Open
Conversation
… the different result of Aircraft.Wing.BENDING_MATERIAL_FACTOR (or BT as returned by subroutine BNDMAT) between Aviary and FLOPS.
…CKNESS_TO_CHORD_REFERENCE
…ng.ASPECT_RATIO is an output. But remove the check if tcref == 0.0
cmbenne3
reviewed
Apr 8, 2026
| BENDING_MATERIAL_FACTOR = prob.get_val(Aircraft.Wing.BENDING_MATERIAL_FACTOR) | ||
| pod_inertia = prob.get_val(Aircraft.Wing.ENG_POD_INERTIA_FACTOR) | ||
|
|
||
| BENDING_MATERIAL_FACTOR_expected = 4.53053124 # Real FLOPS BT = 5.998060404 |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So do we think the old FLOPS algorithm was incorrect then?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The way that is implemented in Aviary is different from FLOPS. I can go back to do a detailed comparison if this difference is not acceptable.
| if engine_models is not None: | ||
| preprocess_propulsion(aviary_options, engine_models, meta_data, verbosity) | ||
|
|
||
| if Aircraft.Wing.ASPECT_RATIO_REFERENCE in aviary_options: |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FLOPS allows the reference value to be different from the actual value to allow for scaling behavior. Are we removing this behavior from Aviary? If so then do we even need the reference variable?
Changing this might be outside the scope of this PR.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We want to set reference value ONLY when it is not in the dataset. @jkirk5 : is it what you suggested me to do.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR implements another BWB model from FLOPS - BWB300 baseline model.
The BWB300 baseline model implemented here is not exactly the same as the original FLOPS model. This is because Aviary did not implement all the features of FLOPS. More precisely, here are the differences:
Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_WIDTH = 50.0is not implemented inBWBDetailedCabinLayoutcomponent. Can override later.Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_HEIGHT = 14.16is not implemented inBWBDetailedCabinLayoutcomponent. Can override later.Aircraft.Wing.ROOT_CHORDwhich is an output fromBWBDetailedCabinLayoutcomponent. Can override later.Mission.Design.GROSS_MASS = 600,000manually. The original logic is DGW = 1, IF(DGW < 5) DG = DGW * GW, but GW is not read in to Aviary. Should we create a new Aviary variable for GW (Ramp weight)?Aircraft.Wing.GLOVE_AND_BATis not implemented. So, take the value from FLOPS run. See subroutine DEFINE().Aircraft.Wing.SPAN = 186.3is incorrect. FLOPS updates value during its run. If we input bothAircraft.Wing.SPANandAircraft.Wing.OUTBOARD_SEMISPAN, they must satisfyAircraft.Wing.SPAN Aircraft.Fuselage.MAX_WIDTH + Aircraft.Wing.OUTBOARD_SEMISPAN*2.Aircraft.Fuselage.HEIGHT_TO_WIDTH_RATIO). Should we add TCSOB (meaning Fuselage thickness/chord ratio at side of body) to Aviary? This will affect the computation ofBWB_THICKNESS_TO_CHORD_DISTRIBUTION[1].Aircraft.VerticalTail.WETTED_AREA = 125, even thoughAircraft.VerticalTail.NUM_TAILS = 0. It is ignored.aircraft:wing:aspect_ratio,5.4252,unitlessin .csv file in order to follow FLOPS computation.Aircraft.HorizontalTail.VERTICAL_TAIL_FRACTION) is not taken care byfortran_to_aviary().Aircraft.VerticalTail.SWEEP) is not taken care byfortran_to_aviary().Aircraft.VerticalTail.ASPECT_RATIO) is not taken care byfortran_to_aviary().Aircraft.VerticalTail.TAPER_RATIO) is not taken care byfortran_to_aviary().Aircraft.Fuel.WING_FUEL_CAPACITY) is not taken care byfortran_to_aviary().Related Issues
Backwards incompatibilities
None
New Dependencies
None