AIAA 2015 16781 Universidad PEKIN

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/306033183
Numerical Research on Aerodynamic Efﬁciency of a VTOL GFS UAV
Conference Paper · January 2015

DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-1678
CITATION READS
1 33
3 authors, including:
Haixin Chen
Tsinghua University
80 PUBLICATIONS 420 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Aircraft Design View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Haixin Chen on 20 March 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AIAA 2015-1678
AIAA SciTech
5-9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida
53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Numerical Research on Aerodynamic Efficiency of GFS

UAV
Yifei Zhang1, Lijun Xu2 and Haixin Chen3

School of Aerospace Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
GFS UAV is formed by installing a large cowling at the exit of a duct fan. The cowling is
expected to make the UAV able to carry relatively large payload without destroy the flow field.
Compared with a same sized unmanned helicopter, GFS is simple in structure which can make
its maintenance costs lower; GFS has all its rotational parts protected by duct which makes it
safer. This paper gives a brief introduction on GFS history. Then, The hover efficienfy of the
Downloaded by TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY on February 8, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-1678
GFS UAV is numerically studied. Firstly, a simplified model of duct fan and GFS with
different cowlings are compared, mainly focused on the hover efficiency influenced by the type
of cowlings. Moreover, a duct fan and a series of GFS with 6 real rotating blades are computed
and compared, to discuss how the size and shape of a cowling influence the hover efficiency of
GFS. The conclusion is that the cowling of GFS jams air flowing out from the exit of a duct
fan, which has a negative influence on the propulsion efficiency. However, the cowling
decreases the average jet speed of the whole system, in this way the propulsion efficiency is
increased. Overall, GFS has an acceptable hover efficiency penalty than traditional duct fan.
Nomenclature
η = propulsion/hover efficiency
Vin = average inlet velocity for a jet engine
Vout = average outlet velocity for a jet engine
Power = engine power
PT = total pressure
ρ = fluid density
𝑚̇ = mass flow rate of an engine
FANout = boundary condition, outlet of the duct fan
FANin = boundary condition, inlet of the duct fan
T = thrust (Lift) of an GFS
𝑐𝑇 = thrust coefficient
Q = torque on blades
𝑐𝑄 = torque coefficient
𝛺 = rotational speed
R = blade radius
I. Introduction
C OANDA Effect was presented by Henri Coanda in 1934 at France. It is a natural fluid dynamics phenomenon
that if a stream goes passing near a curve solid surface with no too large curvature, the stream will tend to leave
its original derection and follow the surface[1]. Coanda Effect has been adapted to many aircrafts, such as YC-
14(Fig.1), AN-74(Fig.2) and MD Explorer(Fig.3).
1
Graduate student, zhang-yf14@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, Student Member AIAA.
2
Graduate student, xulj04@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn, Student Member AIAA.
3
Professor, chenhaixin@tsinghua.edu.cn, Senior Member AIAA. Corresponding Author.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 1. YC-14 Figure 2. AN-74
Figure 3. MD Explorer Figure 4. Geoff’s Flying Saucer
British enginner Geoff Hatton successfully designed new concept VTOL UAV(Fig.4) named GFS(Geoff’s Flying
Saucer). According to Hatton, a GFS can gain extra lift by taking advantage of Coanda Effect, which makes it a better
aircraft than traditional duct fan or helicopter[2].
As shown in figure.4, a GFS can be constructed by adding a large cowling under a duct fan. For the reason of
Coanda Effect, the flow driven by duct fan will follow the curvature of the cowling, thus lower the average velocity
of the jet stream. And a lower velocity 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 usually means a higher propulsion efficiency, as shown in Eq.(1) for the
propulsion efficiency. Besides, as the air flew faster above cowling than below it, Hatton thought the static pressure
is lower above the cowling for the reason of Bernoulli’s principle, thus the cowling was generating additional lift.
2
𝜂= (1)
1 + 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 /𝑉𝑖𝑛
However, the cowling will also increase friction to the flow. Apparently, factors that will decrease the efficiency
also exits[4].
Many researchers are doing researches on GFS in recent years. Yu Sun and Haixin Chen did a detailed research[3]
on GFS in 2008. According to the result of Sun(Fig.5), the same input shaft power could generate higher lifting thrust
on a GFS, or in another word, the cowling produced higher propulsion efficiency, since the cowling enlarged the
overall mass flow. The cowling could generate positive extra lift(Fig.6), but it ultimately had a negative value when
the input power was large enough.
Julian and Tan Kok Ping[5] did an experiment(Fig.7) on GFS in the year 2010. Julian’s result(Fig.8) showed that
Coanda Effect can be used to generate lift, but it did not mean that the lift of GFS comes from Coanda Effect. Julian
did another experiment[6] in 2011, showing that the cowling shape of GFS could affect the lift, but he gave no further
discussion on that.
Meanwhile, C.Barlow also did an experimental research on GFS[7], which showed that at a same RPM, the aircraft
produced less lift with the cowling in place(Fig.9). This suggested that the cowling of GFS was generating negative
lift.
2
Figure 5. The Thrust V.S. Input Power Figure 6. Total Thrust and the
Additional Thrust on the Cowling V.S.
Power
Figure 7. Julian’s Equipment Figure 8. Julian’s Result
Figure 9. Performance of the GFS-UAV N-01A body

and AXI 2217/20 motor & GWS 1060 prop
3
No matter the efficiency, GFS has several advantages. GFS makes a small duct fan able to carry a bulk payload,
which can be used to carry large volume staff without destroying the aerodynamic performance. Compared to a small
size unmanned helicopter, GFS use only one fixed fan to realize pitch, yaw and roll, hence is much simper in structure,
which makes its maintenance easier and cheaper. Moreover, GFS has all the rotational parts protected by the duct and
cowling, which makes it safer when being used in especially urban area in the case of collision.
Since there are yet unclear mechanisms on GFS’s lift generation, this paper studies the hover efficiency of GFS,
mainly focusing on the influence of the cowling.
II. Modeling and Calculation

The commercial software CFX is used for the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) simulation. RANS(Reynolds-
Averaged Navier-Stokes equations) is chosen as the mumerical method in this paper and SST(Menter’s Shear Stress
Transport) model is used for Reynolds stress closure.
A. Simpified Models
The cowling plays the most important role in aerodynamic efficiency for GFS and makes it different from the duct
fan. In order to simulate the GFS’s primary flow features with small number of grids, the blades are neglected from
the duct fan first. Simplified GFSs with three different kinds of cowlings (Fig.10), as well as a simplified duct, are
computed and compared. The inlet of a duct is set as the outlet of the ambient flow field, while the outlet of the duct
is the inlet(Fig.11). Model S-GFS1(Fig.10 b) has a cowling with a flat bottom surface, while the cowling of model S-
GFS2(Fig.10 c) has no bottom surface and like a bowl, model S-GFS3(Fig.10 d) has a streamlined long tail cone. The
cowlings’ upper parts as well as the ducts are identical. Some geometry and mesh details are shown in Table.1.
a), model S-FAN b), model S-GFS1
c), model S-GFS2 d), model S-GFS3

Figure 10. Simplified models of duct fan and GFS
4
Figure 11. Boundary conditions for simplified model
Table 1. Geometry and Mesh Details of Simplified Models

MODEL DISCRIPTION VALUE
Duct Height, mm 60
S-FAN Duct Inlet Diameter, mm 280
Structured Mesh 337K
Cowling MAX Diameter, mm 650
S-GFS1 Cowling Height, mm 225
To simulate the blades’ effect of adding work to the flow, and make the velocity field as correct as possible, static
pressure is chosen as the boundary condition of the duct fan inlet and total pressure as that of duct fan outlet. The
static pressure is fixed and the total pressure is slightly changed to ensure the massflow conservation. The geometry
and the rotation of the fan blades are not simulated.
B. Complex Models
The classical geometry of GFS, like S-GFS2 , without bottom surface for the cowling, is further studied. For the
purpose of comparison, a duct fan configuration named FAN (Fig.12a) is constructed with a one-meter-diameter 6-
blade real fan. Unstructed mesh(Fig.12d) is used for the space inside the duct about the blades (Fig.12d) and structured
mesh for the other places(Fig.12c).
5
a), model FAN b), model GFS0
c), mesh of FAN d), mesh of blade
e), mesh of GFS0

Figure 12. Model FAN and GFS0
A GFS model named GFS0(Fig.12b) shares the same blade geometry and mesh with FAN. A baseline cowling is
mounted. To study the influence of the distance between the baseline cowling and duct fan, a series of models named
GFS-X are constructed based on GFS0. As the distance increases, the models are named GFS-X1, GFS-X2, GFS-X3,
GFS-X4. To study the influence of the cowling radius, models named GFS-Z are constructed. Similarly, models are
named GFS-Z1, GFS-Z2, GFS-Z3, GFS-Z4, GFS-Z5 as the cowling’s diameter increases.
a), model GFS-X b), model GFS-Z

Figure 13. model GFS-X and GFS-Z
6
The meshes of all the GFS models are in high similarity, 389K mesh number for unstructured mesh and about
500K for structured mesh. Varies rotation velocities are given to simulate different duct fan working conditions. Two
coordinate systems are used in the computation. The blade mesh is set to rotating at a fixed RPM, while the far-field
is set to opening boundary conditions.
III. Results and Analysis

Hover efficiency and power consumption are two of the most important physical quantities for GFS. The definition
of the hover efficiency is given in helicopter theory[8].
Hover Efficiency:
𝑐𝑇1.5
𝜂= (2)
𝑐𝑄
Where Thrust Coefficient
𝑇
𝑐𝑇 = (3)
𝜌𝐴(Ω𝑅)2
Torque Coefficient
𝑄
𝑐𝑞 = (4)
𝜌𝐴Ω2 𝑅3
A. Simplified Models
The power input by the fan to the airflow by the simplified models can be calculated by integrating the total
pressure change on massflow, as shown in Eq.(5). Total pressure is used in order to take both momentum and pressure
into account when solving shaft power.
𝑃𝑇 𝑃𝑇
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = ∫ 𝑑𝑚̇ − ∫ 𝑑𝑚̇ (5)
𝐹𝐴𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝜌 𝐹𝐴𝑁𝑖𝑛 𝜌
Lift can be easily obtained by integrating total pressure on all the surfaces of simplified models. However, there
are no RPM for simplified models. According to dimensional analysis, hover efficiency can be deducted to be as
follows.
𝑇3
𝜂=√ (6)
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 2 𝜌𝐴
Table 2. Numerical results of simplified models
Duct Fan Inlet
MODEL -50Pa -100Pa -200Pa -400Pa -1000Pa
Static Pressure
Power, W 10.45 20.61 69.52 187.50 716.17
S-FAN
Lift, N 2.84 5.05 10.50 20.89 51.95
Power, W 80.66 218.64 603.03 1681.6 5916.8
S-GFS1
Lift, N 4.76 8.86 18.56 36.26 88.32
Power, W 80.70 218.61 602.20 1676.5 5895.4
S-GFS2
Lift, N 6.28 12.16 24.31 48.95 114.01
Power, W 81.26 219.69 604.53 1682.4 5900.0
S-GFS3
Lift, N 14.09 27.49 54.18 107.47 248.33
7
Total Lift
140
S-FAN S-GFS1 S-GFS2 S-GFS3
120
100
80
lift, n
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Power, W
Figure 14. Total Lift of Simplified Models
Hover Efficiency
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
S-FAN S-GFS1 S-GFS2 S-GFS3
Figure 15. Hover Efficiency of Simplified Models, FANout static pressure -400Pa
The result(Fig.15) shows that for the hover efficiency, S-FAN > S-GFS3 > S-GFS2 > S-GFS1. It is easy to
understand that the efficiency of a bare duct fan is higher than that of GFS as the cowling is generating friction and
separation in the flow. As shown in Fig.16, the flow downstream of model S-GFS1 is not stable and becomes unstable,
thus causing a lift loss. In the cowling of model S-GFS2, a stable votex is generaged automatically, forming a
streamline similar to to the geometry of S-GFS3, making the mainstream of air flow able to pass it smoothly.
Compared to duct fan, the cowling could increase the static pressure near the exit of the fan (Fig.17). This pressure
increase, enlarges the lift on duct fan and the drag on cowling at the same time.
8
a), Streamline of S-FAN b), Streamline of S-GFS1
c), Streamline of S-GFS2 d), Streamline of S-GFS3

Figure 16. Streamline of Simpilified Models, FANout static pressure -400Pa
a), Static pressure contour of S-FAN b), Static pressure contour of S-GFS1
c), Static pressure contour of S-GFS2 d), Static pressure contour of S-GFS3
Figure 17. Static Pressure Contour of Simpilified Models, FANout static pressure -400Pa
As shown in Table.2, at a same mass flow rate, the lift of S-GFS is larger than that of S-FAN. Coanda Effect can
be observed in Figure.17. The outer part of cowling’s upper surface has a lower static pressure than the bottom surface
of the cowling. However, a high pressure area always exists below the duct fan. Overall, cowlings are generating
negative lift(Fig.18).
9
Force on Cowlings
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
-20
-40
-60
force, n
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160 S-GFS1 S-GFS2 S-GFS3

-180
power, w
Figure 18. Total Lift of Simplified Models
B. Complex Models
Different from the simplified models, since the CFD computation is performed on a configuration with rotional
blades, more direct formulae are used to calculate the thrust power and hover efficiency. Torque Q could be integrated
easily on blades. Thus
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑄 ∙ Ω (5)
𝐿3
𝜂=√ (6)
𝑄2 Ω2 𝜌𝐴
Table 3. Numerical Results of Complex Models

MODEL Duct Fan RPM 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Power, W 2245.08 18285.5 63239.5 155238 321293
FAN Lift, N 184.62 749.52 1700.36 3034.8 4730.26
Hover Efficiency 92.51% 92.86% 91.79% 89.16% 83.83%
Power, W 2379.1 19332.6 66867.7 164767 351668
GFS0 Lift, N 159.17 641.72 1456.00 2616.75 4211.34
Hover Efficiency 71.40% 71.30% 70.81% 69.60% 66.65%
Compare the lift, power and hover efficiency of model FAN and GFS0. Though the hover efficiency of GFS0 is a
bit lower, the performance of GFS0 is much better than the expected value according to the analysis of simplified
model.
As the designed RPM of the FAN blading is 4000, numerical data at RPM 4000 is compared. As shown in
Figure.20(b), the velocity contour shows that air flow does follow the upper surface, as a result of Coanda Effect.
However, no extra lift is generated by adding a cowling on, and the cowling is still generating negative lift. The high
pressure area is still there, and it could add both the lift on blades and drag on cowling. Unfortunately, the neat
contribution is negative.
In fact, at RPM 4000, hover efficiency of model GFS0 is about 80% that of model FAN. Considering GFS0 could
use the volume under cowling to carry payloads, and the diameter of this payload could even be larger than that of
duct fan, such a penalty on efficiency seems acceptable.
10
Lift & Hover Efficiency
5000 100.00%
4500 90.00%
4000 80.00%
3500 70.00%
3000 60.00%
Lift, N
2500 50.00%
η
2000 40.00%
1500 30.00%
1000 20.00%
500 10.00%
Lift-FAN Lift-GFS0 η-FAN η-GFS0
0 0.00%
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000
Power, W
Figure 19. Total Lift and Hover Efficiency of Complex Models
a), Velocity contour of FAN b), Velocity contour of GFS0

Figure 20. Velocity Contour of Complex Models, Duct Fan RPM 4000
a), Static pressure contour of FAN b), Static pressure contour of GFS0
Figure 21. Static Pressure Contour of Complex Models, Duct fan RPM 4000
Operating conditions of model GFS-X and GFS-Z at RPM 4000 are calculated and the results are given bellow.
As Figure.22 shows, as the distance between duct fan and cowling increases from GFS-X1 to GFS-X4 (Fig.22), hover
efficiency grows larger. Imagine an extreme case. The cowling is so far from the duct fan that the cowling’s influence
is little, of course the hover efficiency will have a tendency of becoming that of the duct fan. On the contrary, if the
distance is too small, flow will be easily “chocked”, thus causing a low hover efficiency.
11
As the cowling radius increases from GFS-Z1 to GFS-Z5(Fig.23), hover efficiency decreases. One can imagine
the extreme cases that the cowling radius is so large that the fan-cowling aircraft cannot even hover. On the other end,
if the cowling radius is very small, model GFS-Z turns into model FAN, and the hover efficiency also recovers to its
value.
η of GFS-X
71.46% 71.47%
71.50%
71.00%
70.48%
70.50%
70.00%
69.48%
69.50%
69.00%
GFS-X1 GFS-X2 GFS-X3 GFS-X4
Figure 22. Hovering Efficiency of Models GFS-X, Duct fan RPM 4000
η of GFS-Z
71.50% 71.31%
71.14%
71.00% 70.89%
70.49%
70.50%
70.17%
70.00%
69.50%
69.00%
GFS-Z1 GFS-Z2 GFS-Z3 GFS-Z4 GFS-Z5
Figure 23. Hovering Efficiency of Models GFS-Z, Duct fan RPM 4000
To confirm the conclusions related to cowling size, another model GFS-Z0(Fig.24) is build. The cowling size of
model GFS-Z0 is even smaller, and the hover efficiency is 73.25%.
12
Figure 24. Contours of Models GFS-Z0, Duct fan RPM 4000
IV. Conclusion
From the numerical results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
A. The results of simplified models and complex models are in good agreement. The hover efficiency of GFS is
lower than that of a bare duct fan.
B. The cowling of GFS can enlarge the lift on duct fan while generating a negative lift on itself.
C. The hover efficiency grows larger while the distance between the duct fan and the cowling increases.
D. The hover efficiency grows smaller while the diameter of cowling increases.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Key Basic Research Program of China (2014CB744806) and National
Natural Science Foundation of China (11102098 and 11372160).
References
Coanda, France, United States Patent Office, “Propelling Device”, 2108652[P], Date of Filing: 15.01.1935
1Henri
2Geoffrey Hatton, Simon Mclntosh, GFS Projects Limited, Peterborough, United Kingdom, UK Patent Application, “Craft
having aerofoil surface for controlling its spin”, GB 2424400 A, Date of Filing: 23.03.2005.
3Chen Haixin, Sun Yu, “Numerical Experiments on the Lift Generating Mechanisms of the GFS UVA”, 44th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, 21-23 July 2008, Hartford, CT, USA.
4Lewis, Darren, et al. “Investigating the use of the coanda effect to create novel unmanned aerial vehicles”, University of
Southampton [online database], URL: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/343525 [cited 04 Oct 2012].

5Ping, Julian Tan Kok, “Preliminary design of vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV with steerable vertical thrust effect”,
IEEE Conference on Robotics Automation and Mechatronics, 28-30 June 2010, Singapore.
6Ping, Julian Tan Kok, “Coanda Effect Test Bench (CoETB) - Design enhancement of the CoandaJLT craft”, IEEE Conference
on Sustainable Utilization and Development in Engineering and Technology, 20-21 Oct 2011, Malaysia.
7
Chris Barlow, “Investigating the use of the Coanda Effect to create novel unmanned aerial vehicles”, International Conference
on Manufacturing and Engineering Systems, 17-29 Dec 2009, Huwei, Taiwan.
8Weiqin Chen, “Experimental Investigation of Influence of Rotor Solidity on Hover Efficiency”, Journal of Nanjing University
of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Dec 1997, Vol.29, No.6.
13
View publication stats

AIAA 2015 16781 Universidad PEKIN

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

AIAA 2015 16781 Universidad PEKIN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Numerical Research on Aerodynamic Efﬁciency of a VTOL GFS UAV

Conference Paper · January 2015

Aircraft Design View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Numerical Research on Aerodynamic Efficiency of GFS

Yifei Zhang1, Lijun Xu2 and Haixin Chen3

Figure 3. MD Explorer Figure 4. Geoff’s Flying Saucer

Figure 7. Julian’s Equipment Figure 8. Julian’s Result

Figure 9. Performance of the GFS-UAV N-01A body

II. Modeling and Calculation

a), model S-FAN b), model S-GFS1

c), model S-GFS2 d), model S-GFS3

Table 1. Geometry and Mesh Details of Simplified Models

c), mesh of FAN d), mesh of blade

e), mesh of GFS0

a), model GFS-X b), model GFS-Z

III. Results and Analysis

Figure 14. Total Lift of Simplified Models

c), Streamline of S-GFS2 d), Streamline of S-GFS3

-160 S-GFS1 S-GFS2 S-GFS3

Table 3. Numerical Results of Complex Models

a), Velocity contour of FAN b), Velocity contour of GFS0

Figure 24. Contours of Models GFS-Z0, Duct fan RPM 4000

Southampton [online database], URL: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/343525 [cited 04 Oct 2012].

of Aeronautics & Astronautics, Dec 1997, Vol.29, No.6.

View publication stats

You might also like