Let me X-plane: Boeing R&D unit sheds rudder, ailerons, flaps for DARPA project
- Reference: 1674052493
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/01/18/boeing_x_plane_darpa/
- Source link:
The X-plane relies on active flow control (AFC), or the use of strategically placed actuators and effectors to alter the flow of air on the aircraft's surface to alter aerodynamic performance. These mechanisms replace traditional rudders, ailerons and flaps. They also reduce drag and weight, generate lift at a high angle of attack and allow for a change in the thickness of the structure.
In return for using AFC technology, designers can build a lighter aircraft with the hopes of reducing cost and improving safety.
[1]
X-plane
A preliminary design of the plane, complete with a wind tunnel test model, was finished by the company in phase 1. For that phase, Aurora and Boeing engineers spent four weeks gathering 14,000 data points from a quarter-scale model containing 11 movable conventional control surfaces complemented by 14 AFC banks with eight fully independent controllable AFC air supply channels. Over 8,800 of the data points were collected and used to develop the plane's control laws.
Aurora [2]said it then incorporated that test data into a computer model of the vehicle to characterize active flight control performance across the airplane's operational envelope.
[3]
For phase 2, Aurora was tasked with creating a more detailed design, complete with flight software and controls. This phase culminates in a critical design review of a full-scale 7,000-pound, 30-foot wingspan demonstration aircraft. In exchange, the Boeing subsidiary earns a cool $42.4 million.
[4]
[5]
An optional third phase sees a built and functioning version of the X-plane that relies on AFC for control in pitch roll and yaw axis tested for speeds up to Mach 0.7. Flight test of that aircraft is slated for 2025.
[6]Flaming USB battery halts flight from Taiwan to Singapore
[7]Italy, Japan, UK to jointly launch sixth-gen fighter jet by 2035
[8]End of an era as the last 747 rolls off the production line
[9]FAA wants pilots to be less dependent on computer autopilots
"Given all that we have learned about AFC and its application to tactical aircraft in prior phases of CRANE, the next step is to prove out these learnings in flight," [10]said company VP Graham Drozeski. He added that the plane was specifically designed to explore AFC tech at scale, with real-world Reynolds and Mach numbers.
DARPA [11]said the aircraft's would have a modular configuration, thus enabling integration of any future tech for flight testing, possibly by the agency or even others.
CRANE's program manager, Richard Wlezien, reckons that as the wing and AFC effectors are modular, the plane could live on as a national test asset long after the program concludes.
[12]
This is Wlezien's second go as a program manager for the agency – he was involved in DARPA-funded AFC download reduction on the Bell Boeing V-22.
He's also pretty good at fortune telling. "Micro adaptive flow control is just beginning to be applied to full-scale systems," [13]wrote [PDF] Wlezien in a 2000 research paper describing the early systems. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/01/18/darpa_aurora_xplane.jpg
[2] https://careers.aurora.aero/2022/05/11/wind-tunnel-testing-advances-development-of-auroras-active-flow-control-x-plane/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y8gltFzJDC0LPx@bCYBXfwAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y8gltFzJDC0LPx@bCYBXfwAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y8gltFzJDC0LPx@bCYBXfwAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/12/taiwan_singapore_powerbank_fire/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/09/gcap/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/08/boeing_747_end/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/23/faa_pilot_computer/
[10] https://www.aurora.aero/2022/12/12/latest-award-moves-auroras-crane-x-plane-closer-to-flight/
[11] https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2023-01-17
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y8gltFzJDC0LPx@bCYBXfwAAAMM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2000/PAPERS/ICA2101.PDF
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Stop me if you heard it before..
I believe Harriers use normal control surfaces when in "normal" flight but the puffers come into play for hovering.
Re: Stop me if you heard it before..
If I read the reports correctly, the technologies involved go beyoond mere puffers.
Most likely, we are talking about boundary layer and shock wave control.
Micro jets and microphone arrays can be used to modify or stabilize the boundary layer, delaying or triggering the transition from a laminar to a turbulent boundary layer. sub-skin chambers connected to "gates" in the surface can change the way supersonic shock-waves reflect of a structure.
Personally, I am intrigued by the way plastma actuators can be used to control airflow. These actuators are electrically inefficient and subject to burning out, but if a way can be found to precisely stabilize instabilities in the laminar boundarylayer, then this may still be a net positive.
Re: Stop me if you heard it before..
Plastma actuator:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v67vVTGgIs
Stall control through boundarylayer suction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sq6u-3tx_I
Re: Stop me if you heard it before..
Plenty of examples of engine output configured to bleed air over control surfaces to improve low speed performance, not least the Buccaneer.
Adapting the idea to flight control? Absolutely possible. The obvious disadvantage that you can no longer operate as a glider in an emergency.
For military applications, this is probably a big deal. The weight savings from getting rid of hydraulics while using a power source that you already have on tap are probably worthwhile, as well as reduced complexity.
Re: Stop me if you heard it before..
Good explanation of how it works here: https://breakingdefense.com/2021/09/blowin-in-the-wind-a-new-x-plane-program-to-revolutionize-aircraft-maneuverability/
Quite different to the reaction control system on the Harrier which pushes the aircraft around rather than messing with the airflow.
Goo goo, gah gah
"the next step is to prove out these learnings in flight"
The word they are looking for is lessons, alternatively "this knowledge" or "this experience". Unless DARPA is run by six year olds.
Yes, language evolves, but that is not the same as adults adopting baby talk.
I wouldn't mind what Americans do, but this rubbish keeps migrating into English usage too.
Re: Goo goo, gah gah
if you haven't worked out that American english and UK english are different things by now, there's no help for you.
It's a quote from Graham Drozeski, an american with a PhD. he's not stupid, or a child. He simply uses language in a different way from you.
Re: Goo goo, gah gah
That's weird that someone used a word you don't like, no one in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland uses different words for similar concepts.
'Dead stick'
I'd be interested to see (from a safe distance) its 'dead stick (i.e. engine off) handling capabilities. Even with a turbine in the airflow*, not sure that pure blown air would be adequate for control.
*Commercial airliners have a turbine which can be lowered if the engines fail and provide power for control surfaces to enable so called 'dead stick' landings.
Words in wrong order?
"reducing cost and improving safety"
Should that have been: "improving cost and reducing safety"? Especially from Boeing.
History lesson
Blown and/or suction systems for aerodynamic control have been investigated since at least as far back as the mid-twentieth century. One of my mates at Uni tried one in a wind tunnel for his student project. The result has always been the same. Done right, they do work. But the extra complexity, weight, cost and bulk of the whole thing - little things like large ducts passing through key structural components or additional fuel tankage for the blower - render them too much trouble for the benefits they offer.
Blown flaps for STOL performance briefly made it out into the real world but failed to break the cost-benefit barrier. Even the jump-jet's puffers are just mini-thrusters and not true aerodynamic controls.
Nevertheless, NASA periodically revisit them to see if the latest wheeze might have spotted a crack in the wall. Who knows, maybe one day...
but I'm not waiting up.
Stop me if you heard it before..
Doesn't this sound like an evolution of the way the control surfaces worked on the Harriers?
Honest question here rather than an invite for flaming.