Propeller-wing interactions of a lift + cruise eVTOL configuration during transition
Abstract
The wakes of a lift + cruise aircraft's vertical lift propellers interact with the wing during the transition from hover to forward flight. This study investigates how variations in axial and longitudinal separations between the vertical lift propellers and the wing affect aerodynamic performance during this critical phase. Axial variations were introduced by orienting the motors either upright or inverted at two longitudinal positions relative to the wing. Wind tunnel tests were conducted on the resulting lift + cruise wing configurations over a Reynolds number range of 52,000 to 377,000, using tufts, pressure taps, and load cells to capture aerodynamic behaviour. Results show that the early transition phase (front propeller advance ratios between 0 and 0.25) is particularly sensitive to configuration changes. Rear motor orientation had a pronounced effect: when oriented upright at the shortest longitudinal separation, the active lift propellers increased the lift-drag ratio of the design by approximately 4 units, whereas in the rear motor inverted case the design suffered a 4-point reduction in the lift-drag ratio. Decreasing the longitudinal separation amplified both the beneficial lift contribution of the rear propeller and the generally adverse effects of the front propeller. However, placing the front propeller closer to the wing in the upright orientation enhanced performance at advance ratios between 0.11 and 0.25, due to favourable interactions between the wing and the front propeller's trailing vortices.
Related
- When do machine-learning potentials need a configuration-dependent kernel? Learning long-range interactions with Fourier neural operators
- Controlling the glass transition through active fluctuating interactions
- Robustness of RKKY interactions across a Weyl node-annihilation transition
- Disorder, Interactions, and the Fate of the Two-Dimensional Electron System: Wigner Crystal, Metal-Insulator Transition, and Amorphous Solid
- Swim-and-Breach at Palm Scale: A Rudder-Steered Two-Propeller Underwater Robot Platform with Differential-Thrust Pitch Control
BibTeX
@misc{westcott2026propellerwing,
title = {{Propeller-wing interactions of a lift + cruise eVTOL configuration during transition}},
author = {Oliver Westcott and Robert Entwistle and Swathi Krishna},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.07665},
eprint = {2609.07665},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07665},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Propeller-wing interactions of a lift + cruise eVTOL configuration during transition
AU - Oliver Westcott
AU - Robert Entwistle
AU - Swathi Krishna
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/09
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.07665
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07665
AB - The wakes of a lift + cruise aircraft's vertical lift propellers interact with the wing during the transition from hover to forward flight. This study investigates how variations in axial and longitudinal separations between the vertical lift propellers and the wing affect aerodynamic performance during this critical phase. Axial variations were introduced by orienting the motors either upright or inverted at two longitudinal positions relative to the wing. Wind tunnel tests were conducted on the resulting lift + cruise wing configurations over a Reynolds number range of 52,000 to 377,000, using tufts, pressure taps, and load cells to capture aerodynamic behaviour. Results show that the early transition phase (front propeller advance ratios between 0 and 0.25) is particularly sensitive to configuration changes. Rear motor orientation had a pronounced effect: when oriented upright at the shortest longitudinal separation, the active lift propellers increased the lift-drag ratio of the design by approximately 4 units, whereas in the rear motor inverted case the design suffered a 4-point reduction in the lift-drag ratio. Decreasing the longitudinal separation amplified both the beneficial lift contribution of the rear propeller and the generally adverse effects of the front propeller. However, placing the front propeller closer to the wing in the upright orientation enhanced performance at advance ratios between 0.11 and 0.25, due to favourable interactions between the wing and the front propeller's trailing vortices.
ER -