High-performance aircraft

Abstract

The utility model discloses a high-performance aircraft, relates to aircraft technical field, the high-performance aircraft includes: fuselage, main wing and strake wing, strake wing integrated connection main wing is close to fuselage head one side, strake wing extends towards fuselage head and extends to fuselage middle section, strake wing close to fuselage head one side and fuselage smooth transition, strake wing one side is close to fuselage head one side, and strake wing one side is close to fuselage head one side. The side, close to the tail of the fuselage, of each strake wing is gradually narrowed, and the sweepback angle of each strake wing ranges from 78 degrees to 80.5 degrees; according to the aircraft, the edging wings and the main wings which are integrally arranged are adopted, the production and manufacturing requirements are simplified, the edging wings are specially arranged to be beneficial to reducing local resistance and enhancing the stability of a flow field, and the controllability of the aircraft is improved in the high-speed flight process by selecting proper values of the sweepback angles of the edging wings within a certain range; the direction and rolling stability of the aircraft are improved; the air resistance is reduced, and the influence of lateral airflow on the aircraft is reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This utility model relates to the field of aircraft technology, and in particular to a high-performance aircraft. Background Technology

[0002] With the advancement of aircraft technology, especially the demand for high maneuverability and adaptability to complex environments in the design of supersonic aircraft, the design requirements for aircraft performance have increased in order to complete violent or complex flight maneuvers such as sharp turns and high-G maneuvers.

[0003] Among them, leading-edge extensions are one of the ways to achieve high performance. However, at present, the design of leading-edge extensions faces problems such as difficulty in aerodynamic optimization, high cost and technical requirements, and complex control systems. Utility Model Content

[0004] The main objective of this invention is to propose a high-performance aircraft that simplifies manufacturing requirements, reduces control complexity, and improves the stability and maneuverability of supersonic aircraft.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the high-performance aircraft proposed in this utility model includes:

[0006] Fuselage and main wings;

[0007] The leading-edge extension is integrally connected to the main wing near the nose of the fuselage. The leading-edge extension extends towards the nose of the fuselage and to the middle section of the fuselage. The leading-edge extension smoothly transitions with the fuselage near the nose and gradually narrows near the tail of the fuselage.

[0008] The sweep angle of the leading edge wing ranges from 78° to 80.5°.

[0009] In one embodiment, the aspect ratio of the wing is in the range of 4.71-5.98.

[0010] In one embodiment, the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing to the main wing is 0.143-0.181;

[0011] The relative area ratio is the ratio of the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the leading edge wing to the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the main wing.

[0012] In one embodiment, the ratio of the relative half-span of the leading edge wing to the main wing is 0.267; wherein, the relative half-span is the ratio of the half-span of the leading edge wing to the half-span of the main wing.

[0013] In one embodiment, the sweep angle of the leading-edge extension is 80°, the aspect ratio of the leading-edge extension is 5.39, and the relative area ratio of the leading-edge extension to the main wing is 0.158.

[0014] In one embodiment, the sweep angle of the leading edge wing is 78°, the aspect ratio of the leading edge wing is 4.71, and the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing to the main wing is 0.143.

[0015] In one embodiment, the sweep angle of the leading-edge extension is 80.5°, the aspect ratio of the leading-edge extension is 5.98, and the relative area ratio of the leading-edge extension to the main wing is 0.181.

[0016] In one embodiment, the sweep angle of the leading edge wing is greater than the sweep angle of the main wing.

[0017] In one embodiment, the cross-section of the wing is triangular.

[0018] In one embodiment, the cross-section of the wing is a pointed arch shape.

[0019] The technical solution of this utility model simplifies the manufacturing requirements by adopting an integrated leading-edge extension wing and main wing. Furthermore, the leading-edge extension wing smoothly transitions with the fuselage near the nose, and gradually narrows near the tail, which helps reduce local drag and enhance flow field stability. By selecting an appropriate value for the sweep angle of the leading-edge extension wing within a certain range, the aircraft's maneuverability is improved during high-speed flight; the aircraft's directional and roll stability are improved; air resistance is reduced; and the impact of lateral airflow on the aircraft is reduced. Attached Figure Description

[0020] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this utility model or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of this utility model. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on the structures shown in these drawings without creative effort.

[0021] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of the structure of an embodiment of the high-performance aircraft provided by this utility model;

[0022] Explanation of icon numbers:

[0023] 100. High-performance aircraft; 1. Fuselage; 2. Main wing; 3. Leading wing.

[0024] The realization of the purpose, functional features and advantages of this utility model will be further explained in conjunction with the embodiments and with reference to the accompanying drawings. Detailed Implementation

[0025] The technical solutions of the present utility model will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings of the embodiments. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present utility model, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present utility model, all other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present utility model.

[0026] It should be noted that if the embodiments of this utility model involve directional indicators (such as up, down, left, right, front, back, etc.), the directional indicators are only used to explain the relative positional relationship and movement of the components in a specific posture. If the specific posture changes, the directional indicators will also change accordingly.

[0027] Furthermore, if the embodiments of this utility model involve descriptions such as "first" or "second," these descriptions are for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as indicating or implying their relative importance or implicitly specifying the number of technical features indicated. Therefore, a feature defined with "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include at least one of those features. Additionally, the use of "and / or" or "and / or" throughout the text includes three parallel solutions. For example, "A and / or B" includes solution A, solution B, or a solution where both A and B are satisfied simultaneously. Furthermore, the technical solutions of the various embodiments can be combined with each other, but this must be based on the ability of those skilled in the art to implement them. When the combination of technical solutions is contradictory or impossible to implement, it should be considered that such a combination of technical solutions does not exist and is not within the scope of protection claimed by this utility model.

[0028] With the advancement of aircraft technology, especially the demand for high maneuverability and adaptability to complex environments in the design of supersonic aircraft, the design requirements for aircraft performance have increased in order to complete violent or complex flight maneuvers such as sharp turns and high-G maneuvers.

[0029] Among them, leading-edge extensions are one of the ways to achieve high performance. However, at present, the design of leading-edge extensions faces problems such as difficulty in aerodynamic optimization, high cost and technical requirements, and complex control systems.

[0030] This utility model proposes a high-performance aircraft 100.

[0031] Please see Figure 1 In one embodiment of this utility model, the high-performance aircraft 100 includes:

[0032] Fuselage 1 and main wing 2;

[0033] Side wing 3, the side wing 3 is integrally connected to the main wing 2 near the head of the fuselage 1, the side wing 3 extends towards the head of the fuselage 1 and extends to the middle section of the fuselage 1, the side wing 3 near the head of the fuselage 1 smoothly transitions with the fuselage 1, and the side wing 3 near the tail of the fuselage 1 gradually narrows.

[0034] The sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 ranges from 78° to 80.5°.

[0035] It should be noted that leading-edge extensions currently exhibit many significant positive effects, and a key source of their beneficial effects is the vortex lift induced by the leading-edge vortex. During the formation of the leading-edge vortex, it provides beneficial interference to the wing. Therefore, it is desirable for the leading-edge extension vortex to have high strength and good stability.

[0036] Currently, the configurations of strakes exhibit diverse characteristics, but from an overall morphological perspective, their geometry bears a high degree of similarity to that of slender airfoils. When optimizing strake design to improve vortex-related performance, in engineering practice, to further enhance vortex intensity and delay vortex breakup as much as possible, the strake sweep angle is typically increased as much as possible within the design limits. By utilizing the influence of sweep angle variations on airflow characteristics, the generation, development, and maintenance of leading-edge vortices can be optimized by adjusting the sweep angle of the strake wing 3, thereby achieving the desired goals of increasing vortex intensity and delaying vortex breakup.

[0037] The technical solution of this utility model simplifies the manufacturing requirements by adopting the integrated leading-edge wing 3 and the main wing 2. Furthermore, the leading-edge wing 3 smoothly transitions with the fuselage 1 on the side near the nose of the fuselage 1, and the leading-edge wing 3 gradually narrows on the side near the tail of the fuselage 1, which helps to reduce local drag and enhance flow field stability. By selecting an appropriate value for the sweep angle of the leading-edge wing 3 within a certain range, the aircraft's maneuverability is improved during high-speed flight; the aircraft's directional and roll stability is improved; air resistance is reduced; and the impact of lateral airflow on the aircraft is reduced.

[0038] Optionally, the aspect ratio of the wing 3 is in the range of 4.71-5.98.

[0039] It should be noted that the vortex breakup location increases with the increase of the slenderness ratio. Therefore, the slenderness ratio of the leading edge wing 3 is in the range of 4.71-5.98.

[0040] Furthermore, once the slenderness ratio is greater than 5, increasing the slenderness ratio has a significant benefit on the location of vortex breakage.

[0041] Among them, the slenderness ratio, sweep angle, and integrated structure form a synergistic design, which systematically breaks through the performance bottleneck of the traditional leading-edge wing 3 from the three aspects of aerodynamics, structure, and control. It is especially suitable for the engineering needs of supersonic aircraft in cross-domain maneuvering (subsonic / supersonic switching) and high dynamic combat scenarios.

[0042] Optionally, the cross-section of the side wing 3 is a pointed arch shape.

[0043] Optionally, the relative area ratio between the leading edge wing 3 and the main wing 2 is 0.143-0.181;

[0044] The relative area ratio is the ratio of the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the wing 3 to the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the main wing 2.

[0045] It should be noted that for the pointed arch-shaped strake wing 3, changes in area and aspect ratio have a significant impact on the strake vortex breakup location with the angle of attack and the strake performance. The general trend is that at the same angle of attack, a smaller strake wing 3 results in a more forward breakup location because the intensity of the vortex from a smaller strake wing is also reduced. Conversely, a smaller area but a constant strake aspect ratio is more advantageous.

[0046] The increased area of ​​the leading edge wing 3 can delay the breakup of the leading edge vortex at the trailing edge of the main wing 2, which has a significant effect on improving lift. However, after the area increases to a certain extent, the lift-enhancing effect decreases, indicating that the limit of the basic wing has been reached. Therefore, the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is in the range of 0.143-0.181.

[0047] Furthermore, as the angle of attack increases, the influence of the area change of the leading-edge extension 3 on the vortex breakup location tends to decrease. The larger the angle of attack at which the vortex breaks up at the trailing edge of the main wing 2, the higher the maximum lift coefficient. At the same time, as the angle of attack increases, the vortex breakup point of the leading-edge extension vortex moves forward more slowly, and the lift will not drop rapidly after the maximum lift coefficient. This is beneficial to both lift characteristics and longitudinal and lateral stability at high angles of attack.

[0048] Optionally, the relative half-span ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.267;

[0049] Wherein, the relative half span is the ratio of the half span of the leading edge wing 3 to the half span of the main wing 2.

[0050] It should be noted that the semi-span of the leading edge wing 3 is the distance from the end of the leading edge wing 3 away from the fuselage 1 to the fuselage 1, and the semi-span of the main wing 2 is the distance from the end of the main wing 2 away from the fuselage 1 to the fuselage 1.

[0051] Example 1: The sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 is 80°, the aspect ratio of the leading edge wing 3 is 5.39, the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.158, and the relative half-span ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.267.

[0052] At different speeds, its lift coefficient is compared with that of the wingless wing 3 as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below:

[0053] Table 1 Comparison of 0.6 Ma-lift coefficients

[0054]

[0055] Table 2 Comparison of 1.2 Ma-lift coefficients

[0056]

[0057] At different speeds, its drag coefficient is compared with that of the wingless wing 3 as shown in Tables 3 and 4 below:

[0058] Table 3 Comparison of 0.6Ma-Drag Coefficient

[0059]

[0060] Table 4.1.2 Comparison of Ma-Drag Coefficients

[0061]

[0062] At different speeds, its pitching moment coefficient is compared with that of the wingless wing 3 as shown in Tables 5 and 6 below:

[0063] Table 5 Comparison of 0.6Ma Pitch Moment Coefficients

[0064]

[0065] Table 6.1.2 Comparison of Ma-Pitch Moment Coefficients

[0066]

[0067] Combining Tables 1, 2, 5 and 6, it can be seen that regardless of whether it is hypersonic or supersonic, the scheme of Embodiment 1 can provide a better lift coefficient and pitch moment coefficient, and the performance gap between the wingless wing 3 and Embodiment 1 becomes more obvious as the angle of attack increases.

[0068] Furthermore, as can be seen from Tables 3 and 4, although adopting the scheme of Example 1 will increase the drag coefficient, the impact is small, especially in the case of supersonic speed, the difference in the boost coefficient between the leading edge wing 3 and Example 1 is further reduced.

[0069] Example 2: The sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 is 78°, the aspect ratio of the leading edge wing 3 is 4.71, the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.143, and the relative half-span ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.267.

[0070] Example 3: The sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 is 80.5°, the aspect ratio of the leading edge wing 3 is 5.98, the relative area ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.181, and the relative half-span ratio of the leading edge wing 3 to the main wing 2 is 0.267.

[0071] Optionally, the sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 is greater than the sweep angle of the main wing 2.

[0072] It should be noted that the sweep angle of the leading edge wing 3 is greater than that of the main wing 2, so as to better guide and control the airflow during high angle of attack flight.

[0073] Optionally, the cross-section of the wing 3 is triangular.

[0074] It should be noted that the leading edge wing 3 extends from the connection point with the main wing 2 towards the nose of the fuselage 1 until it reaches the fuselage 1.

[0075] It should be noted that, in some embodiments, the high-performance aircraft 100 is used as a target drone. Existing target drones have certain limitations in flight performance, specifically in the following aspects: First, target drones struggle to perform intense or complex flight maneuvers, such as sharp turns and high-G maneuvers, failing to meet the requirements for simulating highly maneuverable targets; second, target drones exhibit poor flight stability at low speeds, high speeds, and ultra-high speeds, easily leading to attitude instability or trajectory deviations; third, existing target drones generally have low maneuverability, making it difficult to respond flexibly in rapidly changing tactical scenarios. These shortcomings severely restrict the application effectiveness of target drones in high-performance training and testing, especially their insufficient role in simulating modern high-threat environments.

[0076] Therefore, by using the high-performance aircraft 100 as a target drone, a strong vortex adhesion effect is generated under high angle of attack conditions, which significantly enhances the adhesion ability of the airflow to the surface of the main wing 2, effectively avoiding the occurrence of stall. The leading edge wing 3 also guides the airflow distribution, enabling the target drone to exhibit greater flexibility and controllability when performing rapid maneuvers, further enhancing the application value of the target drone in military training, weapons testing and other fields.

[0077] The above description is merely an exemplary embodiment of the present utility model and does not limit the patent scope of the present utility model. Any equivalent structural transformations made based on the technical concept of the present utility model and the contents of the present utility model specification and drawings, or direct / indirect applications in other related technical fields, are included within the patent protection scope of the present utility model.

Claims

1. A high performance aircraft characterized by, include: Fuselage and main wings; The leading-edge extension is integrally connected to the main wing near the nose of the fuselage. The leading-edge extension extends towards the nose of the fuselage and to the middle section of the fuselage. The leading-edge extension smoothly transitions with the fuselage near the nose and gradually narrows near the tail of the fuselage. The sweep angle of the leading edge wing ranges from 78° to 80.5°.

2. The high performance aircraft of claim 1, wherein, The aspect ratio of the strake wing ranges from 4.71 to 5.

98.

3. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 2, wherein, The relative area ratio between the leading edge wing and the main wing is 0.143-0.181; The relative area ratio is the ratio of the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the leading edge wing to the projected area of ​​the exposed portion of the main wing.

4. The high performance aircraft as defined in any one of claims 1 to 3, characterized in that The relative half-span ratio of the leading edge wing to the main wing is 0.267; Wherein, the relative half-span is the ratio of the half-span of the leading edge wing to the half-span of the main wing.

5. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 4, wherein, The sweep angle of the leading-edge extension is 80°, the aspect ratio of the leading-edge extension is 5.39, and the relative area ratio of the leading-edge extension to the main wing is 0.

158.

6. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 4, wherein, The sweep angle of the leading-edge extension is 78°, the aspect ratio of the leading-edge extension is 4.71, and the relative area ratio of the leading-edge extension to the main wing is 0.

143.

7. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 4, wherein, The sweep angle of the leading-edge extension is 80.5°, the aspect ratio of the leading-edge extension is 5.98, and the relative area ratio of the leading-edge extension to the main wing is 0.

181.

8. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 1, wherein, The sweep angle of the leading edge wing is greater than the sweep angle of the main wing.

9. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 8, wherein, The cross-section of the wing is triangular.

10. The high performance aircraft as defined in claim 8, wherein, The cross-section of the wing is a pointed arch shape.

Images