Abstract
Atmospheric in-flight icing on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is a significant hazard. UAVs that are not equipped with ice protection systems are usually limited to operations within visual line of sight or to weather conditions without icing risk. As many military and commercial UAV missions require flights beyond visual line of sight and into adverse weather conditions, energy-efficient ice protection systems are required. In this experimental study, two electro-thermal ice protection systems for fixed-wing UAVs were tested. One system was operated in anti-icing and de-icing mode, and the other system was designed as a parting strip de-icing system. Experiments were conducted in an icing wind tunnel facility for varying icing conditions at low Reynolds numbers. A parametric study over the ice shedding time was used to identify the most energy-efficient operation mode. The results showed that longer intercycle durations led to higher efficiencies and that de-icing with a parting strip was superior compared to anti-icing and de-icing without a parting strip. These findings are relevant for the development of energy-efficient systems in the future.
Highlights
In manned aviation, the history of in-flight icing research dates back to the 1940s [1]
The choice of 90% confidence interval was considered to give sufficiently accurate error estimation as the present study aims to compare the performance of several de-icing solutions and to show a proof of concept of the techniques
Atmospheric icing imposes limitations on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that can be overcome with IPS
Summary
The history of in-flight icing research dates back to the 1940s [1]. For unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), icing research has a much shorter history and can be considered an emerging research field. The first analysis and reports of at mospheric icing on UAVs date back to the 1990s [2], the research in this area has only recently gained momentum [3]. One of the main barriers to achieving an all-weather capability of UAVs is to mitigate the risk of atmospheric in-flight icing [3]. The resulting ice accretions on the airframe have several hazardous effects: clogging. 2 of 16 2 of 15 resulting ice accretions on the airframe have several hazardous effects: clogging of pitot otfupbeitso,tatdudbiensg, awdediignhgt,wreeidguhcti,nrgedpurcoipneglleprrotpherullsetr, tahnrdusdt,eagnradddineggraaedriondgyanearmodicynpaemrfoicrpmerafnorcme [a7n,c8e].[I7c,e8]t.hIacte ftohramt fsoormn sthoenltehaedlienagd-eindgg-eedogf elioftfinligftisnugrfsaucrefsaccehsacnhgaensgtehsethaierfaoirilfogielgoemometertyryanadndlelaedasdstotoa adedcerceraesaeseininliflitf,ti,nicnrceraesaeseininddrarga,ga, nanddaahhigighhererstsatlallilninggrirsiksk[9[]9.]. 5 of 16 5 of 15 strip (Figure 3b) design had two primary zones at the leading edge, each with a width of 22.5.5ccmmaannddtwtwoosseeccoonnddaaryryzzoonneseswwitihthaawwididththoof f55cmcmeaeachch. 10, 18, 25 m/s −2, −5, −10 ◦C 3 × 105, 6 × 105, 9 × 105 9, 12, 18 kW/m2 120, 240, 360, 480 s
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
