This week’s video comes from Wales where engineers have conducted flight trials of an unmanned aerial vehicle that uses supersonically blown air instead of flaps to manoeuvre.
In a first for the aviation industry, Manchester University researchers and engineers at BAE Systems successfully trialled two ‘flap-free’ technologies on the MAGMA unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from Llanbedr Airfield.
Wing circulation control and fluidic thrust vectoring were the key technologies demonstrated during test flights. The former takes air from the aircraft engine and blows it supersonically through the trailing edge of the wing to provide control for the aircraft, whilst the latter uses blown air to deflect the exhaust, allowing for the direction of the aircraft to be changed.
Real innovation in engineering is more about finding practical solutions to many hundreds of small technical challenges than having single moments of inspiration – Bill Crowther
Aircraft that manoeuvre with a blown air solution could be lighter, more reliable and cheaper to operate. The technologies could also improve an aircraft’s stealth as they reduce the number of gaps and edges that make aircraft more observable on radar.
Bill Crowther, senior academic and leader of the MAGMA project at Manchester University said: “The partnership with BAE Systems has allowed us the freedom as a university to focus on research adventure, with BAE Systems providing the pathway to industrial application.
“We made our first fluidic thrust vectoring nozzle from glued together bits of plastic and tested it on a hair drier fan nearly 20 years ago. Today BAE Systems is 3D printing our components out of titanium and we are flight testing them on the back of a jet engine in an aircraft designed and built by the project team. It doesn’t get much better than that.”
I am not in the aeronautical wing (no pun intended) of the company but engineering common sense suggests that up/down supersonic air blasts on either wing along with deflection of the exhaust (presumably this replaces tail fin angling) would be necessary to replace the use of the ailerons to create the steering capability. Maybe this article is simplified for those of us that you think may not grasp the detail or maybe I am missing something entirely in my understanding of the directional steering of aircraft . . .
What happens to the controls in the event of an engine failure?
I liked the quotation that refers to the “myths of Innovation” – often believed by business folk and politicians. Many innovations are often required to deliver a new product and apparently small problems can be hard to resolve (and , indeed, the main innovations might well not be in the product but how one gets to it…; so the important innovations might well be kept as trade secrets and not marketed at all…).
However pleased to see demonstrations of fluidic flow control though detail would be interesting (for example which side, or sides, of the trailing edge might flow be ejected and what effects does it have on the retaining the boundary layer or the turbulence of the boundary layer…)
Stan, flame-out in jets is a real problem, modern jets have a small pneumatic/hydraulic reserve but if the engine cannot be restarted the only option left to the pilot is to eject. I would think with this system, putting the aircraft into a dive (re-start procedure) may be more difficult but, once in this attitude should be controllable via airflow though the engine inlet. A good question that the designers should take on board.
What is the reason for conventional takeoff and landing, will it be a greater challenge to achieve this with these technologies?
This is not at all the “first” that it is portrayed as! BAESystems (yes, the same company!) in collaboration with Cranfield University flew a flawless UAV in 2009/2010.
See the following links, for example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yJs8elFbNBo and https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ZB5z91Z54 and https://newatlas.com/demon-uav-achieves-flapless-flight/16588/ and it was even recognised by The Engineer magazine (yes, the same magazine!) in 2011 by winning the magazine’s “Aerospace Award”. See https://www.theengineer.co.uk/2011-technology-and-innovation-award-winners-revealed/
All that puts a very different … and disturbing … context to this publicity from what should be organisations who should be expected to act with honesty and integrity
Gravity doesn’t take holidays…
Ah! Blown Flaps! Where have I come across them before?
On the military aircraft of the late 50s and 60s: one of my lecturers used to talk of little else
50 cents from professional aircraft engine specialist (propulsion systems, engines and APUs).
Generally speaking any ardent powerplant engineer would ostensibly resist to any attempts to rob engine performance (trust). We don’t like any compressed air to be taken away from the engine. I.e. cabin heating and cooling etc.
Not sure what kind of deal was cut with the engine guys to steal the air for this “invention”
Interesting, perhaps the ultimate logical development of the blown flaps technology from the 1970’s Fleet Air Arm Buccaneer! As I understand it, this was used back then only to give improved STOL performance and slow speed handling characteristics.
The RAF and FAA are likely to be interested here since true flapless control could allow true flying wing designs with an extremely low RCS. With MAGMA, the need for deflecting wing surfaces that would otherwise spoil the overall aircraft RCS can be avoided.