A low aspect ratio high-lift aircraft

Abstract: This paper analyzes the main design conflicts of the future fighter's
stealth, high maneuverability, and supercruise characteristics while proposing s
pecific design solutions for transonic lift to drag characteristics, low speed h
igh AOA characteristics, and supersonic drag characteristics. The author believe
s that in-depth study of fluid dynamics, exploration of the full practical poten
tial of current aerodynamic designs, development of new design concepts, employm
ent of corresponding systematic and control measures, and necessary compromise a
mong numerous design proposals will allow us to achieve our design goals.

1. Introduction:
The future fighter, aside from satisfying low and mid-altitude maneuverability p
erformance of modern 4th gen. fighters, must have the capability to supercruise
and perform unconventional maneuvers such as poststall maneuvers. As a result, t
he aerodynamic configuration of the future fighter must not only satisfy the des
ign constraints of RCS reduction but also lower supersonic drag, improve lift ch
aracteristics, and improve stability and controllability under high AOA conditio
ns whilel accounting for transonic lift to drag characteristics. The high number
of design requirements provide new challenges to the aerodynamic layout. The de
sign must employ new aerodynamic concepts and approaches, take necessary systema
tic and control measures, and compromise amongst the numerous design points in o
rder to obtain the necessary design solution.

2. Main design conflicts:

The design requirement for stealth brings new difficulties to the aerodynamic de
sign. Frontal stealth capability imposes new restrictions on both the sweep angl
e of the leading edge and air intake configuration. Lateral stealth requires the
proper alignment of the aircraft's cross sectional shaping and the vertical sta
bilisor configuration. These restrictions and requirements must be considered du
ring the earliest phase of designing the aerodynamic configuration.

Transonic lift to drag ratio and supersonic drag are traditional design conflict
s. Modern Fourth gen. fighters successfully solved this dilemma by relaxing airc
raft stability and employing wing twist device. Future fighters, however, have s
tricter requirements for supersonic drag characteristics. At the same time, conv
entional design maximizing low speed lift characteristics contradicts the pursui
t for lower supersonic drag. Since current aerodynamic measures don't offer sati
sfactory solutions to these conflicts the design team must explore new design pa
ths.

Post stall maneuvers require the aircraft to have good controllability and stabi
lity. After the plane enters the post stall region, however, the decrease in sta
bility and control efficiency of conventional rudder surfaces become irrecoverab
le. One must carefully design an aircraft to enable sustained controllability at
high AOA. Although it is possible to solve the problem of post-stall controllab
ility through the use of thrust vectoring nozzles, the aerodynamic configuration
itself must provide enough pitch down control capability to guarantee the aircr
aft to safely recover from post-stall AOA should the thrust vectoring mechanism
malfunction. As a result, it is vitally important to study unconventional aerody
namic control mechanisms for high AOA flights.

3. Transonic lift to drag characteristics

Transonic lift to drag characteristics determine an aircraft's maximum range and
sustained turn capability. The future fighter's demands for these characteristi
cs will exceed those of modern 4th gen. fighters. Modern fighters employ the str
ategies of relaxing longitudinal stability, adapting wings with medium sweep and
aspect ratio, twisting the wing, and adding wing-bending mechanisms to greatly
improve the lift-to-drag characteristics. Due to the future fighter's requiremen
t for supercruise, supersonic drag characteristic is a critical design point and
designers must avoid using aerodynamic measures that may potentially increase s
upersonic drag. As a result, the wing shape and wing twist coefficient can't be
selected based on transonic lift to drag characteristics alone. It is necessary
to employ wing-bending mechanisms but its aerodynamic efficiency has already bee
n exhausted.

Further decreasing the aircraft's longitudinal relaxed stability is an excellent
solution to this problem. Diagram 1 shows how the variation tendency of trim-dr
ag coefficients against longitudinal instability of a conventional fighter aircr
aft in a tight, sustained turn. Modern fighters fix their longitudinal instabili
ty at 3% the average aerodynamic chord length. The future fighter could enjoy a
significant improvement in lift-to-drag if the longitudinal instability could be
increased to a magnitude of around 10%.

Further relaxing the longitudinal instability could not only enhance transonic l
ift to drag characteristics but also improve super sonic lift to drag capabiliti
es, increase take-off and landing characteristics, and maximize low-speed lift c
haracteristics. This is akin to killing three birds with a single stone. Yet a i
ncrease in longitudinal instability will also increase the burden on high AOA pi
tch down control and subsequently increase flight control complexities. As a res
ult the design team should not "over-relax" the longitudinal stability.

4. Low speed high AOA characteristics

4.1 Lift-body LERX Canard configuration

Advanced modern fighters utilized research on detached vortices from the 1960s a
nd 70s to gain excellent lift characteristics with their max lift coefficient pe
aking at around 1.6. They either employ conventional LERX configuration or canar
d configuration to accomplish this. The future fighter has higher requirements f
or max lift coefficient and the situation is further complicated by the fact tha
t the use of twin vertical stabilizers is detrimental to lift (see figure 4.2).
As a result the design team must raise the max lift coefficient to a whole new l
evel. It will be difficult to realize this goal simply employing conventional LE
RX configuration or canard configuration.

It is beneficial to choose canard configuration from a high AOA pitch down contr
ol stand point(see figure 4.3). Blending lift body LERX characteristics with the
conventional canard configuration to form a "lift body LERX canard configuratio
n" will greatly enhance the max lift characteristics. Exploration of the lift bo
dy LERX canard configuration will solve three important technical issues. The fi
rst problem is the aerodynamic coupling between canards and medium sweep, medium
aspect ratio wings. The second problem is the coupling between the canards, the
LERX, and detached vortices generated by the wings. The third problem concerns
the gains and losses of employing body lift on a canard configuration aircraft.

Traditionally close coupled canard configuration aircraft utilize constructive c
oupling between the canards and detached wing vortices to enhance the max lift c
oefficient. Only wings with large back-sweep angle and low aspect ratio could ge
nerate detached vortices that are powerful enough for the task. As a result most
modern canard configuration fighter aircraft have a leading edge backsweep angl
e of around 55 degrees and an aspect ratio of around 2.5. For these aircraft, th
e canards could generate around a 3 to 4 times increase in max lift coefficient
with respect to their wing areas. Ideally we hope to employ wings with medium le
ading edge backsweep angle and medium aspect ratio in order to improve lift char
acteristics over the entire AOA range. This wing shape, however, could not effec
tively generate leading edge detached vortices. Could the canards still attain t
heir original lift enhancing effects? The answer is yes according to wind-tunnel
tests. As the slope of the aircraft's lift curve increases, the lift enhancing
capabilities of the canards are the same as those on traditional close coupled c
anard configuration aircraft (see figure 2). The key influence on aerodynamic co
upling between the canards and medium back-sweep, medium aspect ratio wings shou
ld not be interference among detached vortices. Preliminary studies indicate tha
t down-wash on the wings generated by the canards play a far greater role.

It is a well known fact that LERX could improve the max lift characteristics on
medium back sweep, medium aspect ratio wings. In order to obtain even better lif
t characteristics, we should consider using both canards and LERX to create a ca
nard-LERX configuration. Study shows that employing both canards and LERX not on
ly retain the lift enhancing effects of the two mechanisms when they are used se
parately but also help achieve higher lift-coefficient (see figure 3). This mean
s that there is beneficial coupling among the canards, LERX, and the wings.

Blended wing lift body configurations could utilize lift generated by the aircra
ft's body to increase internal load and enhance stealth characteristics at relat
ively low costs to drag. Lift-body configurations have been adapted by many conv
entional configuration aircraft and achieved excellent results. Yet until now no
w canard configuration fighter utilized lift-body configuration. This isn't beca
use aerodynamic experts failed to realize the tremendous advantage of the lift b
ody configuration but the result of a canard configuration aircraft's need to pl
ace the canards above the aircraft's wings. It is difficult for lift-body config
uration aircraft to satisfy this demand. Our experimental results indicate that
although the canards on a canard-LERX configuration aircraft employing lift-body
suffered a decrease in lift-enhancing effects, the overal lift characteristic o
f the aircraft was still superior to that of a canard-LERX aircraft not employin
g lift-body (see figure 4). Figure 5 shows the vortex generation on the wings an
d body of a lift-body canard configuration aircraft observed using laser scannin
g. It demonstrates that planes employing this configuration derive excellent lif
t characteristics not only from coupling among the canards, LERX, and detached v
ortices but beneficial interaction between the left and right detached vortices.
The latter contribute to significant lift on the body of the plane and greatly
contributed to the enhancement of lift characteristics. Figure 5 also indicates
that the detached vortices primarily contribute to lift on the body and inner po
rtions of the wings. Consequently, most of the lift produced under high AOA cond
itions are generated in the corresponding areas.

4.2 Canted vertical stabilizers

Vertical stabilizer design is an important consideration when it comes to future
fighter configuration design. From a lateral stealth stand point, the vertical
stabilizers should cant inward or outward to reflect incoming radar waves in oth
er directions. The future fighter must be long and thin to accommodate for super
cruise and as a result, the space between the vertical stabilizers couldn't be t
oo wide. The twin stabilizers should cant outward in order to decrease destructi
ve interference between the vertical stabilizers. Since the future fighter will
fully utilize detached vortices to improve max lift coefficient, forward vortice
s will generate relatively high outward facing velocity airflow on the vertical
stabilizers. Figure 6 shows the calculation results of a type of lift body LERX
canard configuration fighter using n-s time average function. It indicates the l
imiting flow rate on the aircraft's rear once the vertical stabilizers are remov
ed. The results indicate that the regional side slip angle at the location where
vertical stabilizers are usually installed reaches around 15 degrees when the A
OA is 24 degrees and the side slip angle is 0 degrees. If the back-sweep angles
of the vertical stabilizers are sufficiently large, the enormous regional side s
lip angles could generate leading edge shed vortices on the external faces of th
e stabilizers and form low pressure regions. Regional sideslip angles will also
increase the static pressure on the inner portions of the vertical stabilizers.
As a result, the vertical stabilizers will become highly efficient lateral force
surfaces which direct the lateral forces outwards. The lateral forces are proje
cted in the direction of lift, with respect to the outward canting vertical stab
ilizers, and generate negative lift. Negative lift acting on the vertical stabil
izers and rear body will both contribute to the undesirable pitch up torque. The
high pressure region between the vertical stabilizers will form adverse pressur
e gradients on the body of the plane and negatively impact the stability of lead
ing edge detached vortices. Since the vertical stabilizers are already highly lo
aded at 0 degree side slip angle, the yaw/roll stabilization efficiency of the v
ertical stabilizers will be decreased.

The negative impacts of vertical stabilizers as described above are closely asso
ciated with lift-enhancing measures and are, as a result, difficult to root out.
Yet adjustment of the vertical stabilizers area, position, cant angle, and place
ment angle and improvement measures such as making slots on the rear body can mi
nimize the negative impact of the vertical stabilizers. Ordinarily, the max lift
reduction coefficient generated by the vertical stabilizers could reach around
0.4. Weve managed to successfully lower it below 0.1 through experimentation.

Decreasing the vertical stabilizers area or even employing tailless configuration
are directions worth studying. Their significance not only include improving lo
w speed high AOA performance but also help improve stealth characteristics, lowe
r drag within the entire flight envelope, decrease weight, and reduce cost. Impl
ementing the tailless configuration requires the tackling of three major technic
al difficulties: replacing the stabilizers with another yaw control mechanism, i
nstalling sensitive and reliable side slip sensors, and implementing new flight
control technology. As of now, these difficulties are being tackled one at a tim
e. Relatively speaking, decreasing vertical stabilizers area and relaxing static
yaw stability are more realistic options. Generally speaking, the relative size
of the vertical stabilizers is around 20% to 25%. In or studies, utilizing all m
oving vertical stabilizers with 10% to 13% could still maintain basic yaw stabil
ity while retaining the vertical stabilizers function as yaw control mechanisms.

4.3 Aerodynamic control mechanisms

The requirement for high AOA pitch down control capability is closely related to
the longitudinal static instability requirement. The greater the longitudinal s
tatic instability, the higher the demands for pitch down control capabilities. A
s described in chapter 3, the future fighter will hopefully increase its longitu
dinal static instability to around 10% its average aerodynamic chord length to e
nhance the trim's lift to drag and lift characteristics. As a result there shoul
d be a corresponding improvement in the pitch down control capability. We can ca
tegorize two types of control surfaces based on the relative position of the pit
ch control surfaces with respect to the aircraft's center of mass: positive load
pitch down control surface and negative pitch down control surface. Control sur
faces placed behind the center of mass, including the vertical stabilizers and t
railing edge flaps, generate pitch down control torque by increasing lift. They
are considered positive load control surfaces. Control surfaces placed in front
of the center of mass, like the canards, are negative load control surfaces. Sin
ce the main wing's ability to generate lift tends to saturate under high AOA con
ditions, the positive load control surfaces' pitch down control capabilities ten
d to saturate under high AOA as well. Therefore it will be wise to employ negati
ve load control surfaces for pitch down control under high AOA conditions. Figur
e 7 compares the pitch down control capabilities of the canards and horizontal s
tabilizers. From the high AOA pitch down control stand point, it will be wise to
use canards on the future fighter. Canards on close coupled canard configuratio
n aircraft have relative short lever arms. Employing the LERX canard configurati
on can increase the canards lever arms while retaining the benefits of positive c
anard coupling. Considering the overall lift enhancement effect and pitch down c
ontrol capabilities, we can set the canards maximum relative area to around 15% a
nd the maximum canard deflection to 90 degrees.

Yaw control ability under high AOA is another noteworthy problem. Control surfac
e efficiency deteriorate rapidly with an increase in AOA for tailless and even c
onventional configuration fighters. Therefore it is necessary to consider contro
l mechanisms other than conventional control surfaces. Studies on differential L
ERX, drag rudder, differential wingtips, and all moving vertical stabilizers ind
icate that differential LERX and drag maintained relatively high yaw control eff
iciency under high AOA conditions (see figure 8).

5. Supersonic drag characteristics

The key to lowering supersonic drag is to minimize the max cross sectional area
of the aircraft.Accomplishing this requires excellent high level design skills.
Placement of the engines, engine intakes, landing gears, cartridge receiver, wea
pons bay, and main structural support all influence the max cross sectional area
of the aircraft. Attention to details and careful considerations are necessary
to design decision making.

Wingshape has profound effects on supersonic drag characteristics. Low aspect ra
tio wings with large backsweep have low supersonic drag but are detrimental to l
ow speed lift and transonic lift to drag characteristics. If we select the liftb
ody LERX canard configuration we can expect to retain relatively good lift to dr
ag characteristics while using medium backsweep wings. Under high AOA conditions
, liftbody LERX canard configuration aircraft concentrate lift on the body and i
nner portions of the wings so moderately lowering the aspect ratio will not only
not lower the max lift coefficient but raise it (see figure 10). Because of thi
s, employing low aspect ratio wings on a lift-body LERX canard configuration air
craft will settle the conflicts among supersonic drag characteristics, low speed
lift characteristics, and transonic drag characteristics.

6. Air Intake design

Air intakes are one of three major sources of radar scattering. In order to lowe
r intake radar reflection area, the design team must place a series of limitatio
ns on intake design due to stealth considerations. These limitations will signif
icantly influence intake aerodynamic design.

Caret intakes have oblique intake openings and fixed intake ramps and could effe
ctively lower radar cross section and structural weight. The future fighter may
implement this technology. Preliminary studies indicate that when compared with
conventional adjustable intakes, Caret intakes' total pressure recovery coeffici
ent surpasses its conventional counterpart in supersonic and transonic regimes a
nd is only slightly lower in the low-subsonic regime. It also offers excellent t
otal pressure distortion performances. Radar absorbing deflectors minimize the a
ir-intake's radar reflection and could significantly improve its stealth charact
eristics. Aerodynamically speaking, the radar absorbing deflectors would slightl
y decrease the overall pressure recovery and flow coefficients but have no ill-e
ffects on static or dynamic distortion coefficients.

7. A comprehensive study of a design example

The design team made a future fighter proposal based on the points raised by thi
s article. The proposal employs lift-body LERX canard configuration. It is unsta
ble in both the lateral and yaw directions. The proposal employs low aspect rati
o wings with medium back sweep angle, relatively large dihedral canards, all mov
ing vertical stabilizers far smaller than those on conventional fighter aircraft
, and S-shaped belly intakes. According to our assessment, the proposed aircraft
will have excellent supersonic drag characteristics, high AOA lift characterist
ics, high AOA stability and controllability, and excellent stealth characteristi
cs.

8. Conclusion

The aerodynamic design for the future fighter, compared with that of advanced mo
dern fighters, will require more design features and subsequently pose greater c
hallenges. Only in-depth study of fluid dynamics, exploration of the full practi
cal potential of current aerodynamic designs, development of new design concepts
, employment of corresponding systematic and control measures, and necessary com
promise among numerous design proposals will allow us to achieve our design goal
s.