wings 827
improves takeoff and landing performance under low-speed 828
flight conditions. Consequently, the effect of tractor and 829
pusher configurations on the performance of channel wings 830
under low-speed flight conditions is investigated further. The 831
lift characteristics of both channel wing configurations are sim- 832
ulated and analyzed when the propeller rotational speed 833
n = 6 103 rev/min, the advance ratio J = 0.20, the propeller 834
phase angle u = 0°, and the free inflow velocity is 6.68 m/s. 835
Fig. 28 Geometric description of tractor and pusher configura- The variation of lift for both tractor and pusher channel wing 836
of
tions for a channel wing. configurations with the angle of attack a is shown in Fig. 32. 837
The stall angle of attack for the tractor configuration is 22°, 838
correspondingly its maximum lift coefficient is 1.50, whereas 839
800 pusher configuration’s lift increment concentrates on the rear the stall angle of attack for the pusher configuration is 32°, 840
801 portion of the wing, resulting in a greater nose-down pitching correspondingly its maximum lift coefficient is 2.2. This indi- 841
o
802 moment for the pusher configuration. cates that the pusher configuration has greater lift characteris- 842
803 The drag variation trend for the pusher configuration is the tics and stall delaying capabilities. 843
804 opposite to that of the tractor configuration. As shown in As shown in Fig. 32, the tractor configuration stalls at 844
Pr
805 Fig. 31(a), as propeller rotational speed increases, drag on a = 22° as its right wing stalls at this angle. Furthermore, 845
806 the pusher configuration increases while drag on the pusher Fig. 33 displays the surface limit streamline on the upper sur- 846
807 configuration decreases. Furthermore, the magnitude and vari- face, the spatial streamline flowing through the right wing at 847
808 ation trend of skin friction drag are comparable for the pusher y = 0.4 m profile, and the velocity isosurface of V = 12 m/s 848
809 and tractor configurations. As shown in Fig. 31(b), the differ- for both channel configurations at a = 22°. At a = 22°, it 849
810 ence in drag between two configurations is primarily due to the ed can be observed that flow separation appears on the upper sur- 850
811 pressure drag, which is primarily contributed by the arc wing face of the right wing of the tractor configuration, resulting in 851
812 of the channel wing. Fig. 30 displays the pressure distributions a decrease in lift, whereas the upper surfaces of the left and 852
813 at y = 0 m profiles of the wing with varying propeller rota- right wings of the pusher configuration maintain good 853
814 tional speeds. The airflow is accelerated by the propeller as it attached flow. 854
815 flows through the propeller disk, resulting in a large low- Fig. 34 demonstrates the contour of the effect angle of 855
816 pressure region on the upper surface of the arc wing. The attack aeffect at x = 0.03 m for the tractor configuration and 856
ct
817 low-pressure region on the upper surface of the tractor config- the pusher configuration. When the propeller rotating clock- 857
818 uration appears in front of the maximum thickness of the arc wise around the x-axis reaches u = 0°, the left blade is moving 858
819 wing, which is advantageous for reducing pressure drag. In downward, causing downwashing over the left wing, whereas 859
820 contrast, the low-pressure region of the pusher configuration the right blade is moving upward, causing upwashing over 860
re
821 is located behind the maximum thickness of the arc wing, the right wing. For the tractor configuration, asymmetric 861
822 thereby increasing its pressure drag. As the rotational speed washing decreases the effective angle of attack at the leading 862
823 of the propeller increases, the effect of airflow acceleration edge of the left wing and increases it at the leading edge of 863
824 increases, resulting in a decrease in pressure drag on the tractor the right wing, causing the right wing to stall at a = 22° while 864
the left wing can still maintain the attached flow well on its
or
865
nc
U
Fig. 29 Variation of lift and nose-down pitching moment for tractor and pusher configurations of channel wing.
1 July 2023
18 X. MENG et al.
of
Fig. 30 Pressure distribution at profiles of y = 0 m for tractor and pusher configurations of channel wing.
o
Pr
ed
ct
re
Fig. 31 Drag variation for tractor and pusher configurations of channel wing.
or
nc
U
Fig. 32 Longitudinal lift characteristic of tractor and pusher configurations.
1 July 2023
o of
Fig. 33 Surface limit streamline, spatial streamline, and speed isosurface of V = 12 m/s for channel wing configurations.
Pr
ed
ct
re
or
Fig. 34 Contour of aeffect for both channel wing configurations.
866 upper surface. For the pusher configuration, the propeller disk (1). As the enclosing angle of the arc wing increases, the 883
867 is far from the leading edge of the wing, so the effect of asym- region affected by the slipstream of the propeller on 884
868 metric washing on the leading edge of the wing is weak. More- the upper surface of the channel wing also increases, 885
nc
869 over, the suction effect from the propeller disk plays a resulting in an increase in lift and a decrease in drag 886
870 significant role in inducing the airflow to deflect downward, on the channel wing. The nose-down pitching moment 887
871 thereby reducing the effective angle of attack on the upper sur- of a channel wing increases as lift increases, making it 888
872 face of both the left and right wings. As a result, the attached harder to trim. In this process, the thrust on the pro- 889
873 flow can be maintained on both the left and right wings, and peller also increases due to the increased aerodynamic 890
U
874 stalling is delayed. load on the blade tip. 891

(2). For the whole system composed by the channel wing 892
875 4. Conclusions and propeller, although the power required by the whole 893
system increases slightly, the net thrust of the whole sys- 894
876 Using the MRF method, the aerodynamic performance of a tem increases slightly, and the lift of the whole system 895
877 channel wing with varying enclosing angles of arc wings and increases significantly as the enclosing angle increases, 896
thus its STOL performance is still greatly improved. 897
878 varying propeller operating conditions was evaluated. The
879 law and mechanism governing the effect of the enclosing angle (3). The tip clearance has less effect on the lift and pitching 898
880 of the arc wing, the phase angle of the propeller, the propeller’s moment of the channel wing while having a great effect 899
on its drag. Setting a higher tip clearance ratio, such as 900
881 rotational speed, and its chordwise position on the channel
882 wing are investigated. The research reveals: 6%, benefits both the channel wing and the propeller 901
1 July 2023
20 X. MENG et al.
902 because the lift on the channel wing only decreases 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit; Reno, USA. Reston: 958
903 slightly, but the drag on the channel wing decreases dra- AIAA; 2001. 959
904 matically as the tip clearance increases. In this process, 9. Keane PM, Keane AJ. Use of Custer channel wings–wing ducts on 960
905 the propeller’s thrust increases while the required power small UAVs. J Aerosp Eng 2016;29(3):04015059. 961
10. Shafie MAM, Hamid MFA, Rafie ASM. Circulation control 962
906 decreases.
aircraft design: Assessment on the channel-wing lift-thrust perfor- 963
907 (4). Increasing the rotational speed of the propeller can mance characteristics. J Adv Res Fluid Mec Ther Sci 2019;64 964
908 make the velocity profile of the boundary layer fuller (1):143–51. 965
909 by adding more kinetic energy to the boundary layer. 11. Mihalik J, Keane AJ. Custer channel wings for short takeoff and 966
910 This makes the channel wing more resistant to flow landing of unmanned aircraft. J Aircr 2022;59(1):196–205. 967
911 separation. 12. Englar R, Campbell B. Development of pneumatic channel wing 968
912 (5). The pusher configuration has a better lift characteristic powered-lift advanced super-STOL aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 969
913 than the tractor configuration, but a worse drag charac- 20th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference; St. Louis, USA. 970
teristic. For a pusher configuration, the suction effect of Reston: AIAA; 2002. 971
of
914
915 the propeller disk can decrease the effective angle of 13. Englar RJ, Campbell BA. Experimental development and evalu- 972
ation of pneumatic powered-lift super-STOL aircraft. In: Appli- 973
916 attack of both the left and right wings, delaying stall.
cations of Circulation Control Technology. Reston: AIAA, 2006, p. 974
917 (6). The aerodynamic forces on the channel wing fluctuate 315–36. 975
918 periodically, corresponding to the propeller’s periodic
o
14. Müller L, Kozulovic D, Hepperle M, et al. Installation effects of a 976
919 rotation. The propeller phase angle has little effect on propeller over a wing with internally blown flap. In: Proceedings of 977
920 the channel wing. Using the MRF method to simulate the 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. New Orleans, 978
921 propeller-wing coupled flow and obtain aerodynamic USA. Reston: AIAA; 2012. 979
Pr
922 force instead of the unsteady RANS method will save 15. Müller L, Kožulović D, Hepperle M, et al. The influence of the 980
923 a significant amount of time, though at the expense of propeller position on the aerodynamics of a channel wing. AIAA J 981
924 some accuracy. 2012;38(5):784–92. 982
925
16. Müller L, Heinze W, Kožulović D, et al. Aerodynamic installation 983
effects of an over-the-wing propeller on a high-lift configuration. J 984
Aircr 2014;51(1):249–58. 985
926 Declaration of Competing Interest ed 17. Marcus EA, de Vries R, Raju Kulkarni A, et al. Aerodynamic 986
investigation of an over-the-wing propeller for distributed propul- 987
927 The authors declare that they have no known competing sion. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences 988
928 financial interests or personal relationships that could have Meeting; Kissimmee, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2018. 989
929 appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 18. Zhang YF, Chen HX, Zhang YF. Wing optimization of propeller 990
aircraft based on actuator disc method. Chin J Aeronaut 2021;34 991
(5):65–78. 992
930 Acknowledgements
ct
19. Wang HB, Zhu XP, Zhou Z. Numerical simulation of the 993
propeller/wing interactions at low Reynolds number. In: The 994
931 This study was supported by the Fundamental Research 30th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical 995
932 Funds for the Central Universities and the Central Funds Sciences; Daejeon, Korea, 2016. 996
933 Guiding the Local Science and Technology Development, 20. Deere KA, Viken JK, Viken S, et al. Computational analysis of a 997
re
934 China (No. 2021Szvup1). wing designed for the X-57 distributed electric propulsion aircraft. 998
In: Proceedings of the 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Confer- 999
935 References ence; Denver, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2017. 1000

21. Deere KA, Viken S, Carter M, et al. Comparison of high-fidelity 1001
computational tools for wing design of a distributed electric 1002
or
936 1. Zhang XY, Zhang W, Li WL, et al. Experimental research on

propulsion aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 35th AIAA Applied 1003
937 aero-propulsion coupling characteristics of a distributed electric
Aerodynamics Conference; Denver, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2017. 1004
938 propulsion aircraft. Chin J Aeronaut 2023;36(2):201–12.
22. Deere KA, Viken S, Carter M, et al. Computational analysis of 1005
939 2. Polaczyk N, Trombino E, Wei P, et al. A review of current
powered lift augmentation for the LEAPtech distributed electric 1006
940 technology and research in urban on-demand air mobility appli-
propulsion wing. In: Proceedings of the 35th AIAA Applied 1007
nc
941 cations. In: 8th Biennial Autonomous VTOL Technical Meeting and
Aerodynamics Conference; Denver, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2017. 1008
942 6th Annual Electric VTOL Symposium; Mesa, USA. 2019. p. 333–
23. Viken JK, Viken S, Deere KA, et al. Design of the cruise and flap 1009
943 43.
airfoil for the X-57 Maxwell distributed electric propulsion 1010
944 3. Xie Y, Savvarisal A, Tsourdos A, et al. Review of hybrid electric
aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics 1011
945 powered aircraft, its conceptual design and energy management
Conference; Denver, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2017. 1012
946 methodologies. Chin J Aeronaut 2021;34(4):432–50.
24. Deere KA, Viken S, Carter MB, et al. Computational component 1013
U
947 4. Zhu ZH, Xiao TH, Zhi HL, et al. Aerodynamic characteristics of
build-up for the X-57 Maxwell distributed electric propulsion 1014
948 co-flow jet wing with simple high-lift devices. Chin J Aeronaut
aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences 1015
949 2022;35(10):67–83.
Meeting; Kissimmee, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2018. 1016
950 5. Gokce Z, Camci C. Channel wing as a potential VTOL/STOL
25. Aref P, Ghoreyshi M, Jirasek A, et al. Computational study of 1017
951 aero-vehicle concept. Recent Pat Mech Eng 2010;3(1):18–31.
propeller–wing aerodynamic interaction. Aerospace 2018;5(3):79. 1018
952 6. Blick EF, Homer V. Power-on channel wing aerodynamics. J Aircr
26. Guruswamy GP. Dynamic aeroelasticity of wings with tip 1019
953 1971;8(4):234–8.
propeller by using navier–stokes equations. AIAA J 2019;57 1020
954 7. Edgington WA. A lifting line analysis of nonplanar wings
(8):3200–5. 1021
955 [dissertation]. Norman: The University of Oklahoma, 1973.
27. Wang KL, Zhou Z, Fan ZY, et al. Aerodynamic design of tractor 1022
956 8. Nangia R, Palmer M. ‘‘Channel” and ‘‘arc” wing aerodynamics
propeller for high-performance distributed electric propulsion 1023
957 with propeller effects for STOL application. In: Proceedings of the
aircraft. Chin J Aeronaut 2021;34(10):20–35. 1024
1 July 2023
1025 28. Gong JE, Ding JM, Wang LZ. Propeller–duct interaction on the 32. Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for 1036
1026 wake dynamics of a ducted propeller. Phys Fluids 2021;33(7). engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;32(8):1598–605. 1037
1027 29. Alvarez EJ, Ning A. High-fidelity modeling of multirotor aerody- 33. Luo J, Gosman A. Prediction of impeller-induced flow in mixing 1038
1028 namic interactions for aircraft design. AIAA J 2020;58 vessels using multiple frames of reference. Inst Chem Engineers 1039
1029 (10):4385–400. Symposium Ser 1994;549–56. 1040
1030 30. Tugnoli M, Montagnani D, Syal M, et al. Mid-fidelity approach to 34. Ghoddoussi A, Miller LS. A more comprehensive database for 1041
1031 aerodynamic simulations of unconventional VTOL aircraft con- low Reynolds number propeller performance validations. In: 1042
1032 figurations. Aerosp Sci Technol 2021;115. Proceedings of the 34th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference; 1043
1033 31. Zhao JM, Fan ZY, Chang M, et al. Coupling effects on distributed Washington, D.C., USA. Reston: AIAA; 2016. 1044
1034 multi-propeller channel wing at low speed condition. Energies 1045
1035 2022;15(15):5352.
o of
Pr
ed
ct
re
or
nc
U

1 s2.0 S1000936123002091 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1000936123002091 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CJA 2697 No.

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2 FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

22 1. Introduction Electric Propulsion1 (DEP) technology is considered a sustain- 29

24 and environmental pollution have become more severe in con- congestion.2,3 32

211 propeller. Other regions of computation are known as station-

213 domain meshes are generated independently and combined

3.2. Effect of enclosing angle 307

3.2.1. Effect on channel wing 308

To investigate the effect of the enclosing angle on channel 309

Table 1 Simulation conditions for analyzing effect of enclos-

Propeller Rotational speed n (103 rev/min) 6

Fig. 4 Sketch of electric propulsion channel wing with varying

328 peller slipstream, accounting for approximately 90% of the lift

Table 2 Performance of channel wings with varying enclosing

dw = 0° 0.2877 57.9 0.1006 0.0923 0.0949

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution at proﬁles of channel wing.

Table 6 Aerodynamic performance of propeller with varying enclosing angle.

Fig. 15 Contour of spatial pressure distribution along axis on arc wing.

Fig. 20 Pressure distributions at proﬁles of y = 0 m for channel

707 3.5.1. Rotational speed of propeller

Fig. 23 Variation of aerodynamic load of propeller with ratio of tip clearance.

Table 8 Simulation conditions for analysis of effect of propeller on channel wing.

Fig. 27 Velocity proﬁle in boundary layer of channel wing.

conﬁguration’s arc wing and an increase on the pusher conﬁg- 825

Fig. 32 Longitudinal lift characteristic of tractor and pusher conﬁgurations.

Fig. 34 Contour of aeffect for both channel wing conﬁgurations.

874 stalling is delayed. load on the blade tip. 891

924 some accuracy. 2012;38(5):784–92. 982

935 References ence; Denver, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2017. 1000

936 1. Zhang XY, Zhang W, Li WL, et al. Experimental research on

You might also like