Elsherbiny, A., Bayoumy, A., Elshabka, A., Abdelrahman, M. (2017). Aerodynamic Design Optimization of Range Extension Kit of a Subsonic Flying Body. test, 17(AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ASAT - 17 – April 11 - 13, 2017), 1-20. doi: 10.21608/asat.2017.22773
A. M. Elsherbiny; A. M. Bayoumy; A. M. Elshabka; M. M. Abdelrahman. "Aerodynamic Design Optimization of Range Extension Kit of a Subsonic Flying Body". test, 17, AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ASAT - 17 – April 11 - 13, 2017, 2017, 1-20. doi: 10.21608/asat.2017.22773
Elsherbiny, A., Bayoumy, A., Elshabka, A., Abdelrahman, M. (2017). 'Aerodynamic Design Optimization of Range Extension Kit of a Subsonic Flying Body', test, 17(AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ASAT - 17 – April 11 - 13, 2017), pp. 1-20. doi: 10.21608/asat.2017.22773
Elsherbiny, A., Bayoumy, A., Elshabka, A., Abdelrahman, M. Aerodynamic Design Optimization of Range Extension Kit of a Subsonic Flying Body. test, 2017; 17(AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ASAT - 17 – April 11 - 13, 2017): 1-20. doi: 10.21608/asat.2017.22773

Aerodynamic Design Optimization of Range Extension Kit of a Subsonic Flying Body

International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology
Article 75, Volume 17, AEROSPACE SCIENCES & AVIATION TECHNOLOGY, ASAT - 17 – April 11 - 13, 2017, April 2017, Pages 1-20    PDF (2.22 M)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/asat.2017.22773
Authors
A. M. Elsherbiny1; A. M. Bayoumy2; A. M. Elshabka3; M. M. Abdelrahman4
1M.Sc. Student, MTC, Cairo, Egypt.
2Assistant Prof, MSA University, Giza, Egypt.
3Assistant Prof, MTC, Cairo, Egypt.
4Prof, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract
Abstract: This paper aims to convert the aerodynamic shape of a conventional aerial subsonic flying body into a glide one by providing a range extension kit and fins. It describes the selection of configuration and airfoils depending on the tactical requirements and flight regimes. The wing and fins sizing is obtained using three different methods subjected to geometric constraints. The first method is an iterative optimization method using linear aerodynamic data. The second method is a genetic algorithm multi-objective function aims to maximize stability, controllability and lift-drag ratio within certain weights using linear aerodynamic data. The third method is a genetic algorithm optimization function integrated with MISSILE DATCOM aims to maximize lift-drag ratio. Then perform a direct uncontrolled six degree of freedom simulation for the three optimized designs and the conventional flying body. Comparing the results of ranges for these bodies reveals that the third method has the best range over the other designs including the conventional flying body.
Statistics
Article View: 236
PDF Download: 1,258