4.5 Article

Aerodynamic Interaction Effects Between Propellers in Typical eVTOL Vehicle Configurations

期刊

JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 815-833

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.C035814

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The paper investigates the performance effects of propeller interactions in side-by-side and one-after-another configurations, showing strong dependency on geometric layout. The experiment found variations in propeller thrust and power penalties based on different configurations.
Many electric vertical takeoff and landing concepts are characterized by nontraditional vehicle layouts with distributed propellers. Two propeller interaction types were distinguished in this Paper, which investigates how propeller interaction in side-by-side and one-after-another configuration affects performance, in terms of thrust, power, in-plane forces, and out-of-plane moments, and how those performance effects depend on axial and lateral propeller spacing. A wind-tunnel experiment was performed with two propeller units, one instrumented with a force/torque sensor and the other introducing the aerodynamic interaction. Total pressure and planar particle-image velocimetry measurements were taken to investigate slipstream characteristics. A strong dependency of interaction effects on the geometric layout was found. For side-by-side interaction characteristic of vertical takeoff and transition, interaction effects varied from weak at small angle of attack to strong at larger angles. A drop in rear propeller thrust of up to 30% was found at constant advance ratio. Keeping thrust constant resulted in power penalties up to 13% for the two propellers combined. For one-after-another interaction, characteristic of cruise, a maximum reduction of thrust of up to 80% was observed. Thrust compensation led to power penalties up to 30% for the rear propeller alone. An extended blade element momentum model captured most interaction effects with sufficient accuracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据