Hypersonic Aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

98 views

Hypersonic Aerodynamics

© All Rights Reserved

- Aircraft Design - Corke
- Fundamentals of Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control
- Understanding Aircraft Structures
- Aircraft Performance NPTEL
- The Design of the Airplane -Darrol Stinton
- Aircraft Design Project - 150 seater passenger aircraft
- Flight Dynamics
- Basics of Flight Dynamics
- 2 Theory Guide
- Some Effects of Tip Fins on Wing Flutter Characteristics
- 400 Seater Passenger Aircraft
- Aircraft Design Project Group 5
- B.L.stevens %26 F.L.lewis Aircraft Control and Simulation 1992
- Schaufele - Elements of Aircraft Preliminary Design
- Prouty Raymond - Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control - 2002 [en].pdf
- Supersonic Flow Over Wedge
- (UAV) - Aircraft Design
- McDonnell USAF Datcom 1979 Volume 1 User Manual
- Whole
- Description of USAF Digital Datcom

You are on page 1of 243

HYPERSONIC FLOWS

AK SREEKANTH

AND THEIR VALIDATION IN

HYPERSONIC FLOWS

AK SREEKANTH

Ministry of Defence

New Delhi 110 011

2003

AERODYNAMIC PREDICTIVE METHODS AND THEIR

VALIDATION IN HYPERSONIC FLOWS

AK SREEKANTH

Series Editors

Editor-in-Chief

Dr Mohinder Singh

Editors

Dr JP Singh, A Saravanan

Coordinator

Ashok Kumar

Cover Design

A Saravanan

Asst. Editor

Ramesh Chander

Editorial Asst.

AK Sen, Kumar Amar Nath

Production

Printing

JV Ramakrishna, SK Tyagi

Marketing

RK Dua, Rajpal Singh

Cataloguing in Publication

SREEKANTH, A.K.

Aerodynamic predictive methods and their validation in hypersonic

flows.

DRDO monograph series.

Includes index and bibliography.

ISBN 81-86514-11-2

1. Aerodynamics 2. Hypersonic flows I. Title (Series)

629.132.306.072

Defence R&D Organisation, Delhi-110 054.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Indian Copyright Act 1957, no

part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted, stored in a

database or a retrieval system, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the

publisher.

The views expressed in the book are those of the author only. The editors or publisher

do not assume responsibility for the statements/opinions expressed by the author.

CONTENTS

Preface

xi

Acknowledgement

PART - I

HYPERSONIC FLOWS

xiii

CHAPTER 1

AERODYNAMIC PREDICTIVE METHODS IN HYPERSONIC

FLOWS

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

2.1

Introduction

2.2

Newtonian Theory

2.3

2.4

2.5

10

2.6

13

2.7

Wing Empirical Method

14

2.8

17

2.9

17

2.10

17

2.11

18

2.12

18

2.12.1

18

2.12.2

19

2.13

21

2.14

24

2.15

25

2.16

30

References

31

(vi)

CHAPTER 3

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF VEHICLE

COMPONENTS

33

3.1

Introduction

33

3.2

Body-Alone Aerodynamics

34

3.2.1

34

3.2.2

Axial Force

37

3.2.3

CA

37

3.2.4

b

39

3.2.5

Coefficient of Nose Portion of the Body

40

3.2.5.1

Pointed Cone

40

3.2.5.2

Pointed Ogive

41

3.2.5.3

Hemispherical Nose

41

3.2.6

Normal Force

41

3.2.6.1

Pointed Cone

41

3.2.6.2

Pointed Ogive

42

3.2.6.3

Hemispherical Nose

42

3.2.6.4

Cylinder

42

3.3

43

3.4

Moments

43

3.4.1

Pointed Cone

44

3.4.2

Pointed Ogive

44

3.4.3

Hemisphere

45

3.4.4

Circular Cylinder

45

3.5

45

3.5.1

45

3.5.1.1

Axial Force

47

3.5.1.2

Normal Force

50

3.5.1.3

51

3.5.1.4

51

3.5.1.5

Pitching Moment

52

3.5.2

52

3.5.2.1

Hypersonic Airfoil Theory

52

References

59

(vii)

CHAPTER 4

SKIN FRICTION FORCE CALCULATION

61

4.1

Introduction

61

4.2

62

4.3

63

4.4

64

4.5

Empirical Equations

65

References

66

CHAPTER 5

AERODYNAMIC HEATING AT HYPERSONIC SPEEDS

67

5.1

Introduction

67

5.2

Heating Analysis

67

5.3

69

5.3.1

Spherical Nose

69

5.3.2

72

5.3.3

72

5.3.4

Perfect Gas

73

5.3.5

Real Gas

74

5.3.6

75

5.3.7

77

5.4

80

5.4.1

80

5.4.2

Pressure Gradient Surfaces

83

5.4.3

86

5.5

Tauber

87

5.5.1

88

5.5.2

88

5.5.3

89

5.5.3.1

89

5.6

90

5.6.1

Stagnation Point

91

5.6.2

91

5.6.3

91

References

92

(viii)

93

CHAPTER 6

VALIDATION OF PREDICTION METHODS

95

6.1

110

6.1.1

115

6.1.2

Lift Characteristics

115

6.1.3

Wing

116

6.1.4

Horizontal Tail

118

6.1.5

Fuselage

118

6.1.6

Pitching-Moment Characteristics

119

6.1.7

119

6.1.8

Fuselage

128

6.1.9

128

6.2

139

6.3

156

6.4

Conclusions

158

References

169

173

CHAPTER 7

AERODYNAMICS OF RAREFIED GASES

175

7.1

Introduction

175

7.2

177

7.2.1

177

7.2.2

179

7.3

187

7.3.1

Flat Plate

187

7.3.2

7.3.3

Sphere

194

7.3.4

Cone Frustrum

195

7.3.5

Spherical Segment

198

7.4

200

7.5

203

7.5.1

207

(ix)

7.5.2

7.5.3

212

References

213

Appendix

215

Index

225

PREFACE

This monograph presents a summary of engineering

methods most commonly employed for preliminary aerodynamic

analysis of bodies travelling at hypersonic speeds. To the extent

possible, an attempt has been made to make the present work

self-sufficient. However, references are cited if one is interested

in the source or more details.

The work is in three parts. Part 1 deals with Predictive

Methodology, Part 2 covers Validation of Prediction Methods and

Part 3 the Aerodynamics of Rarefied Gases.

Secunderabad

Date: June 2003

AK Sreekanth

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The writing of this monograph has been made possible by

the financial assistance received from the Defence Scientific

Information and Documentation Centre (DESIDOC), Ministry of

Defence, Government of India, New Delhi.

The author would like to place on record his sincere

thanks and appreciation to the following persons.

1.

2.

3.

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

U.S.A. for permission to freely use the figures and material

from the thesis of his student L.P.Ozoroski and from the

NASP Contractor Report 1104.

Dr. J.Agrell, Head of Experimental Aerodynamics

Department, FFA, Sweden, for permission to include

material in the monograph from the FFA Technical Note AU1661.

Mr. Dan Pappas, Chief Librarian, NASA Ames Research

Center, Moffett Field, CA. for allowing me to use the Ames

Library freely.

PART - I

AERODYNAMIC PREDICTIVE METHODS

IN

HYPERSONIC FLOWS

CHAPTER 1

AERODYNAMIC PREDICTIVE METHODS IN

HYPERSONIC FLOWS

1.1

INTRODUCTION

vehicle or a missile requires a detailed knowledge of how various

geometrical configuration parameters affect the aerodynamic

performance of such a vehicle. Besides, it is desirable to have the

ability to compare one configurations performance with another

in a relatively short amount of time. During the preliminary design

phase involved in arriving at feasible configurations for a specified

mission, simple engineering-type empirical and semi-empirical

methods are invariably employed. The expensive and timeconsuming wind tunnel tests and sophisticated computational

techniques are reserved for possible designs evolved from the

preliminary analysis.

A variety of engineering methods applicable to flows at

hypersonic Mach numbers have been reported over the years in

open literature. Each of these methods works well on very specific

types of components. Therefore, it is necessary to choose a

combination of these methods to analyse the complete vehicle

made up of various components, such as body, lifting, and control

surfaces.

The present work is a compilation of some of the wellknown prediction methods, their applicability and limitations.

Examples of the application of a few of these methods to calculate

aerodynamic parameters of some specific components of vehicle

configurations have been made and the results presented. Some

published work on the aerodynamic characteristics of a few of

hypersonic configurations, their predictions and comparison with

monograph, to illustrate the applicability and validity of the

approximate methodology.

2.1

INTRODUCTION

forces in hypersonic flow are based on non-interfering constant

pressure finite element analysis. The geometry of the

configuration is represented by a system of quadrilateral panels.

The only parameter required to calculate the pressure is the

impact angle of the free stream flow with the panel or the change

in impact angle from one panel to another. The surface elements

that see the oncoming flow directly, are said to be in the impact

region and the others, either shielded by the front portion or other

surrounding elements, are in the shadow region. Depending upon

whether the element is in the impact or shadow region, the

appropriate method is chosen for the analysis. Body components

are typically broken into separate analysis regions. The forward

most body component may have a nose and body region. The rear

most body consists of a body region and probably a blunt base. In

each of these separate regions, an analysis method must be

chosen for the impact flow region and a suitable one for the shadow

region. Similar division is also done for the lifting and control

surfaces. viz., a leading edge region, a surface (mostly flat) region

and a blunt region if the trailing edge is blunt. Most commonly

used methods are listed in Table 1.1.

Imwact Flow

Shadow Flow

Embedded Newtonian

Modified Newtonian + Prandtl-Meyer

Tangent wedge and Tangent cone

Tangent wedge-Tangent cone

(empirical)

Newtonian (Cp=O)

Modified Newtonian + Prandtl-Meyer

Prandtl-Meyer from free stream

OSU blunt body empirical '

Van Dyke unified

Contd...

Imwact Flow

OSU blunt body empirical

Van Dyke unified

2-Dim. Hypersonic airfoil theory

Shadow Flow

High Mach number base pressure

Shock expansion

Rarefied gas flow

Shock-expansion

Input pressure coefficient

Hankey flat surface empirical

Delta wing empirical

Dahlem-Buck empirical

Blast wave

Rarefied gas flow

in following pages.

2.2

NEWTONIAN THEORY

Newtonian theory is a local surface inclination method. In

this, the pressure coefficient depends only on the local surface

deflection angle and not on any other aspect of the surrounding

flow field.

Newton originally assumed that the medium around a body

was composed of identical non-interfering independent particles.

When these particles collide with the surface they lose their

normal component of the momentum resulting in a pressure force

on it. After collision, the particles move along the surface with

their tangential component of the momentum unchanged. The

regions of the body that do not see the oncoming particles directly

are said to be in the shadow region and the pressure coefficient in

these regions are normally set equal to zero.

mass of particles striking the surface area A in unit time is

p, V , A sin S . The total normal momentum carried by these

Methods

surface element and acts a s the normal pressure force.

the free stream, we have

pressure is fairly well predicted by the above Newtonian theory. It

is to be observed that according to the Newtonian theory the

pressure coefficient is independent of the Mach number, so long a s

the flow is hypersonic.

MODIFIED NEWTONIAN THEORY

In the Modified Newtonian theory (MNT), the pressure

coefficient is written a s

2.3

the Mach number, body shape, angle of attack and ratio of

is the

specific heats. The most common one is K = Cpswhere Cps

stagnation pressure coefficient behind a normal shock. For this

case we have

1.839andfor Y = 1.0and M,

-+

co, K j 2 . 0 .

L,= nose length and a = angle of attack.

body diameter,

For a hemisphere1,

for

Y=

1.4, K-2.083,andfor

Y=

1,K=2.0.

are mainly applicable for blunt body flows, attempts have been

made to see whether the same form of modified equation could be

made applicable to flat surfaces such a s wings. One such suggested

relation by Hankeyqs

K =1.95 +

0.3925

M : . ~ tan 6

is applicable in the Mach number range of 2 to 22 and angles of

attack from 10" to 90" for surfaces with highly swept leading

edges.

For surface inclinations below 10 degrees, particularly for

wings, Newtonian theory is not applicable. Interaction and induced

pressure effects also become dominant at low angles of attack

requiring a different methodology.

EMBEDDED NEWTONIAN FLOW

For bodies having compression corners on the surfaces

such a s flares or flap controls, the Newtonian theory may not

correctly predict the pressure on these surfaces a s there may be a

oblique shock in front of the ramp if the local flow is supersonic a s

shown in the Fig. 2.2.

Newtonian theory assumes that the bow shock wgve in

front of the body wraps around the body very closely thereby not

giving rise to secondary shock that might be normally present in

local supersonic regions. For configurations like this, a method

2.4

Methods

9

EMBEDDED SHOCK

FLARE

(a)

-EMBEDDED SHOCK

FLAP

(b)

Figure 2.2. Embedded Flows

has been suggested by Sieffj in which the flow over the ramp is

viewed a s an embedded Newtonian impact flow if the flow is not

extensively separated and the ramp sh0c.k wave is thin, with

conditions along the surface of the secondary shock wave a s

initial conditions. According to this postulation, the pressure on

the ramp surface is given by the following expression:

P2 - PI = PI ( ~ sin

1

dl2

where, the subscript 1 refers to conditions along the front surface

of the ramp shock wave, which are the initial conditions for the

application of Newtonian theory on the ramp surface. The above

relation can be expressed in the form of pressure coefficient

based on free stream static and dynamic pressure conditions,

viz.,

41

P2

'P2

4,

Newtonian

10

where, Cp,,,O,i,

is the pressure coefficient given by the usual

Newtonian Impact theory and q the dynamic pressure.

For the application of the above formulation one needs to

know the properties of the stream that is incident on the ramp

surface. Towards this, one can utilize the methods presented in

Sieff, et ~ l .and

, ~ Maslen, et ~ l .or, any

~ other known procedures.

2.5

detached shock, it is assumed that the flow expands around the

body surface to supersonic conditions isentropically from the

stagnation point. Modified Newtonian theory is combined with

Prandtl-Meyer Expansion theory. The technique involves

matching the Modified Newtonian and Prandtl-Meyer Expansion

methods at the point where the pressure gradients calculated

using each method are equal. Downstream of this point the

Prandtl-Meyer Expansion theory is used6. The calculation

procedure is a s follows:

Calculate the ratio of the free stream static to stagnation

pressure behind a normal shock.

Substitutingfor

YM,~K

Methods

(2.9)

Po,

Po,

d

PIP^,)

dS

according to Newtonian theory.

For an isentropic expansion downstream of the stagnation

point, on the blunt nose, we have

P

Po,

2+(y-1)

kf2

supersonic Mach number M is

v

=JzJw)d $ Z ]

tan-

tan

(2.14)

d ( P / P o , ) - -7 M 2 ( P / P O 2 )

dM2-1

dv

( 2.15)

2.12 and 2.15), noting that dv = - d6

ykf: ( P 9 /Po,)

=

(M~z-I)~

11

12

this point can be easily determined once the value of Mqis known.

Eliminating 6 in Eqn. 2.16 by using Eqn. 2.1 1, we have

where

and it is necessary to solve the Eqn. 2.17 by an iterative process.

This is done a s follows:

Assume a starting value for the matching Mach number Mq,

say 1.30. For this value calculate Q using Eqn.2.18. Calculate P

from Eqn. 2.17. Assume a new matching Mach number say 1.70

and repeat the above steps to get a new value of P. A linear

interpolation between these two calculated values is made to get

a new matching Mach number corresponding to the actual value

of P given by the free stream conditions (Eqn. 2.6). This process is

repeated until the solution converges. The location of the

matching point is easily determined once Mq is known.

From Eqn. 2.11

stream static pressure and the ratio P is simply

surface downstream is calculated by the Prandtl-Meyer

theoretical relationship. It is found that the use of Prandtl-Meyer

relations from the matching point onwards gives a betfer

correlation with experimental data and exact theories than by

using the sonic point a s the starting point for use of the PrandtlMeyer relation.

Methods

2.6

that the tangent wedge and tangent cone methods give

reasonably accurate results at hypersonic speeds. Tangent

wedge theory determines the pressure at each point by

calculating the pressure on a wedge of the same half angle a s the

local inclination angle at the point. The pressure on the

equivalent wedge is found by using the oblique shock theoretical

relations at the free stream Mach number of Ma.

In a similar manner, tangent cone method uses an

equivalent cone at each point to calculate the pressure on

axisymmetric bodies.

It is found that the tangent wedge method works well for

airfoils with sharp leading edges and the tangent cone method for

bodies with pointed noses.

TANGENT WEDGE

13

14

revolution or equivalent bodies of revolution, sometimes it is

convenient to use an empirical equation for the pressure

coefficient rather than the use of Sims conical flow tables. The

suggested equation7 for the pressure coefficient is

called effective Mach number normal to the shock, Mns.The angle 6

is defined a s the smallest angle between the free stream direction

and the tangent to the vehicle surface at the point of interest. The

above equation is a physical representation of Cp for

%-dimensional oblique theory when the actual Mach number

normal to the shock is employed with Y = 1.4. The suggested

effective Mach number Mnsis

M,,

(0.87~

-~

0.554) sin6

0.53

(2.22)

Newtonian impact angle. For impact angles up to 30, the

deviation from the Sims tabulated conical flow table values is less

5% when the above expression is used for all Mach

than

numbers above 1.5.

WING EMPIRICAL METHOD

Experiments on large surfaces of blunt, highly swept delta

wings in hypersonic flows have shown the following trend. For

angles of attack between 5" and 15" the tangent wedge theory

appears representative of the mean data. For angles of attack

above 15", the flow appears to change in nature such that the

tangent cone approximation appears valid up to 40" angle of

attack. Probably based on this, an approximate method has been

reported by Gentry, et. aL8,the details of which are a s follows:

For a wedge, the shock angle is given by

2.7

sin 0, =

(1 - E )

sin 8,

COS (0, - 6, )

Methods

sine,

where,

E =

(P

sin 6 ,

= ,

In the limit as M ,

-+

co

y+1

2

-sinti,

For a wedge:

sine,

For a cone:

2 6 +I)

Y +3

Far a wedge

independent of the Mach number indicating that Mm is a function of

between Mnsand M rsin F that satisfies the following requirements:

15

16

(a)

(b)

A t M s i n g = O , MrlS=l

(c)

(d)

4%

+ cc

value

a t MI; sin& = 0

M,,

K,,M,sind,

for a wedge, and

=

M,, = K , M , sins,

for a cone, where

K,

y+l

and

3

e -(K,+w,,

e sin&)

KC=

sins,)

/2

2 (Y + 1)

(Y + 3)

following relationships for a wedge and a cone respectively,

line pressure distribution on a delta wing agrees well with

the 2-Dimensional theory (wedge flow) and a t higher angles of

attack with the conical flow theory. A s such, the relationships for

Mns a s given above for a wedge and a cone can be combined to

yield a relation

Methods

above expression with the value of Mns given by Eqn. 2.33

correlates well with the experimental data of pressure

distribution on the centre line of delta wings.

The Ohio State University (OSU) Blunt Body Empirical

equationg predicts the pressure distribution around circular

cylinders in supersonic flows. The suggested expression is

2.8

through the normal shock and 0 is the peripheral angle on a

cylinder (= 0 at the stagnation point). The pressure coefficient is

given by

the normal shock relations.

2.9

This method is mainly used for estimating the lower

surface pressure on blunt flat plateslO.It approximates tangent

wedge a t low impact angles and approaches Newtonian method

at high impact angles.

The pressure coefficient is given by

The suggested Dahlem-Buck

E;mpirical metgod"

approximates the tangent cone at low angles of attack and

Newtonian at high angles.

For impact angles up to 22.5", the pressure coefficient is given by

2.10

17

18

C, =

[I

+ ~in(46)~/~]sin(6)~/~

(2.39)

2.11

a n over pressure. This additional amount must be added on to the

pressure calculated by the various methods like tangent wedge,

tangent cone, Newtonian, etc. According to the blast wave solution

given by Lukasiewicz and quoted by Gentry, et. aL8, the pressure

distribution downstream of the nose a s a function of x is given by

where

C,

d

x

is

is

is

and the values

a s follows:

Flow

2.12

the nose diameter or thickness and

the distance from the nose stagnation point

of coefficients A, B and nose drag coefficients are

CI

For bodies flying a t high supersonic speeds, Eggers,

Generalized Shock Expansion theory. I n this, the flow

parameters immediately downstream of sharp nosed bodies are

calculated using either the oblique shock relations for 2dimensional bodies or the conical shock relations for ,axisymmetric bodies. Downstream of the leading edge, the body

surface is replaced by a tangent body composed of conical

segments a s shown in the Fig. 2.4.

Methods

,LEADING

TANGENT BODY

COMPOSED OF

CONICAL

SEGMENTS

EDGE SHOCK

SHOCK WAVE

The change in the local surface slope in going from one

tangent segment of the body or the airfoil to another tangent

segment is determined and for this change, the Prandtl-Meyer

relations are used to calculate the flow properties. It is assumed

that the pressure is constant along each segment. Inherent in this

theory is that the expansion waves created at each change of slope

are absorbed by the shock and are not reflected back. Since the

theory assumes that the pressure is constant along each conical

tangent elements of the surface, the body should be slender or else

one has to consider a large number of elements to obtain accurate

pressure prediction.

2.12.2 Second Order Shock Expansion Theory (SOSET)

The previously outlined first order theory was extended

by Syvertson, et all6 by defining the pressure along a conical

frustum by a relation

expression, pc is the pressure on the conical segment, a s given by

the conical flow over a cone of half angle equal to the slope of the

conical segment with respect to the body axis of symmetry. p, is

the pressure just aft of the conical segment a s calculated from the

Prandtl-Meyer relation from known values in region 1 (Fig. 2,5).

19

20

MACH LINES

coordinate system with origin at the nose, and

body, pc is replaced by p , . If q becomes negative, the Second

Order theory is replaced by the First Order theory. This is

because the Eqn 2.41 will not give the correct asymptotic cone

solution for negative values of q .

It has been observed that the Second Order Shock

Expansion theory predicts fairly accurately the pressure

distribution on the surface of the body at low to moderate angles of

attack and the Mach number greater than 2.0.

22

streamlines in the wind axis system and these coordinates are

used to generate bodies of revolution for each radial angle 4 of

interest.

Y

are shown below.

EQUIVALENT BODIES

order shock expansion) is applied to the equivalent bodies thus

generated from the transformed streamlines to get the pressure

distribution. There are two limitations in this method. First, the

angle of attack should be low enough so that the stagnation point

remains on the spherical surface and secondly, the angle of attack

24

AC,

=-

( 2 a )s i n ( 2 ~ ) s i n ( ~ ) + ( ~6c) oa's ~

[ ( 4 / 3 ) sin(26) sin

(o)]

. . a'

(2.49)

where

AC P = -

3

(2.50)

blunt body configurations in the windward plane area, 60" c 4 5 180".

For the leeward plane area on blunt bodies Eqn 2.49 is replaced by

Eqn 2.50. In the above equations p = (M2- 1)l! ; is the local surface

slope of the body with respect to body axis and 4 is the position on

the body surface with 4 = + 90' being the vertical plane and 4 = - 90"

corresponds to leeward plane.

2.14 VAN DYKE UNIFIED THEORY

A method based on the hypersonic small disturbance

theory applicable to both the supersonic and hypersonic flow

regimes was proposed by Van Dyke and is known a s the Unified

Supersonic Hypersonic Flow theorylg.The det.ails of the derivation

based on the similarity conditions are given by Shapiro20. The

next section also gives the derivation of the pertinent equations

which are further simplified. For small deflection angles a t high

Mach numbers, the pressure coefficient on a compression

surface is given by

and 6 is the thickness ratio. The above relation can also be

applied to supersonic flows if the hypersonic similarity parameter

Methods

25

number flow on a surface in expansion flow with no leading edge

shock wave a s in the case of a flat plate at an angle of attack. The

resulting expression20 is

applicability in both supersonic and hypersonic flow

2.15

m1

S for

surface pressure coefficient than those given by Eqns 2.5 1 and 2.52

above, based on additional assumptions, justifiable in hypersonic

flows over thin 2-dimensional bodies at small angles of a t t a ~ k ~ l - ~ ~ .

Details of the analysis are

the pressure coefficient C

,- Y M :

P-Pm

m

behind a n oblique shock wave, there follows

2

Y + l

sin P = 4 CP2

and

(c~2;"")2

[(

1 - -'i2

)

e

sin P tan

e2

I'

follows:

Methods

the relation,

order terms we have

Making use of the Eqns. 2.53 and 2.61, the above can be

expressed as

Substituting for

becomes

'pW2

27

28

no expansion.

Let us consider the no shock case. For this Ow,

0.

pressure coefficient on the upper surface of a flat plate at an

angle of attack of rr=8,. The case of no expansion after the

shock implies that Q

0.Hence,

at an angle of attack

ow, = a .

coefficient can be obtained by the use of Eqns. 2.65 and 2.66, viz.,

30

results in

(2.72)

The above Eqns. 2.71 and 2.72 are identical up to the first

two terms and differs from each other in the third term by 10 per

cent. It is reasonable therefore to assume that the Eqn. 2.7 1 is

applicable to both the shock and expansion processes. This

assumption is equivalent to neglecting entropy change across the

shock. Both compression and expansion are considered a s

isentropic. The pressure coefficient at any point on the surface of

an airfoil is given by

known hypersonic similarity parameter.

The above equation can be integrated for most of the thin

airfoil shapes to give closed form solutions for the aerodynamic

coefficients for various airfoils. Results of these calculations for

the determination of aerodynamic characteristics of various types

of airfoil shapes commonly encountered are g i ~ e n ~and

' . ~they

~ are

reproduced in section 3.2.5

2.16

in the shadow region. Further at hypersonic Mach numbers the

expansion of the flow from the body surface to the base region will

be such that the base portion will be in a vacuum environment. For

this condition the pressure coefficient at the base is given by:

pressure is felt in the base region and according to some

experiments for air this value is approximately 70 per cent

Methods

taken as

REFERENCES

Weibust, Erling. Status report on the FFA version of the

missile aerodynamics program LAIZV, for calculation of

static

aerodynamic

properties

and

longitudinal

aerodynamic damping derivatives FFA. The Aeronautical

Research Institute of Sweden, Stockholm, 1981. TN-AU1661.

Hankey, Jr., W.L. & Alexander, G.L. Prediction of

hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics for lifting vehicles.

WPAFB, Ohio, September 1963. ASD-TDR-63-668.

Sieff, A. Secondary floml fields embedded in hypersonic

shock layers. NASA, May 1962. TN-D-1304.

Sieff, A., & Whitting, W.E. Calculation of flow fields from

bow-wave profiles for the downstream region of blunt-nosed

circular cylinders in axial hypersonic flight. NASA, 1961.

TN-D- 1147.

Maslen, S.H., & Moeckel, W.E. Inviscid hypersonic flow past

blunt bodies. J. of Aero. Sci.,1957, 24(9), 683-89.

Kaufman-11, L.G. Pressure estimation techniques for

hypersonic flows over blunt bodies. J. of Aero. Sci., 1963,

lO(2).

Pittman, J.L. Application of supersonic linear theory and

hypersonic impact methods to three nonslender hypersonic

airplane concepts at mach numbers from 1.10 to 2.86.

NASA, December 1979. TP- 1539.

Gentry, A.E.; Smyth, D.N. & Oliver, W.R. The Mark IV

supersonic-hypersonic arbitrary-body program. WPAFB,

Ohio, November 1973. 11 p. AFFDL-TR-73-159.

Gregorek, G.M., Nark, T.C. & Lee, J.D. An experimental

investigation of the surface pressure and the laminar

boundary layer on a blunt flat plate in hypersonic flow,

Vol 1. March 1963. ASD-TDR-62-792.

Hankey , J r ., W.L. Optimization of lifting re-entry Gehicles.

March 1963. ASD-TDR-62- 1102.

31

32

investigations vehicle designs for high lift-drag ratios in

hypersonic flight. June 1967. AFFDL-TR-67- 138.

Eggers, A.J.; Sjvertson, C.A.; & Kraus, S.A. A study of

inviscid flow about airfoils a t high supersonic speeds. NACA

Report, 1953. TN-1123.

Eggers, A.J. & Savin, R.C. A unified tw-o-dimensional

approach to the calculation of three-dimensional

hypersonic flows with applications to bodies of revolution.

NACA Report, 1955. TN- 1249.

Eggers, A.J. & Savin, R.C. Approximate methods for

calculating the flow about nonlifting bodies of revolution a t

high supersonic airspeeds. NACA, 1951. TN-2579.

Savin, R.C. Application of the generalized shock expansion

method to the inclined bodies of revolution travelling at

high supersonic airspeeds. NACA, 1955. TN-3349.

Sqvertson, C.A. & Dennis, D.H. Second order shock

expansion method applicable to bodies of revolution near

zero lift. NACA, 1957. TR-1323.

Jackson, C.M.; Sawyer, W.C.& Smith, R.S. A method for

determining surface pressures on blunt bodies of

revolution at small angles of attack in supersonic flows.

NASA, 1968. TN P-4865.

Dejarnette, F.R.; Ford, C.P. & Young, D.E. A new method for

calculating surface presures on bodies at an angle of attack

in supersonic flow. Paper presented a t AIAA 12THFluid and

Plasma Dynamics Conference, July 1974, Williamsburgh,

Va., AIAA Paper No. 79- 1522.

Van Dyke, M.D.A study of hypersonic small-disturbance

theory. NACA, 1954. Report No. 1194.

Shapiro, A.H. The dynamics and thermodynamics of

compressible fluid flow. The Ronald Press, Vol. 2, 1953,

pp. 753-754.

Kaufman-11, L.G. & Scheuing, R.A. An introduction to

hypersonics. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation,

August 1960. Research Report RE-82.

Linnel, R.D. Two-dimensional airfoils in hypersonic flows

JAS, 1949, 16(1).

Dorrance, W.H. Two-dimensional airfoils at moderate

hypersonic velocities. JAS, 1952, 19(9).

CHAPTER 3

AERODYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

VEHICLE COMPONENTS

3.1

INTRODUCTION

local pressure on an elemental area of a vehicle component based

on its geometry, the forces and moments experienced by that

component can be obtained by integrating the pressure and

moment over the entire surface. To determine the aerodynamic

characteristics of the complete vehicle, it is the usual practice to

divide the general configuration into simple basic components

such as nose, body, lifting surface, control surface, etc. By

summing the aerodynamic characteristics of the isolated

individual components and the effect due to the interference of

one component on the other, the complete vehicle characteristics

are determined. For example, the normal force coefficient of a

vehicle can be expressed as

C N = C N B + C N W + C N T + C N B (W ) + C N B (T ) + C N W ( B ) + C N T ( B ) +

C N T (W ) + C N W (T )

and exposed tail, respectively. The terms CNB (W ) , CNW (B) , etc.

represent the interference effects of the exposed wing on the body,

of the body on the exposed wing, etc.

The forces and moments are normally expressed in

coefficient forms referred to either in the body-fixed coordinate

system (the normal CN and axial CA, force coefficients) or the wind

oriented coordinate system (the lift (CL ) and drag (CD ) force

coefficients). These can be converted from one system to the other

by the following relations.

34

Z

CN

CL

CD

cm

y

x

CA

and body-oriented coefficients (CN, CA).

CL = CN cos CA sin

CD = CA cos + CN sin

CN = CL cos + CD sin

CA = CD cos CL sin

3.2

BODY-ALONE AERODYNAMICS

The bodies of hypersonic vehicles usually have a blunt nose

followed by a conical frustum and a cylindrical after body. Some of

the vehicles may have an ogival nose followed by a cylindrical body.

Forces on body shapes of these types can be analysed using

Modified Newtonian theory (MNT) or the Second-order Shock

Expansion theory, coupled with cross flow drag analysis on

cylindrical portion. Some illustrative examples using MNT are

worked out.

According to the MNT, the coefficient of pressure on

surfaces exposed directly to the flow 1 is given by

C p = K (sin cos sin cos sin ) 2

(3.1)

where

= Angle made by surface of body with body axis

= Angle of attack of the body axis

= Polar angle of any point on body surface, measured

from positive xy plane and positive for counterclockwise

direction when viewed from rear.

Z

ZN

SHIELDED AREA

tan

u = sin 1

tan

the shielded region of the body is zero. However, from gasdynamic considerations, the value of C p u lies between zero and

2 / M 2

the largest negative value of C p u appears to be of the order of

1/M 2 for

to the forces and moments.

For any portion of the body shown in Fig. 3.2, the axial

force is given by

/2

u

A = 2q

ds

C p r sin d+ C p u r sin d

surface / 2

u

(3.2)

35

36

A = 2q K

r tandx

A

Axial force coefficient, CA = q S

ref

2K

CA =

Sref

dC A

dx

r tan dx

2

/ 2

length

S ref

(3.4)

2 Kr

(3.3)

/2

length

u

sin 2 u

+

2

4

4

(3.5)

u +

+ cos 2 sin 2

2

(3.6)

/2

u

N = 2q

dx

C p r sin d + C p u r sin d

2

u

length

/

(3.7)

dC N

dx

Kr

S ref

+

2

3

(3.8)

of the area of the base of the nose section, for convenience, is

given by

M = Kq

{(L N x ) r tan }dx

length

C p r sin d +

/ 2

dC m

dx

Kr

S ref L

C p u r sin d

u

/2

(3.9)

2

u + tan + cos u cot tan + 2 tan

2

3

(3.10)

where, L is the reference length. Eqns. 3.6, 3.8 and 3.10 can be

integrated analytically or numerically to give axial force, normal

force, and pitching moment coefficients, respectively for any

arbitrary shaped body of revolution.

3.2.2 Axial Force

The axial force coefficient on a body can be considered to be

made up of three parts,

C A =C A f +C A b +C A N

(3.11)

where

CAf

C Ab

area, and

= Coefficient of axial force on the body excluding friction.

(wave drag)

C AN

Several methods have been presented in the literature for

the prediction of skin friction on bodies and flat plates in

supersonic and hypersonic flows. Majority of these are complex,

laborious and require a detailed knowledge of the flow field over the

body for the evaluation of the skin friction coefficient. However, in

preliminary design analysis, it is sufficient to go for simple

37

38

incompressible flow results are utilised with an empirical

correction for compressibility or Mach number effects.

Axial skin friction coefficient C A f = C f

S B wet

(3.12)

S ref

The mean value of Cf depends on whether the flow is

laminar or turbulent. It is an usual practice to assume that the

boundary

layer

over

the

body

is

laminar

if

6

Re < Re cr = 10 (Reynolds number based on the length of the

body). For laminar flow

Cf =

1.328 C f

Re C f i

lam

(3.13)

The above is the well known Blasius relation for the flow

over a flat plate in incompressible flow multiplied by the

compressibility factor. The suggested value of the compressibility

factor is

Cf

Cf

= 1 0 .028 M

lam

(3.14)

is

C

1

Re

[1.328 0.0236 M

+ 0.000349 M

0.00335 M

8.54 M

(3.15)

laminar part in front of it. For this case the value of Cf is given by

Re Recr

C f = C fi

Re

lam

(3.16)

(3.17)

Cf

Cf

i

Recr

Re

turb

Cf

Cf

i

where

C f

C

f i turb

(3.18)

adiabatic wall. The skin friction coefficients (given above) both for

laminar and the turbulent flows are for a flat plate at zero angle of

attack. As the actual vehicle has a finite thickness, the pressure

gradient and the boundary layer displacement effects influence

the skin friction. To account for this, Hoerner2 has suggested that

the skin friction coefficient values as given above be multiplied by

the factor

d

1 + 1.5

L

3

2

d

+ 7

L

(3.19)

The base drag of a hypersonic vehicle may be a substantial

part of the total zero lift drag. Based on experimental data, various

empirical formulae have been suggested. A few of these formulae

are listed below. It is to be noted that some of the formulae are

expressed in the form of axial force coefficient and some in the

form of base pressure coefficient.

C D

base

C P

C p base =

Cp

C Ab

cyl .

S base

S ref

1

M

1. 4

2

=

2

M +1

base

base

0 . 57

M 4

2 .8

for M 1

(3.203)

2 M 2 ( 1 )

+

1

(

)

(3.214)

= (1/cos )

(3.225)

ref

cyl

(3.235)

is very little effect of angle of attack on the base pressure. It is

well known that as the Mach number becomes very high, the base

drag coefficient approaches zero.

39

40

of Nose Portion of the Body

3.2.5.1 Pointed Cone

Calculations for a conical nose are simple. Since = v, the

semi-vertex angle of the cone is constant and r is a linear function

of x, (dr = dx tan). For positive angles of attack less than v, u = /

2 and all surfaces of the cone are exposed to the flow. For v

v, certain portions of the cone are shielded from the flow

and for this case u = sin 1 (tan v / tan ). For v , none

of the surfaces of the cone are exposed to the flow and u = /2.

For the above range of angles of attack, the axial pressure

coefficients of the cone are

C Acone =

Kd 2

sin 2 cos 2

2

2

cos sin +

4S ref

2

; 0 v

(3.24)

coefficient is based on the base area, then Sref = ( d2/4). The axial

force coefficient is

CA

cone

= K cos 2 sin 2 +

sin 2 cos 2

2

; 0 v

(3.25)

u = sin 1 (tan /tan ) .

CA

=

cone

2

2

cos sin u +

2

sin 2 cos 2

u +

2

2

+

8

and

C Acone = 0

for v

(3.26)

C Aogive

= K 2 1 + F 2

[1 + 0.22 F

1+ F2

1 F 2 ln

F2

sin 2 M 2 1

)] 4Sd

(3.27)

ref

3.2.5.3 Hemispherical Nose

For the body having a hemispherical nose, the axial force

coefficient is given by

CA

=

hemisphere

K R2

(1 + cos )2

4 S ref

(3.28)

3.2.6.1 Pointed Cone

When the Eqn. 3.8 is integrated for the case of a right

circular cone having a semi-vertex angle of v , and base diameter

d, the following expressions result for the normal force coefficients:

C N cone = K

C N cone =

K

2

cos 2 v sin 2 d 2

2

4 S ref

; 0 v

(3.29)

cos 2 v sin 2

2

1

d

u + 2 + 3 cos u (cot tan v + 2 cot v tan ) 4 S

ref

: v v

CN

cone

=0

(3.30)

(3.31)

41

42

CN

ogive

d2

1+ F2

= K (sin cos ) sin F 2 2 1 + F 2 ln

F2

4 S ref

(3.32)

It has been found that for angles of attack near zero for a

circular arc ogival nose, the normal force can be adequately

obtained from the simple equation for that of the cone of equal

fineness ratio. For fineness ratios of unity or larger, calculations

show that the difference in C N for the cone and ogive are negligible

at angles of attack up to v for the cone. At angles of attack

somewhat less than v of the cone, the curves of C N versus for

the two nose shapes cross, so that = v , C N for the ogive exceeds

that for the cone. No explicit expression for the location of the

centre of pressure can be given for the ogive as in the case of the

cone; computations have shown, however, that for small angles of

attack the centre of pressure of the ogive is nearer the vetex than

that of the cone of equal fineness ratio and moves rearward with

increasing angle of attack.

3.2.6.3 Hemispherical Nose

Integration of the Eqn. 3.8 for the case of hemispherical

nose results in

C N sphere =

R 2 K

4S ref

sin (cos + 1 )

; 0 ;

(3.33)

since r, and u are all functions of the lengthwise variable x. In

general, closed form solutions cannot be obtained and one has to

go for numerical integration.

3.2.6.4 Cylinder

The normal force contribution from the circular cylindrical

portion of the fuselage can also be obtained from Eqn. 3.8. If the

normal force coefficient is based on the base area of the nose

which is the same as the base area of the cylinder, the expression

for the normal force coefficient is

CN

=

cylinder

1.5

d (L B L N

S ref

) sin 2

; 0 (3.34)

and a value of 2 is substituted for K, the factor in the modified

Newtonian expression for the pressure coefficient. The normal

force coefficient as given by the above agrees very well with the

experimental data at small to moderate angles of attack and

overestimates the force by only 5 per cent near = 90.

3.3

THEORY

determined by some other method other than the Newtonian

method, such as Second Order Shock Expansion method, Hybrid

theory of Van Dyke, etc., then it is necessary to include the

contribution to the lift by viscous cross flow. The widely used

method to calculate the lift due to viscous cross flow is that

proposed by Allen and Perkins6. According to this theory which is

fairly simple yet quite powerful, the inviscid and viscous effects of

the flow are assumed to be separate, with the inviscid form of the

solution applying to the axial flow while the viscous part is confined

to the cross flow giving rise to a nonlinear lift force coefficient. The

viscous cross flow contribution to the lift coefficient is given by

( CN )NL

= C dc

Ap

Aref

sin 2 cos

cylinder or flat plate of finite length to one of infinite length, (for

high Mach number flows, a value of =1 is normally used). C d c is

the average cross flow drag coefficient, A p is the planform area of

the body in the cross flow plane and A re f the reference area used in

lift force coefficient term. C d c is taken from the experimental

section drag coefficient. For simplicity, in the absence of available

experimental data, a value of about 1.2 is normally assumed.

3.4

MOMENTS

acting on the body nose and the body cylindrical part.

Cm = C

+ Cm

N

cylind er

43

44

From the integration of the Eqn. 3.10, where the moment is

taken about the centroid of the base of the nose and taking the

length of nose as the reference length, the pitching moment

coefficient, for the case of a cone is given by

C m cone =

Cm

cone

0 v

K

2

2

2

1 2 tan v cos v sin

6

1

v v

C m cone = 0 ;

(3.35)

);

(3.36)

(3.37)

centre of pressure of the conical nose is independent of the angle

of attack. Its distance from the vertex is given by

x cp

LN

2

1

3 cos 2 v

(3.38)

CN

ogive

C m ogive =

(Lmr - l N ) + 3K (sin + cos )sin F 2 1 + F 2

L ref

1 F arctan

F

2

d lN

1 d

3 4 S ref L ref L ref

)

(3.39)

where

F

Lmr

L re f

=

=

=

the moment arm length measured from the nose

the reference length in the moment coefficient

expression

pressure can be given for the ogive as in the case of the cone;

computations have shown, however, that for small angles of attack

the centre of pressure of the ogive is nearer the vertex than that

of the cone of equal fineness ratio and moves rearward with

increase in angle of attack.

3.4.3 Hemisphere

When the moment is taken about the base of the sphere,

C m hemisphere = 0 ;

(3.40)

The assumption is made that resultant normal force acts

through the mid-point of the cylindrical body, thus giving

Cm

3.5

=

cylinder

CN

cylinder

L ref

[L mr (l N + l cylinder )]

(3.41)

different parts of the vehicle such as body, wing and rudder have no

influence on each other. The wing or rudder is considered in

isolation. Most of the engineering methods available to analyse

the pressure over a lifting surface are based on 2-dimensional

theory. In some cases it is possible that wing tips might have an

appreciable effect on the predicted lift. In such cases

2-dimensional lift is corrected for 3-dimensional flow by the use

of supersonic linear theory.

The common types of wing sections utilized in hypersonic

vehicles are:

(a)

(b)

(c)

Hexagonal

Biconvex, and

Blunt nose leading edge

The analysis is based on the formulations given by

Weibust5. In this case the wing geometry has wedge sections at

the leading and trailing edges with straight portion in between and

treated as having six surfaces. The oblique shock and PrandtlMeyer theories are applied to the leading and trailing edges

depending on whether the surface under consideration gives rise

to compression flow or expansion flow. For forces normal to the

chord the wing is treated as a flat plate with zero thickness.

45

46

Compression Flow

The pressure coefficient behind an attached oblique

shock is given by the relation,

C pc =

4 M 2 sin 1

( + 1) M 2

(3.42)

or from the solution of the cubic shock equation in sin2

where

A=

B=

2M

+1

C =

+2

sin 2

( + 1 ) 2 1

sin 2

+

+

2

4

M

cos 2

4

where, is the flow deflection angle and it is assumed that for the

given free stream Mach number its value is such that it always

gives rise to an attached shock at the leading edge.

Expansion

The pressure coefficient behind an expansion fan is

C pe =

2

M 2

pe

1 =

M 2

p

pe

p

o

po

p

(3.43)

P-M expansion flow tables or from the following relations

poe

1 2

M

1 +

p

2

and

pe

poe

1

=

1 + cos

+1

1

e + arctan

+1

2

e

(3.45)

where, pe is the pressure and Me the Mach number downstream

of the expansion. e is the corresponding Prandtl Meyer angle

which is obtained from the Prandtl-Meyer function

e =

+1

1

arctan

1

+1

(M

2

e

1 arctan M

2

e

(3.46)

similarly

+1

1

arctan

1

+1

(M

1 arctan

(3.47)

and, e = +

From the known value of e the Mach number Me is

obtained by an iterative solution of the Eqn. 3.46, then from pe

Eqn. 3.45 and C p e from Eqn. 3.43.

3.5.1.1 Axial Force

The axial force on a wing surface consists of two parts, one

due to friction and the other due to inviscid flow over it. The friction

force is determined similar to the case of a body in hypersonic flow

(section 3.22).

CAf = C

S wet

f

S ref

(3.48)

surfaces (cruciform arrangement as in a missile) the axial force is

the sum of these two. The wing surfaces might also act as rudders

by wing deflection (see Fig. 3.3, 1& 2). The pressure forces on the

leading and trailing wedge surfaces are calculated by the

47

48

theories. The inviscid flow over the straight portion does not

contribute to the axial force.

HORIZONTAL WING OR RUDDER

WHEN = 0

CN

CA

X,X'

Z'

Z

= ROLL ANGLE

Y'

Y

RUDDER

DEFLECTION

'

WHEN = 0

1

2

EXPANSION

SHOCK

Figure 3.3 Shock and expansion method applied to hexagonal crosssectional wing.

11

INNER WING

i ,1

SECTION-AA

D

0 ,1

OUTER WING

i ,2

A

0 ,2

21

B

SECTION-BB

bi

bo

C AwH =

t

2 S ref

{ (b i d )

( 1)

m +1

m =1 n =1

+ (btot bi

( 1)

m =1 n =1

m +1

C p im , n , M

C p om , n , M

i m , n

i m ,n

o m , n

o m ,n

(3.49)

for upper and n = 2 for lower surfaces, = | ' | is the deflection

angle. If ' > 0 (shock) and Cp is determined from Eqn. 3.42 and

' < 0 (expansion) from Eqn. 3.43. Let the semi-wedge angles

normal to the leading and trailing edges be denoted by 1' and 2'

respectively. Subscript i refers to inner wing, and o to the outer

wing.

The angle i for the inner horizontal wing is given by

i m,n = ( 1)m + arcsin sin m

im

sin

+ sin m

i

1

]

sin ' sin + ( 1 )n ( 1)m + sin ' cos cos m

(3.50)

49

50

lower wedge surfaces, = roll angle, ' = the non-rolled angle of

attack and subscript i refers to the inner wing.

'

Similarly, o m ,n for the outer wing is as given above with

o m replacing im

from the Eqn. 3.49. However, the deflection angle ' is obtained

by substituting with (90 - ) in Eqn. 3.50.

The wing total axial force is given by

C

=C A

+C A

wH

+C A

wV

(3.51)

then one has to consider the contribution to the axial force by this

deflection. The change in ' due to rudder deflection angle and

hence to C A R is usually neglected. This is because the axial

component of the force normal to the rudder, C A R , is based on

the total wing planform including the areas on the wedge shaped

LE and TE.

The total axial force on the rudder is given by

C A = C A + CA

R

RH

+ CA

RV

+ C AR

(3.52)

obtained from the Eqn. 3.49 with correct values of ' . C A R from

the normal force as outlined below.

3.5.1.2 Normal Force

An assumption is made that the normal force acts through

the area centroid of the wing planform. As mentioned earlier, for

normal force calculation, the wing is considered as a flat plate

with zero thickness.

The actual wing or rudder angle of attack ' expressed in

non-rolled angle of attack ' , roll angle and rudder deflection

angle is

{(

+ cos ( j 1) 90 o ( 1 ) j

) }cos

j ,k

sin

(3.53)

where, j = 1 for the horizontal wing and j = 2 for the vertical wing.

k =1 for the right and upper wing halves and k = 2 for left and

lower wing halves at roll angle = 0. When the above angle is

known the pressure coefficients are determined by use of Eqns.

3.42 and 3.43. The above gives the forces acting normal to the

wing or rudder chord. This has to be converted to get the axial

component of the force and the component of the force normal to

non-rolled xy plane ( i.e., negative z axis direction).

3.5.1.3 Axial Component of the Rudder

C AR

SR

4 S ref

j =1 k =1

C ( , M ) C ( , M )

p

j ,k

j ,k

pe

c

sin j , k

(3.54)

horizontal wings (right and left combined) or vertical wings (top and

bottom combined).

3.5.1.4 Normal Component (Wing or Rudder)

CNw =

Sw

4S

ref

j =1

2

C p ( j ,k , M ) C p ( j ,k , M )

c

e

k =1

' j ,k

cos ( j 1) 90 o ( 1) j cos j , k

j ,k

(3.55)

'

with j ,k = | j ,k |, j = 1 for horizontal wing and j = 2 for vertical

wing, k = 1 for right and upper wing halves and k = 2 for left and

lower wing halves at zero roll angle viewed from nose towards tail.

2-dimensional to 3-dimensional lift at hypersonic speeds, the

following approximation for wing tip effects, based on supersonic

linear theory, may be applied.

51

52

C L

CN =

Cn

4

M

(3.56)

slope from linear theory for the 3-dimensional planform, as given

by Harmon & Jeffreys7, and Cn is the 2-dimensional normal force

coefficient calculated using 2-dimensional shock and expansion

theory.

3.5.1.5 Pitching Moment

The pitching moment is given by

Cm

=

W

CN

X ref

(X

mr

X cp

(3.57)

For wings having a blunt leading edge, the commonly used

method to analyze the pressure on the wing surface is by the

Newtonian + Prandtl-Meyer method as described in section 2.4.

For wings having a sharp leading edge giving rise to an

attached oblique shock and having curved surfaces like the

biconvex airfoil, etc., the tangent wedge method is applicable. For

thin sharp edged wing sections at low angles of attack, the

approximate 2-dimensional airfoil method described in section

2.14 can be applied to determine the pressure distribution over the

airfoil surfaces. From this, the axial force coefficient, the normal

force coefficient and the moment coefficient can be determined.

Based on methods described by Kaufman et. al 8 and Dorrance9,

the results of calculations done on some common airfoil sections

are given. The same is reproduced in the accompanying table.

Airfoil Theory

All equations are based on a dimensionless coordinate

system( , ) with origin at midchord.

2x

;

c

2z

;

c

c = chord length, ;

= angle of attack, K = M ;

= thickness ratio

A1

2

,

K

A2 =

+ 1

,

2

t = thickness;

A3 =

t

; = ;

Validity 3 M 12

+ 1) K

6

53

54

Profile

Airfoil Characteristics

CN

= 2 ( A1 + A3 )

2

Cm

=0

2

Flat Plate

CD

= 2 ( A1 + A3 )

3

CN

= 2 A1 + A3( 3 + 2 ) ;

2

Cm

=A2

2

CD

= 2 A1 2 + 1 + 2 A 3 4 + 6 2 + 1

3

Double Wedge

CN

= 2A1 + 2A3 2 + 3 2

2

1 1

Cm

1 + 1 1 1

= A2 3 A3

4

2

1 1 1 + 1

CD

1

1

= 2A1 2 + 1 2 + A2

2

2

3

(1 1)

1 1

(1 + 1)

1

1

+ A3

+

+ 2 4 + 6 2 1

3

3

1+

+

(

)

(

)

1 1

1 1

1

1 1

Profile

Airfoil Characteristics

CN

3

1

= 2 A 1 + 2 A 3 2 +

2

(

2 1

Modified Double

Wedge

1)

CD

1

1

= A1 2 2 +

+

3

1 1 1 2

1

1

+ A2

2

2

(1 2 )

(1 1 )

1

1

+ 6 2

+

1 1 1 2

CN

= 2 A1 4 A2 + 2 A3 3 + 2

2

Cm

1

3

= A 1 + A 2 A3 2 + 2

2

2

2

CD

= 2 A 1 2 + 2 12 A 2

3

+ 2 A 3 4 + 12 2 + 8

CN

3

= 2 (A 1 + A 2 ) + A 3 + 2 2

2

Wedge

3

1

(

2 1

2 )

1 + 1 1 + 2

Cm 1

3

= A2 ( 1 + 2 + 2 ) A3

+

2

2

4

1 1 1 2

1

1

+ A3 2 4 +

+

3

(1 1 ) (1 2 )3

Single Wedge

55

CM

=0

2

CD

1

= A 1 + 2 2 + A 2 + 3 2

3

2

+ A 3 + 3 2 + 2 4

8

56

Profile

Airfoil Characteristics

t1

CN

8

= 2 A 1 + A 2 ( 1 + 2 )

2

3

+ 2 A 3 3 + 4 A 3 12 + 22

t2

1 = 2t 1 / t

2 = 2t 2 / t

t = t1 + t 2

Cm 4

1

= A 2 A 1 ( 1 + 2 )

3

3

2

4

A 3 13 + 32 A 3 2 ( 1 + 2 )

5

CD

2

= 2 A 1 2 + 12 + 22

3

3

+ 8 A 2 ( 1 + 2 )

14 + 24

+ 2 A 3 4 + 4 2 12 + 22 +

5

(

(

)

)

CN

1 13

= 2 A1 + 2 A3 2 + 4

2

2

1 12

Cm

2

CD

3

4

A2

3

(1 )

(1 )

3

1

2

1

= 2 A1 +

2

4

3

+ 2A 3

(1 )

(1 )

(1 )

+8

(1 )

3

1

2 2

1

3

1

2 2

1

16

5

(1 )

(1 )

3

1

2 4

1

Profile

Airfoil Characteristics

CN

2

Cm

2

CD

Symmetrical Biconvex

= 2 A1 + 2 A

2 + 4 + 2

2

2

= 2 A2 +

2

3 15

8

1

= 2 A1 + 2 +

2

15

3

16

16

+ 2 A2 8 2 +

+ 4 +

2

5

5

CN

Cm

CD

CN

= 2 A1 + A 3 4 + 2

4

Cm

Parabolic Arc

CD

12

2 +

)]

A2

3

1

= 2 A1 + 2 + 2 A 3

= 2 A 1 + 8 1

+ 2A 3

57

(1 + 1 ) 2

4A 2

(1 + 1 )

+ 8 1 A 3

4

2

+ (1 + 1

3

2A 1

A2

4 1 + 3 12

2

(1 + 1 ) 4

4

1

A2

3

(1 + 1

(1 + 1 )

16

4 + 8 2 +

)4

(1 + 1 ) 4

+ 4 12

[ 3 1 2 ( 1 + 1 ) 4

+ 4 1 ( 1 + 12 )] + 2

A3

(1 + 1 )

[ 4 (1 + 1

)8

Contd ...

58

4

+ 8 2 1 + 3 12 (1 + 1 ) + 16 14 + 2 12 + ]

CN

1

Cm

Single Parabolic Arc

CN

1

= 2A 1

2

CD

A1 +

16

A2 + 2A3 8 + 2

3

32

A2 A3 2 2 +

3

5

= 2 A1 + 2 16 A 2

128

+ 2 A 3 4 + 16 2 +

2 1

= 2 A1

2

(1 + 1 )

+

Blunt T.E. Single

Parabolic Arc

8 A2

(1 + 1 )2

2 + 12

1 3

2

(1 + 1 )

6 1 2

3

+ 2 A3

(1 + 1 )2

Cm

2

8 1 + 3 12

(1 + 1 )4

2

A1

2

32 1 (1 + 1 )

8

(1 + 1 )

A2

3 (1 + 1 )

2 A3

2

4 1 (1 + 1 )

(1 + 1 )6

3

(1 + 1 )2

1

16 + 12

5

8 (1 + )2 + 2 (1 + )4

1

1

1

CD

1

+ 12

8

= 2 A1 2 +

(1 + 1 ) 4

8 A2

(1 + 1 )

41

(1 + 1 ) 2

3

2 1 + 3 12

8 1 1 + 12

+

1 2

(1 + 1 )2

(1 + 1 )4

2

128 1 + 212 + 14

4

5

+ 2A3 +

(

+ 1)6

1

128 1 1 + 12

(1 + 1 )6

) + 16 (1 + 3 ) +

2

(1 + 1 )4

2

1

8 1 3

(1 + 1 )2

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

inclined bodies of revolution in hypersonic flow. JAS. 1950,

17(11).

Hoerner, S.F. Fluid dynamic drag. published by the author.

Bonner, E.; Clever, W. & Dunn, K. Aerodynamic preliminary

analysis II, Part-I. Theory, NASA, April 1991. Contractor

Report, 182076.

Gabeaud, A. Base pressure at supersonic velocities. J. of

Aero. Sci. 1950, 17(8), 525-26.

Weibust, E. Status report on the FFA version of the missile

aerodynamics program LARV for calculation

of static

aerodynamic properties and longitudinal aerodynamic

damping derivatives FFA. The Aeronautical Research

Institute of Sweden, Stockholm, 1981. Technical Note

AU-1661.

Allen, H.J. & Perkins, E.W. Characteristics of flow over

inclined bodies of revolution. NACA, March 1951.

RM A50L07.

Harmon, S.M., & Jeffreys, I. Theoretical lift and damping in roll

of thin wings with sweep and taper. NACA, 1950, TN-2114.

59

60

8.

9.

hypersonics. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation

August 1960. Research Report RE-82.

Dorrance, W.H. Two-dimensional airfoils at moderate

hypersonic velocities. JAS, 1952, 19(9).

CHAPTER 4

SKIN FRICTION FORCE CALCULATION

4.1

INTRODUCTION

for the skin friction forces which are simple modifications of

incompressible flat plate values. Being empirical relations they are

only approximate. It may be desirable to have a much better

evaluation of the skin friction forces experienced by a body in high

speed flow. Towards this, an engineering approach is adopted and no

attempt is made to calculate the detailed skin friction distribution on

the exact shape of the body. Instead, the vehicle surface is divided

into a large number of flat surface panels in a manner that

adequately approximates the true shape. Leading edge surfaces and

the curvature are omitted. In the skin friction analysis, the number

of panels chosen to represent the body is usually much less than the

panels required in the pressure calculation analysis. For each surface

element, its normal end coordinates of the area centroid are

determined. The shear force on each surface element is assumed to

act through its centroid on the surface in a direction parallel to the

plane containing the surface normal and the free stream velocity

vector. Approximate laminar or turbulent skin friction relations are

used to calculate the skin friction force on the element. The net shear

force on the body is obtained by summing up over the vehicle. In this

type of approach the problem of determining the viscous force on the

two- or three-dimensional body is reduced to one of solving the skin

friction force on a number of constant property flows over flat plate

panels. For the skin friction calculation, the local flow properties

such as pressure, temperature, velocity and density over each of the

element under consideration are required and these are determined

from the approximate inviscid aerodynamic analysis programs such

as tangent wedge, tangent cone, modified Newtonian, Shock

Expansion, Newtonian plus P.M. expansion, etc.

62

Mach number and plate temperature has been the subject of

investigation by many workers over a number of years. Numerous

theoretical and finite-difference computational methods have been

suggested to calculate the skin friction coefficient. Amongst these,

the commonly used engineering methods are that due to Sommer

and Short1, Van Driest2 and Spalding and Chi3. All three methods

are suitable modification of the incompressible turbulent skin

friction coefficient based on Reynolds number suitably transformed

to take into account the compressibility and temperature effects.

Brief summaries of these methods are given below.

4.2

the density and viscosity for compressible flow have to be evaluated

if incompressible flow relations for zero heat transfer are to apply

for any Mach number, Me , at any wall temperature ratio (Tw/Te ), for

a given Reynolds number, Rexe. The subscript e refers to conditions

at the outer edge of the boundary layer over the surface element

under consideration and x, the distance of the centroid of the

element under consideration from the nose or the leading edge. The

calculation procedure is as follows:

Evaluate T

T*

= 1 + 0.035 M

Te

2

e

T

w

+ 0.45

Te

(4.1)

*

from the relation

Evaluate Reynolds number R e xe

Re *xe

Re xe

*

=

e

*

(4.2)

*

e

Te

T

Therefore

e

*

T

e

=

T *

Re *xe

Re xe

e

The ratio *

e

*

(4.3)

Te

*

T

1.5

T + 115

T e + 115

( temperatur e in o K )

(4.4)

0.242

C F*

= log 10 C F* Re *xe

(4.5)

C F* =

0.46

*

log 10 Re xe

2.6

(4.6)

the relationship

CF

C F*

4.3

*

e

Te

T

(4.7)

friction coefficient due to turbulent compressible flow over a flat

plate due to Van Driest2.

63

64

4.15 log 10 Re x C F

w

sin 1 A + sin 1 B

T

aw

CF

Te

+ 1. 7

(4.8)

where

A =

2a

2

b + 4a

0.5

and

B=

b

2

b + 4 a 2

0.5

1

a =

M

2

2

e

T e

aw

1

and b =

Tw

Tw

Taw

Te

=1 +

1

2

M e2

4.4

method, the compressible skin friction is given by the

incompressible form with appropriate correction factors to account

for compressibility and viscosity effects.

CF =

1

Re F

CF

xe

Re x

inc

Fc

(4.9)

where

Fc =

T /T 1

aw

e

sin 1 A + sin 1 B

and

F Re x F c =

e

w

(4.10)

One first computes Fc and then FRex. The equivalent

incompressible Reynolds number is given by Rexe FRex. Using this

equivalent Reynolds number, the corresponding incompressible

turbulent skin friction coefficient is determined using any one of

the well-known formulae such as Karman and Schoenherr,

(Eqn.4.5), Prandtl-Schlichting, (Eqn.4.6) or the Sivells & Payne

relation, viz.

CF

inc

0.088

log R

xe 1.5

the factor Fc one obtains the desired compressible flow skin friction

coefficient.

For most flows, a portion of the flow over the body is

laminar. For these regions the mean friction coefficient is

determined from the approximate laminar flow value, viz.,

C F inc =

1.328

Re x

where the Reynolds number is based on the length from the leading

edge to the point of transition.

4.5

EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS

conditions, Schmidt4,5 has presented data on skin friction

coefficients of hypersonic flow over flat plates both for laminar and

turbulent flows in terms of free stream parameters rather than the

flow parameters at the edge of the boundary layer. To this data

65

66

particularly useful in preliminary design. The suggested equations

are:

Laminar flow

C f lam

V

3050

The above equation deviates no more than 20 per cent from

the data presented by Schmidt for low altitude, high angle of attack

flight and is closer to 10 per cent for the rest of the altitude and

angle of attack ranges:

15 45 ; 3050 V 8000 ; 45700

91400

Turbulent flow

turb

Re

0.2

V

= 0.048 sin 4.5 + 0.70

cos 2.25 sin 1.5

3050

5 50 ; 3050 V 8000 ; 30500 h 91500).

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

turbulent boundary layer skin friction in the presence of

severe aerodynamic heating at mach numbers from 2.8 to

7.0. NACA, March 1955. TN 3391.

Van Driest, E.R. Turbulent boundary layers In compressible

fluids. JAS, 1951, 18(3).

Spalding, D.B.M. & Chi, S.W. The drag of compressible

boundary layer on a smooth flat plate with and without heat

transfer. J. Fl. Mech., 1964, 18(1), Part 1.

Schmidt, J.F. Laminar skin friction and heat transfer

parameters for a flat plate at hypersonic speeds in terms of

free stream flow properties. NASA, September 1959. TN D-8.

Schmidt, J.F. Turbulent skin friction and heat transfer

parameters for a flat plate at hypersonic speeds in terms of

free stream flow properties. NASA, May 1961. TN D-869.

Hankey(Jr), W. L, & Alexander, G.L. Prediction of hypersonic

aerodynamic characteristics for lifting vehicles. September

1963. ASD-TDR-63-668.

CHAPTER 5

AERODYNAMIC HEATING AT HYPERSONIC

SPEEDS

5.1

INTRODUCTION

heating is a function of its geometry, orientation in space and its

flight trajectory. For flights at high supersonic and hypersonic

speeds, the problem of aerodynamic heating becomes important

and needs to be analysed particularly for Mach numbers greater

than about 2.0. The induced thermal stresses due to aerodynamic

heating can seriously affect the structural integrity of the vehicle

and may result in a component failure. Consequently, the

determination of the heating rates and the skin temperature are

needed to complement the pressure field calculation.

Several methods have been developed by different authors

to account for aerodynamic heating effects at high speeds. Some of

these are rigorous in which the full governing equations are

numerically solved on a computer for a given body geometry,

incidence and flight condition. These types of analyses are usually

reserved for complicated cases such as shock-boundary layer

interactions, flow separation, etc., or in final detailed design.

However, approximate analytical, semi-analytical and empirical

methods have been proposed for easy and fairly accurate and

acceptable calculations of heat transfer at high speeds that are

particularly useful in the preliminary analysis stage. No attempt is

being made here to collate all such methods and critically review

them. Instead some simple methods familiar to the author and

having good correlation with experiments or more exact analysis

are presented in this section.

5.2

HEATING ANALYSIS

of heat stored in a thin skin element is given by

68

q& = ( w C p ,w w

d Tw

dt

= h (H st H w ) s F T w4

(5.1a)

q& = ( w C p ,w w

dT w

dt

= h (H R H w ) s F T w4

(5.1b)

where

q

w

Cp,w

w

Tw

t

h

time, sec

kg/m2 sec

HR =

Hw =

Tw =

wall temperature, K

from solar radiation and heat lost from internal radiation and

conduction. Normally, the radiation effects are compensating. For

cases in which the internal conduction is large, it could be

accounted for by incorporating an appropriate conduction term in

the above heat balance equation. It is to be noted that for high

supersonic and hypersonic flows, the heat transfer rate is expressed

in terms of the enthalpy whereas for temperatures below

approximately 800K the heat balance equation is normally

formulated in terms of temperatures.

As mentioned1 and to quote "to obtain good surface

temperatures and to a lesser extent good surface heating rates,

proper engineering judgement must be exercised to determine the

heat capacity in the above equation. Since the values of specific heat

of the surface material and the density of the surface material are

Aerodynamic Heating

thermal properties of the material, the only way to vary the heat

capacity significantly is to change the value of the material thickness.

For metallic surfaces, the thickness of the skin will give satisfactory

results. For surfaces that are insulated with low conductivity

insulation (such as space shuttle), a material thickness should be

used that will result in a heat capacity of approximately

2044 J/m2 - K".

The heat transfer rate varies from a maximum value at Tw = 0

(cold wall) to zero at Tw = Taw (adiabatic wall). Knowing the heat

transfer coefficient, the Mach number, angle of attack and altitude

combination, it is possible to compute the actual heating rate for

any wall temperature. From this, the time rate of change of skin

temperature can be determined if one knows the properties of the

wall material. By carrying out the heat transfer calculations at a

series of selected points along the vehicle trajectory, the time history

of the surface temperature of the body can be obtained.

The skin equilibrium temperature for each skin element

under consideration can be calculated from the above equation

when the time rate of change of temperature goes to zero.

4

h H R H eq = s F T eq

The temperature and heat flux for each skin element at time

J are calculated from

h (H R H j 1 ) s F T j41

T j = T j 1 +

t j

w c p , w w

and

q& j = h (H R H j ) s F T j4

respectively.

In practice, computational intervals are spaced closely

during the early times and farther apart at later times so that

precision is maintained during periods of rapid temperature rise

but excessive computational time will not be required after the

period of initial temperature rise.

5.3

The nose tip of a vehicle is usually blunt and spherical in

shape. Consequently a normal detached shock is present in front of

69

70

the stagnation point. From the known free stream conditions the

downstream properties of the shock are determined using the

normal shock relations for the case of perfect gas. If however, the

temperature is such that one has to consider the gas as real, then

the downstream properties of the shock are determined for an

equilibrium flow either by the use of real gas flow charts if one is

available or by numerical iterative solution as outlined in Andersons

book2. From the known properties downstream of the normal shock,

the stagnation enthalpy, recovery enthalpy and stagnation pressure

are determined as follows:

V 22

(for both perfect and real

2

gases). Recovery enthalpy, H R = H 2 + ( H 0 H 2 ) where, is the

recovery factor (In the above relations subscript 2 refers to

conditions downstream of the normal shock)

Stagnation enthalpy, H 0 = H 2 +

= (Pr )

Pr = Prandtl Number.

The flow downstream of a normal shock at high speeds is

low subsonic. Hence, one can use the incompressible Bernoullis

equation without much of an error to calculate the stagnation

pressure both for perfect and real gas flows.

po

= p2 +

2 V 22

2

necessary with the exact calculation of stagnation pressure using

the isentropic relation as the downstream Mach number is known.

For real gases the condition of constant entropy can be used to

calculate the stagnation pressure by trial and error. However, these

are not really necessary as the downstream Mach number will be

very low subsonic at high Mach numbers and the incompressible

Bernoullis equation is more than adequate.

The commonly used expression to calculate the heat

transfer coefficient for a spherical nose stagnation point as given in

the book by White3 is

Aerodynamic Heating

h = 0.763 Pr

0. 6

( o o )

0.5

w w

o o

0. 1

du e

dx

(5.2)

Riddell4 but restricting to the case of non-reacting gases. It is

equally applicable to both perfect and real gases. (due/dx)s is the

velocity gradient at the stagnation point. Subscript o refers to

stagnation conditions downstream of the detached normal shock in

front of the body and w to the wall conditions at the stagnation

point.

A relation identical to Eqn. 5.2 but without the term

0.1

w w

is also mentioned in the book of Anderson2. This term

o o

is of the order of unity and alters the heat transfer rate by about 10

per cent depending on the wall temperature conditions.

The stagnation point streamwise velocity gradient is given

by the Newtonian impact theory, viz.,

du e

dx

2( p o p )

rN

Supposedly a more accurate relation than that of the

Newtonian for the velocity gradient as given by Adams and

associates and mentioned by Dejarnette, et al 5 is

du

dx

=

r N

1.85

for the Prandtl number and the viscosity is based on the Sutherland

law corresponding to the stagnation temperature. For a real gas the

stagnation temperature is determined from the known values of

stagnation pressure and stagnation enthalpy by curve fits6,7. For

real gases, the Prandtl number and viscosity are functions of

stagnation temperature and stagnation density, viz.,

71

72

Their values are obtained by curve fits6,7. As the flow is

laminar near the stagnation region, the recovery factor dependence

on the Prandtl number is taken to be that corresponding to the

laminar flow, viz., Pr when calculating the heating rate, viz., q .

5.3.2 Cylinder Normal to the Stream

The stagnation point heat transfer coefficient for a 2dimensional circular cylinder normal to the incoming flow is given

by the expression3 viz.,

h = 0.57 Pr

0.6

0.5

w

w

o o

0.1

du

dx

(5.3)

above expression is exactly identical to the axisymmetric case

described above. Comparison of Eqn. 5.3 above with the heat transfer

coefficient expression for the case of axisymmetric stagnation point

case, Eqn. 5.2 shows that both the expressions are the same except

for the leading numerical coefficient. All other terms being the same,

it is apparent that the stagnation point heating to a sphere is larger

than to a 2-dimensional cylinder.

5.3.3 Swept Wing Stagnation Line Heat Transfer

The wing or control surface leading edge is considered to be

cylindrical and flow past it is analogous to a flow past a yawed

inclined circular cylinder of infinite span. The detached shock will

be parallel to the leading edge whereas it is oblique to the incoming

free stream. Let be the sweep angle. The incoming velocity is

now decomposed in to components, V n = V C os , normal to the

leading edge and V t =V Sin , tangential to the leading edge. The

normal component of the incoming velocity is now made to pass

through the detached shock which is normal to it. The tangential

component of the velocity remains unchanged as it passes through

the shock. Let the resulting conditions downstream of the shock be

as

Aerodynamic Heating

p2

T2

= temperature downstream

= density downstream

V2 t = tangential component of the velocity downstream

equal to V S in

S2

H2

= downstream enthalpy

shock tables for perfect gases and by an iterative numerical solution

of the governing equations across the shock for real gases2. After

passing through the shock, as the flow approaches the leading edge,

the normal component of the velocity viz., V2 n goes to zero on the

surface edge, leaving the tangential component V2 t unchanged,

giving rise to a non-zero velocity along the attachment line called

the stagnation line analogous to the stagnation point on a cylinder

normal to the free stream. The loss of the normal component of the

velocity on the surface results in increase of pressure and enthalpy

as follows:

Pressure on the surface can be calculated by the Bernoullis

equation as V2n is low subsonic

pe = p

V 22n

This value holds good both for perfect and real gases as

V2n is low subsonic.

5.3.4 Perfect Gas

For a perfect gas, the temperature on the surface is given by

1 2

Te = T 2 1 +

M 2n

2

where

2n

V2n

RT 2

73

74

e = 2

M 22n

1

1

The Mach number of the flow with a velocity V2t along the

stagnation line is

M

V 2t

RT e

are

po = pe

M

1+

2

To = Te 1+

M

2

o = e

1+

H o = C p Te +

1

2

2

e

2

e

2

e

2

V 2t

respectively.

5.3.5 Real Gas

The enthalpy of the flow along the edge is given by

He = H2 +

V 22n

2

Aerodynamic Heating

Ho = He +

2

V 2t

stagnation temperature. Since the entropy or the change in entropy

is known downstream of the shock, this value has to be constant as

the flow is decelerated isentropically from downstream of the shock

to the stagnation conditions. The stagnation pressure can be

determined from the Mollier diagram for equilibrium air (if one is

available) corresponding to the stagnation enthalpy and entropy.

Otherwise a trial and error iterative technique is adopted in which

the invariance of entropy is maintained. Once the stagnation

pressure is thus determined with the known value of stagnation

enthalpy, the other thermodynamic variables like temperature,

viscosity, etc., can be obtained by curve fits6,7.

5.3.6 Heat Transfer Coefficient h

Beckwith and Gallagher8 have suggested that the leading

edge heat transfer rate for a yawed cylinder is the same as that of a

normal cylinder but modified by a cosine factor involving the sweep

angle . Accordingly, the laminar flow stagnation line heat transfer

coefficient is

h = 0.57 Pr 0.6 o o

du e

dx

0.5

w w

o o

0.1

(cos )1.1

(5.4)

l . e ,lam

= h ( H aw H w

60, it was found that the boundary layer on a swept cylinder was

completely turbulent even at the stagnation line.

For turbulent flow the corresponding equation is

q i .e , turb = 1.04 Pr

0.6

(* * ) 0 . 8 ( V

( o ) 0. 6

sin

2

0.6

du e

dx

0.2

(5.5)

75

76

enthalpy9 which is given by

H * = 0.5 ( H w + H e ) + 0.22 ( H aw H e

where

He = enthalpy at the outer edge of the boundary layer

For a perfect gas a reference temperature is used as follows

which is multiplied by Cp to get the reference enthalpy.

= 0 .5 ( T w + T e

The streamwise

streamline is given by

1

=

r le

sl

du

dx

) + 0.22 ( Taw Te )

velocity

gradient

at

the

stagnation

2 p e p

The nature of the flow, whether it is laminar or turbulent is

based on the free stream value of the Reynolds number based on

the leading edge diameter, viz.,

Re D =

V D

it is laminar and, if it is above a specified upper limit it is turbulent.

In between these lower and upper limits the flow is considered

transitional. The heating rate in the transitional region is given by

q& = q&

lam

Re

Re low

D

+

Re upp Re low

q&

lam

Aerodynamic Heating

The approximate engineering method of determining the

heat transfer rate consists of treating the surface element under

consideration as a part of a flat plate. It has been shown by many

investigators that for a wide range of Mach numbers and

temperatures, a close approximation to the actual compressible

skin friction coefficient is obtained when the incompressible value

of the skin friction coefficient is evaluated at a temperature

corresponding to a reference enthalpy (or a reference temperature

for a perfect gas). Application of suitable Reynolds analogy factor

relating the skin friction coefficient to Stanton number is used to

get the appropriate heat transfer coefficient.

The basic expression for the heat transfer coefficient is the

same as given by Eqn. 5.1, viz.,

h =

w C p ,w w

dT w

+ s F T w4

dt

( HR Hw )

HR =H +

V 2 V e2

2

V e2

2

For heat transfer determination it is necessary to know the

properties of the local flow parameters over the surface element

under consideration. These are obtained by any one of the

aerodynamic predictive methodologies such as shock expansion,

second order shock expansion, tangent cone, tangent wedge, etc.

For a real gas, knowledge of local pressure and entropy or enthalpy

by any of the approximate analysis methods is able to give all other

flow parameters.

The heat transfer coefficient h is given by

h =

*

f

Pr *

2

0.667

*Ve

77

78

where, Cf* is the skin friction coefficient and Pr* is the Prandtl

number

C

*

f

0.332

Re *

N lam

1

2

C *f =

0.185

Re *

log

10 N

tur

2.584

The * conditions are evaluated at the reference enthalpy H *

for a real gas given by

H * = He + 0.5 (Hw He ) + 0.22 ( HR He )

(5.6)

H * = He + 0.5 (HR He )

(5.7)

or

For a perfect gas for * conditions the reference temperature

T * is used given by

T * = 0.5 (Tw + Te ) + 0.22 (TR Te )

(5.8)

shear layer or at the outer edge of the boundary layer, w the wall

conditions and, R adiabatic wall or boundary layer recovery

conditions respectively.

The Reynolds number is based on boundary layer running

length s and is given by

Re * =

*Ve s

Aerodynamic Heating

Pr * =

*C

k

*

p

T*

T*

for a perfect gas.

at a temperature corresponding to T * and the thermal conductivity

corresponding to temperature T * and pe.

Substituting the above values of the skin friction coefficient

in the heat transfer coefficient relations we get

h H = 0.332 ( Pr * ) 0.667

*V e

Re *

N lam

(5.9)

h H = 0.185 ( Pr * )

0.667

* V e

Re *

log10

N tur

2.584

(5.10)

In the above expressions, Nlam and Ntur are the laminar and

turbulent Mangler transformation factors.

shown

Nlam

(wing)

Ntur

(wing)

that the correlation between the heat transfer

79

80

were evaluated at the adiabatic reference enthalpy as defined in

Eqn. 5.7 above, instead of the reference enthalpy as proposed by

Eckert, Eqn 5.6.

5.4

QUINN & GONG

flight simulation has been developed by Quinn and Gong1. This

algorithm is capable of calculating 2- and 3-dimensional stagnation

point heating rates and surface temperatures. The leading edge

sweep is also accounted for in the program. In addition, upper and

lower surface heating rates and surface temperatures on flat plates,

wedges and cones can be calculated both for laminar and turbulent

flows together with boundary layer transition which is made a

function of free-stream Reynolds number and free-stream Mach

number. The results of this method of analysis when compared with

more exact values obtained by the use of a NASA in-house

aeroheating program showed that the heating rates and surface

temperatures as predicted by the real time heating analysis were

well within the required accuracy to evaluate heating trajectories.

One unique feature of this methodology is the use of free stream

conditions instead of the local flow quantities to calculate the heat

transfer rate. Because of its simplicity and good prediction

capabilities this method is described in detail.

5.4.1 Stagnation Point Heating Rate

The basic equation used to compute the surface

temperatures and heating rates (J/m2-s) for stagnation point

calculation is

q& = w C

p ,w

dT w

dt

= h H st H

FT 4

(5.11)

For swept leading edges and surfaces the corresponding

expressions is

q& = w C

p ,w

dT w

dt

= h H R H

FT 4

(5.12)

replacement of stagnation enthalpy by the recovery enthalpy for

swept leading edges and surfaces.

Aerodynamic Heating

heat transfer coefficient h. For this, a modified version of the

solution given by Fay and Riddell4 is used.

For 3-dimensional flow

h = 0.94 K 1 ( st st

(5.13)

h = 0.706 K 2 ( st st

(5.14)

K1 and K2 are 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional stagnation

factors respectively.

Quinn and Gong1 have used U.S. Customary Units in their

work. However, in the present work, S.I. Units are employed and so

whereever it is necessary, the relations taken from the work of

Quinn and Gong have been modified.

To solve the Eqns. 5.11- 5.14 suitably one has to know the

local flow conditions behind a normal shock wave. However, to

minimize the computational time, a method has been developed in

which the free stream values are used along with a table of values

for K1 and K2 maintaining the accuracy of the results.

The Eqns. 5.11- 5.14 are solved as

The stagnation enthalpy H (J/kg ) is given by

H st = H +

cos 2

(5.15)

HR =H+

+ 0.85

sin 2

2

(5.16)

81

82

dU

1

=

dx

R

x=0

7 M

cos 2 1

cos 2

cos 2 + 5

P

(5.17)

where

R = body nose radius

st st =

T o K

= 2.43 10 7 T w o K

= 2.43 10

6 M 2 cos 2

M 2 cos 2 + 5

T

st

0.75

(5.18)

0.75

(5.19)

0.75

(5.20)

P w P st P

w =

Pw

287 T w

7M

cos

6

(5.21)

(5.22)

angle in the above equations will be zero. Values of H , Hw , TR

Aerodynamic Heating

and Tst are obtained by the curve fits given by Gupta et. al.6 and,

Srinivasn7. Values of K1 and K2 are obtained by linear interpolation

from the following table.

Table 5.1 Stagnation point heating factors

Mach No.

K1

K2

1.00

1.00

1.16

1.20

10

1.14

1.18

15

1.16

1.16

20

1.23

1.16

25

1.40

1.25

30

1.45

1.26

Pressure Gradient Surfaces

The basic equation is the same as Eqn. 5.12 viz.,

dT

q& = (w C p ,w ) w = h (H R H w ) Tw4

dt

To determine the heat transfer coefficient h one has to know

the local flow conditions. However, for simplicity and to save time

the free stream values are utilized similar to the case of stagnation

point heat transfer analysis. The heat transfer coefficient is written

as

h= C 5

h +

o

(5.23)

where, ho is the heat transfer coefficient for a flat plate at zero angle

of attack and h is that portion of the heat transfer coefficient

caused by angle of attack and wedge or cone angles. For laminar

flow the suggested value of C5 is 1.73 and for turbulent flow C5 is

1.15.

For turbulent flow, the equations to calculate the heat

transfer coefficient are as follows:

83

84

Lower Surface

ho

C 1 ( 0.0375 ) U

=

0.2

x

0.8

U

= A1

x 0.2

0.8

0.2

T

*

T

0.65

(5.24)

(5.25)

0.8

U

= A1

x 0.2

(5.26)

for the approximation involved in developing the Eqn. 5.24. The

suggested best values for C1 are 1.0 for the upper surface and 0.90

for the lower surface. The difference between the heat transfer

coefficient calculated using the free stream flow conditions and the

local flow conditions are represented by the Eqns. 5.25 and 5.26.

Similarly for laminar flow, the relevant equations are

Lower Surface

ho

U

= 0.4

x

h = A2

0.5

T

*

T

0.125

(5.27)

0. 5

(5.28)

Aerodynamic Heating

Upper Surface

ho

U

= 0.421

x

h = A2

0.5

T

*

T

0.125

(5.29)

0. 5

(5.30)

in degrees and the angle of attack in degrees. Values for A1 and A2

are as given in the tables to follow.

Table 5.2 Turbulent flow correction factors, A 1 10 4

-1

0

+1

+5

+10

-10

-5

+20

+40

2

3

5

0.844

1.50

1.30

0.920

1.62

1.79

1.04

1.80

2.38

1.04

1.62

1.84

1.30

1.80

2.07

1.41

2.08

2.34

1.62

2.08

2.61

1.73

2.37

2.87

1.84

2.49

2.90

10

1.19

1.66

2.49

2.16

2.61

3.32

4.06

4.80

4.88

15

1.01

1.57

2.60

2.16

2.77

3.97

5.18

6.58

6.77

20

25

0.747

0.582

1.41

0.989

2.30

2.03

2.16

1.95

2.87

2.87

4.47

4.54

6.08

6.49

9.94

9.20

9.49

8.66

30

0.472

0.826

1.88

1.84

2.87

4.87

6.49

6.49

6.49

M

-10

-5

-1

0

+1

+5

+10

+20

+40

0.366

0.378

0.390

0.354

0.366

0.378

0.403

0.415

0.427

0.488

0.507

0.533

0.488

0.528

0.547

0.561

0.558

0.561

0.732

0.799

0.871

0.763

0.455

0.950

1.01

1.04

0.819

10

0.997

1.18

1.51

1.46

1.62

1.85

2.03

2.07

1.87

15

1.13

1.53

2.20

1.83

2.29

2.68

2.94

2.96

2.51

20

1.17

1.77

2.48

2.51

2.90

3.54

3.82

3.75

3.20

25

1.12

1.74

2.75

2.48

3.33

4.15

4.27

3.66

3.11

30

1.03

1.71

2.95

2.30

3.66

4.27

4.27

2.44

2.44

85

86

wedge angle plus the angle of attack ( + ) is limited to 40, and in

Eqns. 5.26 and 5.30 the wedge angle minus the angle of attack

( - ) is limited to 10.

The values of the other parameters in the heat transfer

coefficient equations are

Re =

U x

= 2.43 10

H R = H + 0.85

0.75

H R = H + 0.89

H * = H + 0 .5

Hw = f

H

( H w H ) + 0 .22 ( H R H )

( Tw , P )

= f T , P

= f H

, P

curve fittings given6-7 and the values of A1 and A2 from the tables

above.

5.4.3 Boundary Layer Transition

The methods outlined above, utilizes only the free stream

flow properties to calculate the local heat transfer rates. In keeping

Aerodynamic Heating

number, free stream Mach number are utilized as criteria to

determine the boundary layer transition by Quinn and Gong as

follows:

[log Re

If log Re

[log Re

If log Re >

+Cm M

+Cm M

attack, sweep angle and leading edge or nose bluntness. The

authors suggest the following table of values, which according to

them produce satisfactory transition results.

Table 5.4 Transition Reynolds numbers and transition Mach

number coefficients.

, deg

Cm

Sharp leading edge

log ReT

0-7

7 - 20

20 - 40

5.3

5.3

5.3

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.20

0.18

0.12

Cm

,deg

Log ReT

7 7< < 20

20

7

7 < < 20

20

0 - 45

5.3

0.23

0.20

0.18

0.20

0.18

0.15

45 - 60

5.3

0.20

0.18

0.15

0.18

0.15

0.12

60 - 75

5.3

0.17

0.17

0.13

0.15

0.13

0.11

5.5

METHODOLOGY OF TAUBER

HEAT

TRANSFER

heat transfer rates at high speeds has been made by Tauber11. The

final pertinent relations taken from that reference are as follows:

87

88

The expression for the stagnation point heat transfer for a

sphere is

q& ws = 1.83 10 4

rn

0.5

Hw

V 3 1

Hs

watts/m2

(5.31)

kg/m3, and the flight velocity V , in m/sec. Hw is the wall enthalpy

2

and Hs the stagnation enthalpy = H + V in J/kg.

2

5.5.2 Swept Infinite Cylinder

The analogous expression for the swept infinite cylinder is

r

cyl

Hw

V 3 1

H aw

0.5

cos eff

(5.32)

where

In deriving the above equations the same Newtonian value

for velocity gradient at the stagnation point was used both for the

sphere and cylinder, viz.,

du

dx

2 p st p

1

=

rn

st

0.5

Aerodynamic Heating

calculated as above is correct for the case of a cylinder but a bit low

for the sphere. It has been suggested by him that if a correction is

made by using the appropriate value, the constant in Eqn. 5.31

changes from 1.83 to 1.90.

5.5.3 Cone and Flat Plate Heating Rates

5.5.3.1 Laminar boundary layer

The expressions for laminar boundary layer heating of

bodies without pressure gradients such as sharp cones, wedges and

flat plates at angle of attack is given by

cos c

q& w , Cone = 4.03 10 5

x

Hw

V 3.2 sin c 1

H aw

cos FP

q& w ,FP = 2.42 10 5

x

Hw

V 3.2 sin FP 1

H aw

0.5

W / m 2

(5.34)

0.5

W / m 2

(5.35)

where

Hw

FP

For the case of flat plate and for V > 3960 m/sec

89

90

q& w ,FP

2. 45 10

)( sin 2 cos 2 . 62 )0 . 8

( x x bt )0.2

Hw

V 3.7 0.9

He

qW FP =

) ( sin

(x x ) (T

3.72 10 4

cos 2.2

0 .2

bt

W /555

0 .8

0 .25

W /m 2

q&

w cone

= 1.15 q& w FP

where

Hw =

He =

boundary layer

from nose for cone

xbt =

5.6

begins

TRANSFER

method to estimate aerodynamic heating at hypersonic speeds. The

heat transfer rate is expressed in a generalized form, viz.,

q& w = N V M C

The units for q w, and V are W/m2, kg/m3 and m/sec

respectively. The values of M, N and C are as follows:

Aerodynamic Heating

M = 3, N = 0.5

H

C = 1.83 10 8 R 1/2 1 w

Ho

where, R is the nose radius in metres, and H w and Ho are wall and

total enthalpies respectively.

5.6.2 Flat Plate in Laminar Flow

M = 3.2 and N = 0.5

C = 2.53 10

cos

0.5

sin x

0.5

Hw

1

Ho

where, is the local body angle with respect to the free stream and

x is the distance measured along the body surface in metres.

5.6.3 Flat Plate in Turbulent Flow

For V 3962 m/s, N = 0.8, M = 3.37 and

Hw

1 1.11

Ho

Tw

556

)0.2

0.25

) 0.2 1 1.11

Hw

H o

in the turbulent boundary layer.

As mentioned by Anderson the above are useful for

preliminary analysis and are not recommended for more detailed

work .

91

92

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

surface temperature calculations for hypersonic flight

simulation. NASA, August, 1990. 4222.

Anderson(Jr), J.D. Hypersonic and high temperature gas

dynamics. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1989.

White, F.M. Viscous fluid flow. McGraw Hill Book Co. 1991.

Fay, J.A. & Riddell, F.R. Theory of stagnation point heat

transfer in dissociated air. J. of Aero. Sci., 1958, 25(2), 73-85.

DeJarnette, F.R.; Hamilton, H.H.; Weilmuenster, K.J. &

Cheatwood, F.M. A review of some approximate methods in

aerodynamic heating analysis. J. Thermophysics, 1987, 1(1).

Gupta, R.N.; Lee, K.P.; Thompson, R.A. & Yos, J.M.

Calculations and curve fits of thermodynamic and transport

properties for equilibrium air to 30,000 K. NASA, October

1991. 1260.

Srinivasan, S.; Tannehill, J. & Weilmuenster, K.J. Simplified

curve fits for the thermodynamic properties of equilibrium

air. NASA , 1987. 1181.

Beckwith, I.E. & Gallagher, J.J. Local heat transfer and

recovery temperatures on a yawed cylinder at mach numbers

of 4.15 and high reynolds numbers. NASA, 1961. R-104.

Eckert, E.R.G. Survey of boundary layer heat transfer at high

velocities and high temperatures. Wright Air Development

Center, April 1960. 59-624 p.

Quinn, R.D. & Palitz, M. Comparison of measured and

calculated turbulent heat transfer on the X-15 airplane at

angles of attack up to 19.0. NASA, TM-X-1291.

Tauber, M.E. A review of high speed, convective, heat transfer

computational methods. NASA , July 1989. 2914.

PART - II

VALIDATION OF PREDICTION METHODS

CHAPTER 6

VALIDATION OF PREDICTION METHODS

Approximate methods are normally used in preliminary

design stages to predict flight control forces and moments

experienced by a flying vehicle in the entire speed range covering

the flight envelope. To ascertain the validity and the range of

applicability of these methods, particularly for hypersonic vehicles,

some detailed studies have been reported in the literature both in

the past and fairly recently. In general, the approach is to examine

several vehicle designs, such as the wing-body, the blended body,

the cone body, etc., which cover a broad range of proposed

hypersonic vehicle configurations and compare the predicted values

with the available experimental data and then draw conclusions.

In the subsonic and supersonic speed ranges, many

methods are available to predict the aerodynamic characteristics.

Some of these have been used for the analysis of a few hypersonic

vehicle configurations. The vortex lattice method for subsonic flow

analysis described by Lamar and Gloss1, which includes the leading

edge suction effects based on theory, described by Polhamus2 has

been applied to three different hypersonic vehicle configurations

and compared with the wind tunnel results3 at a Mach Number of

0.2. The theoretically predicted lift, drag due to lift and the pitching

moment, correlated well with the experimental results. Similar

results using the same type of analysis were also reported4. Since

the method described by Lamar and Gloss1 did not have the

capability to include vertical surfaces, it was not possible to predict

the lateral-directional characteristics of the configurations

analysed. For this reason, the vortex lattice method used was not of

much use in the preliminary design analysis. The most commonly

used prediction method in subsonic and supersonic flows is the

Panel method. Panel method has been applied to some specific

hypersonic vehicle configurations such as X-15, Space Shuttle and

Hypersonic Research Airplane, in the subsonic and supersonic

96

later part of this work.

In supersonic speed ranges, the linear supersonic theory and

the hypersonic impact methods were applied to three non-slender

Hypersonic Airplane concepts at Mach numbers from 1.1 to 2.865. The

configurations used were similar to those of Penland, et al 3. Lift,

pitching moment, and drag due-to-lift values were calculated by the

planar method6. The mean camber surface of the body and the wing

were inputs to the linear theory program, but the vertical tail surfaces

that could contribute to the pitching moment were ignored. A drag

buildup analysis was carried out in which the drag due to skin friction,

the wave drag at zero angle of attack due to volume and the camber

drag at zero lift, were independently evaluated and summed up. The

hypersonic impact methods were also used to check the limit of

applicability of hypersonic methodology in the supersonic speed range.

Tangent-cone empirical method was used on the body and tangent

wedge method on the wing and tail surfaces. Prandtl-Meyer flow was

assumed on expansion surfaces, where the minimum expansion

pressure coefficient was limited to 1/M 2 . Also evaluated was the

tangent-cone empirical method on all the configuration components.

According to this work, the linear theory gave good lift prediction and

fair to good pitching-moment prediction over the Mach number ranges

tested, except in the transonic region. This good agreement between

data and the linear theory predictions of CL and Cm showed that the

linear theory with its thin-airfoil and planar assumptions was valid for

the class of low fineness ratio, blunt-base high volume vehicle

configuration. The linear theory drag prediction was generally poor

with good agreement only below M 1.2. The inaccuracy of the zero

lift drag prediction using the linear theory was attributed to the

violation of slender body assumption, as the vehicle configurations

had low-fineness ratio bodies. The tangent cone theory predictions

were good for lift, and fair to good for the pitching moment for M 2.0.

The combined tangent cone/tangent wedge theory (tangent cone for

the fuselage and tangent wedge for the wing and tail) gave the least

accurate prediction of lift and pitching moment. For all theories, the

zero lift drag was overestimated especially for M < 2. The tangent cone

method predicted the zero lift drag most accurately for M 2.0. The

level of agreement depended on the configuration being studied, very

good for one configuration but fair for others. No definite

conclusions were reached regarding the lower Mach number limit

of applicability of the hypersonic impact methodology.

Methods

systematic set of longitudinal characteristics and lateraldirectional stability data for a simplified wing-body model with a

series of vertical-tail arrangements7. The range of Mach numbers

covered were 1.60 to 2.86 at nominal angles of attack from 8 to

12. Comparisons were made of the experimental data at zero

angle of attack with three theoretical methods, a Second-order

Shock-expansion and Panel method (MISLIFT)8, a slender body and

first order panel method (APAS)22 and PAN AIR9, a higher order

panel method. Since the results from MISLIFT and APAS were

invariant with angle of attack, only the results from PAN AIR were

used for comparisons of the stability parameters at angles of

attack. Overall, the results were quite good except for a couple of

vertical tail configurations. The differences were attributed

probably to the inability of the program to account for the presence

of vortices, etc.

The conclusion reached were:

(a)

(b)

(c)

angles of attack for complete configurations with either single

or twin vertical tails.

APAS provided fairly accurate predictions at zero angle of

attack for complete configurations with either single or twin

vertical tails.

MISLIFT provided estimates only for the simplest bodyvertical-tail configurations at zero angle of attack.

of two hypersonic cruise aircraft concepts at Mach numbers of 2.96,

3.96 and 4.63 were studied10. The test models consisted of a

fuselage with lenticular cross-section, two geometrically similar

wings, one set of horizontal tails sized for each wing, a wedge-centre

vertical tail, a set of fuselage mounted twin vertical tails, a flowthrough body-mounted nacelle, and a set of flow-through wingmounted nacelles formed other parts of the configurations. The

large wing airfoil had a circular arc upper surface and a flat lower

surface, whereas the smaller wing airfoil and the horizontal tail

airfoils were symmetric circular arcs. The airfoil of the twin vertical

tails was flat on the outboard surface and circular arc on the

inboard surface. Estimates from first order supersonic linear theory

and hypersonic impact theory were compared with the experimental

data. Two types of calculations were made under the hypersonic

impact method, viz.,

97

98

(a)

(b)

the components in the impact region and Prandtl-Meyer

relations in the expansion region, and

the application of tangent cone theory to the fuselage and

tangent wedge theory to the wing, horizontal tail and vertical

tail with Prandtl-Meyer theory in the expansion regions.

limited to 0.7 vacuum pressure coefficient. To account for viscous

effects, Spalding-Chi method was utilised. For the linear theory

analysis, an integrated program11, which included an empirical skin

friction calculation based on the work of Sommer and Short12, was

used. The conclusions reached were:

(a)

(b)

(c)

and tangent-wedge theory to the wing, horizontal and vertical

tails gave very good overall agreement with the experimental

data but the estimates of the aerodynamics of the individual

components were significantly different from the data.

The tangent-cone theory applied to all the configurations

generally showed poor estimates.

The predictions of first order supersonic theory were also bad

except for lift and drag data at low angles of attack.

aerodynamic coefficients in the high Mach number range for small

angles of attack and tail deflection and arbitrary roll angles was

suggested13. The method was limited to the following configurations:

cylindrical bodies of circular cross-section with different nose

shapes, sharp cones, sharp ogives and hemispheres, arbitrary

position of the wing of any planform, consisting of flat plates with

sharp leading and trailing edges. The prediction methodology used

was the modified Newtonian, exact relations for oblique shocks, and

Prandtl-Meyer theory for expansion regions. Test results at M = 3.08

and M = 4.63 were compared with predictions and it was found that

the agreement was very satisfactory.

The aerodynamic characteristics of three hypersonic

configurations at a Mach number of 6 were studied3. Tangent cone

theory on the body, tangent wedge on the wing and vertical tail

surfaces and Prandtl-Meyer expansion for all expansion regions,

were utilised to compare the predicted data with experimental

values. The general trend of lift, pitching moment and drag were

observed but the comparison between the predicted drag and

pitching moment with experimental values were not too good.

7.67

C.G.OF MODEL

80

47.55

53.52

48.92

HORIZONTAL CONTROL

PIVOT

(a) BHVCB

31.60

12.52

19.25

CANARD PIVOT

.810

0

STATION

6.5

MOMENT CENTRE

48.11

Methods

99

1.18

76.5

77.8

65

4.44

3.38

CANARDS

0.0238

RAD

0.665

3.46

4 36'

1 36'

6.05

0.0254 RAD

0.292

8.95

3.485

3.92

70

2.10

(b) Components

65

6.3

VERTICAL TAIL

1.382

1.49

0.47

8 35'

100

Aerodynamic Predictive Methods and their Validation in Hypersonic Flows

Methods

prediction method is the Gentry Hypersonic Arbitrary-Body

Aerodynamic Computer Program (HABP)14. Although this program

is more than thirty years old, it is still being used by many, with

some additions and modifications.

An experimental program was conducted at Mach 6 to

determine the aerodynamic characteristics of an all-body, delta

planform, hypersonic research aircraft (HYFAC Configuration)15.

The sketch of the model tested is given in Fig. 6.1. The body had a

delta planform with a 6.5 half-angle conical nose faired to an 80

swept leading edge afterbody. Aft of the conical nose the fuselage

had modified rhombic cross-sections. Computed theoretical values

were compared with experimental data. Predictions from various

methods like tangent cone, tangent wedge, shock-expansion,

Dahlem-Buck empirical, etc., were evaluated and compared with

experimental data. For skin friction effects, the reference

temperature method for laminar region and Spalding-Chi method

for turbulent layers were used. It was found that the tangent cone

for all the components gave the best correlation. For small control

deflections the agreement between predicted and experimental

values was good. However, for large control deflections, particularly

for negative deflections, none of the methods adequately predicted

the longitudinal characteristics. This was attributed to the use of

free stream dynamic pressure values over the control surfaces

rather than the local dynamic pressure. Some representative

comparisons between the predictions and wind tunnel

measurement taken from Clark15 is shown in Figs. 6.2, 6.3 & 6.4.

In these figures, the symbols, B, H, and V represent the body,

horizontal tail and vertical tail respectively. In Fig. 6.4, the side

force parameter CY/, (CY = side force coefficient), the effectivedihedral parameter Cl /, (Cl = the rolling moment coefficient),

and the directional stability parameter, Cn/, (Cn = yawing

moment coefficient) are respectively indicated by the symbols C Y ,

C 1 and C n . is the angle of side slip.

and wing translation on the aerodynamic characteristics of a wing

body configuration, a series of experiments were conducted at a Mach

Number of 616. Seven wings with leading edge sweep angles from 30

to 60 were tested on a common body over an angle of attack ranging

from 12 to 10 and side slip angles of 0 and 2. All wings had a

101

102

Tangent cone on body and vertical tails andTangent cone on horizontal controls

Modified Newtonian (K = 2.4) on

horizontal controls

Shock expansion on horizontal controls

Tangent wedge on horizontal controls

Wind-tunnel data

h'deg

0

10

-30

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

h'deg

Cm

-30

0

-0.01

0

10

-0.02

-0.03

Tangent cone

Modified Newtonian (K = 2.4)

Shock expansion, and

Tangent wedge

4

3

2

1

L/D 0

-1

h'deg

- 30

-2

-3

-4

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

CL

tunnel data for HYFAC configuration (BHV) at R,

= 10.5

,l

(Continued).

Methods

Tangent cone on body and vertical tails andTangent cone on horizontal controls

Modified Newtonian (K = 2.4) on

horizontal controls

Shock expansion on horizontal controls

Tangent wedge on horizontal controls

.11

.10

h'deg

-30

0

Wind-tunnel data

.09

h'deg

.08

.07

0

10

-30

CD .06

.05

.04

.03

.02

.01

0

-30

20

h'deg

0

10

15

,

deg

10

-5

-.15

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

20

.25

CL

Figure 6.2. Comparison of several hypersonic theories with windtunnel data for HYFAC configuration (BHV) at

R,l= 10.5 106 (Concluded).

103

104

.11

.10

.09

.08

h'deg

-30

.07

CD

.06

.05

-20

.04

.03

-10

.02

.01

0

Tangent cone on body, horizontal controls and

vertical tails

Wind-tunnel data

20

h'deg

10

0

-10

-20

-30

15

10

,deg

0

h'deg -30 -20 -10 0 10

-5

-.15

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

CL

data for longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of

HYFAC configuration BHV at R,l = 10.5 106 (Contd...).

Methods

.04

.03

h'deg

-30

.02

-20

Cm

.01

-5

0

5

10

0

-.10

-.02

and vertical tails

Wind-tunnel data

h'deg

10

5

0

-5

-10

-20

-30

4

3

2

1

L/D

0

-1

-2

h'deg

-30

-3

-4

-.15

-20

-10

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

CL

Figure 6.3.

for longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of HYFAC

configuration BHV at R,l = 10.5 106 (Concluded).

105

106

CY

-.005

-.010

-.015

Wind-tunnel data (M = 6)

.001

Cl

-.001

-.002

Tangent cone on body, and horizontal controls

and -

Tangent wedge on vertical tails

Modified Newtonian (K = 2.4) on vertical tails

.003

.002

Cn

.001

0

-.001

-4

12

16

20

, deg

Figure 6.4.

Comparison of several hypersonic theories with windtunnel data for lateral-directional stability characteristics

of HYFAC configuration (BHV) h= 0; R= 10.5 106.

Methods

common span, aspect ratio, taper ratio, planform area and thickness

ratio. The wings were translated longitudinally on the body to make

tests possible with the total and exposed mean aerodynamic chords

located at a fixed body station. The theoretical estimates were based

on Gentrys Program14. Tangent cone pressure distribution was applied

on the body and tangent wedge on the wings, (method 1). In the

expansion region a limiting expansion pressure coefficient of 70 per

cent of vacuum conditions, (i.e., Cp, limit= ( 1/M 2 ) was utilised for all

calculations. The base pressure on the body base was assumed to be

equal to the freestream static pressure. Spalding-Chi method was

used for viscous effects, assuming 100 per cent turbulent boundary

layer. The drag contribution from the body nose bluntness and the

wing leading and trailing edges were not taken into account as they

were estimated to be very low. An alternate analysis in which tangent

cone only on the fuselage fore body and tangent wedge on the wing

and body aft of the wing was also done (method 2). Comparison of the

wind tunnel data with the theoretical predictions lead to the following

conclusions:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

axial, lift and drag) and lift to drag ratio were obtained

throughout the angle of attack range on all wing body

configurations tested by using the tangent cone theory on the

body and tangent wing theory on the wings and by limiting the

expansion pressure to 70 per cent vacuum conditions.

Unsatisfactory predictions of the magnitude of the pitchingmoment coefficients were obtained on all the wing-body

combinations tested with the tangent cone/tangent wedge

analysis. This was attributed to the wing body interference,

wing tip losses and the change in dynamic pressure over part

of the wing due to bow shock, etc.

The Gentry program was found unsatisfactory for estimating

the lateral-directional stability.

It was also suggested that the mean aerodynamic chord of the

exposed wing should be used as the design reference. The

independence of the longitudinal and lateral forces and

pitching moments from wing leading edge variations when the

exposed wing mean aerodynamic chords were located at a fixed

body station verified the Hypersonic Isolation Principle.

potential designs for a trans-atmospheric vehicle and a study was

conducted on a generic model17. The base line wing-cone model

consisted of a 5 half angle cone body, a cylindrical mid body, and a

9 truncated cone afterbody. The fuselage was fitted with a

107

108

4 per cent thick diamond airfoil delta wing of aspect ratio 1 that

could be located at three longitudinal positions while maintaining a

smooth wing body juncture. The model components included two

nose geometries which varied in bluntness, two canards which

differed in planform and three vertical tail arrangements. The test

Mach Number ranged from 2.5 to 4.5. The model was designed to

allow the wing to be positioned at five incidence angles ( 5, 2.5,

0, 2.5, and 5). Angle of attack was varied from 4 to 28 and

angle of slide slip from 8 to 8. Theoretical analysis was performed

using three prediction methods: The Gentry Hypersonic Arbitrary

Body Program14, Linear Theory18, and Supersonic Implicit Marching

Program (SIMP)19. The HABP method employed the tangent cone

theory for the body compression pressure and the tangent wedge

methodology for the wing, canard and tail compression pressures.

The Prandtl-Meyer expansion was used for lee-side pressures.

Spalding-Chi method was used for viscous forces. The linear theory

method was based on linearized supersonic potential theory and

slender body estimates for inviscid lift, far field wave drag using

supersonic area rule for inviscid zero lift drag and Sommer-Short

skin friction estimate12. The SIMP method solved the full potential

equation to provide inviscid characteristics and the skin friction

estimate was done using the Sommer-Short estimates.

Comparisons of the experimental data with several analysis

methods to predict the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics of

the wing-body showed the following:

and the drag slightly underpredicted.

the non-linear aspects of the pitching moment curve were not

predicted.

drag and stability level.

drag and pitching moment results although the absolute

pitching moment values differed.

HABP

results

for

the

wing-body

and

two

canard

due to the addition of the canard, consistent with experiments but

failed to predict the change in the centre-of-pressure location. For

the configuration with canard, Linear theory predictions showed a

Methods

compared to the baseline wing body combination. These results

were in contrast to the experimental data which showed no change

in CL, CD,o and (L/D)max. These discrepancies between linear theory

and experiment were attributed, perhaps to the inability of the

linear theory to accurately model the downwash of the canard and

its influence on the wing.

Three hypersonic vehicles, viz., Shuttle Orbiter, the FDl-7,

and the X-24C-10D were chosen20, to establish a rationale for

choosing the best combination of hypersonic analysis methods. In

this work, three Mach number ranges were defined: a low

hypersonic Mach number range from 3.0 6.5, a high hypersonic

Mach number range above 8.5, and a transitional region in

between. In the high hypersonic case, Modified-Newtonian was

suggested for all the components and the Prandtl-Meyer expansion

for the shadow regions. In the low hypersonic range, the methods

suggested were: Dahlem-Buck empirical for a round nose, tangentwedge for flat nose, inclined cone for a round body; tangent cone for

a strake: and tangent wedge for lifting surfaces. Different methods

for calculating viscous effects had very little impact on the overall

results and the Reference Temperature/Spalding-Chi method was

recommended. In the transitional hypersonic region, it was felt that

either one of the above low or high hypersonic approaches would

work well.

Gentrys program (HABP)14, has been in wide use since the

early 1970s to predict the hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics

of several vehicle configurations and their comparison with

experimental data as discussed above. However, it was felt by

Maughmer, et al 21, that there was a need for a comprehensive and

systematic study to explore the ability of the simple local surface

inclination methods to predict control forces and moments

generated by aerodynamic flight controls for a variety of

configurations in hypersonic flows. For their work they made use of

the industry developed single analysis program for subsonic,

supersonic and hypersonic flow regimes called the Aerodynamic

Preliminary Analysis II (APAS II)22.

The APAS II, is an aerodynamic analysis program based on

potential theory at subsonic/supersonic speeds and impact type

finite element solutions at hypersonic speeds. It was developed at

Rockwell International by integrating their version of the Woodward

subsonic/supersonic panel method, called the Unified Distributed

Panel (UDP) with an enhanced version of Gentrys program. The

109

110

configuration with relatively short computation time. The method is

based on potential flow theory but includes surface leading edge

and side forces and semi empirical techniques for the calculation of

skin friction drag.

In addition to exploring the validity of hypersonic capability

of APAS methods, Maughmer et al, made use of the subsonic and

supersonic panel methods of that program, including wetted area

drag prediction and compared the results with experimental data in

all the speed ranges. In their work three representative hypersonic

vehicle configurations were considered, viz., (a) the X-15 Research

Aircraft, (b) the Hypersonic Research Airplane, (HRA), and (c) the

Space Shuttle Orbiter. For these vehicles experimental results were

available in the entire speed range from subsonic to hypersonic, so

that comparisons could be made between the predicted values and

experimental data. Being of a comprehensive nature and being fairly

recent, their work is considered in some detail.

6.1

and test flown in 1960's. It was designed to reach flight velocities of

about 2000 m/s and an altitude of about 76,000 m. Wind tunnel

tests were done on the X-15 model at subsonic, transonic,

supersonic and hypersonic Mach numbers.

The fuselage was basically cylindrical in shape with fairings

along both sides. The wing had an aspect ratio of 2.5, a quarter

chord sweep angle of 25, and was equipped with conventional

trailing edge flaps for use during landing. The horizontal tail had a

quarter chord sweep angle of 45 and a dihedral angle of -15. This

all-movable tail was deflected asymmetrically for roll control.

During the development of the North American X-15, the

original upper and lower vertical tails were found to be insufficient

in producing the required stability. These original surfaces

consisted of a large upper vertical and small lower vertical, each

having a diamond shaped airfoil. Both the upper and lower verticals

were all movable and the rear portion of each surface could be

deflected to form speed brakes. The final vertical tails had wedge

shaped airfoils and the lower vertical was only slightly smaller than

the upper vertical. On both the upper and lower surfaces, the inner

portion was fixed and contained speed brakes while the outer

portion was all movable. The lower movable portion was jettisoned

Methods

Table 6.1

X-15 Research

characteristics)

airplane

(airplane

geometric

Area, (sq ft)

200

Aspect ratio

2.50

Taper ratio

0.20

123.23

36.75

Span, (ft)

22.36

178.89

35.78

Twist, (deg)

Airfoil section

NACA 66005(modified)

chord, (in.)

339.19

chord, (in.)

52.17

15.48

40

Wing (exposed)

105

Aspect ratio

2.15

Taper ratio

0.27

131.95

35.78

Horizontal tail (exposed)

51.76

Aspect ratio

2.81

Taper ratio

0.21

60.07

45

17.64

84.27

25.28

-15

111

112

Airfoil section

NACCA66005(modified)

aerodynamic chord, (in.)

Span station for 50 per cent horizontal-tail mean

aerodynamic chord, from fuselage, (in.)

Tail arm, 20 per cent wing mean aerodynamic chord to

50 per cent horizontal-tail mean aerodynamic chord, (in.)

Incidence range, normal to plane of symmetry, (deg)

Pitch control

Roll control

537.52

26.96

1 98.33

35 (down),

15 (up)

+7.5

Area, (sq ft)

40.8

Aspect ratio

1.03

Taper ratio

0.74

1 07.5

30

55

1 22.5

90.75

Airfoil section

10 wedge

mean aerodynamics chord, (in.)

Span station for 50 per cent vertical-tail mean

aerodynamic chord, from fuselage, (in.)

Tail arm, 20 per cent wing mean aerodynamic chord to

50 per cent vertical-tail mean aerodynamic chord, (in.)

5 20.25

26.15

1 81.06

26.5

+ 7.5

Area, (sq ft)

34.2

Aspect ratio

0.785

Taper ratio

0.79

1 09.2

30

44

1 21.4

96

Airfoil section

10 wedge

mean aerodynamics chord, (in.)

519.4

Methods

Span station for 50 per cent vertical-tail mean

aerodynamic chord, from fuselage, (in.)

Tail arm, 20 per cent wing mean aerodynamic chord to

50 per cent vertical-tail mean aerodynamic chord, (in.)

21.15

1 80.21

19.9

+ 7.5

Fuselage

49.17

50.16

346 to station 411, (in.)

88.0

56.0

21.4

9.4

31.0

Speed Brakes (Upper and Lower)

Side area, each, (sq ft)

Angular travel, fuselage centre line, (deg)

534

4.88

41

113

114

50.16

17.64

22.36

Figure 6.5.

in feet).

Methods

for landing. The original tail configuration results were used21, for

comparisons in the subsonic and transonic speed ranges and the

final configuration results in the supersonic and hypersonic speeds.

The X-15 aircraft geometric characteristics are given in

Table 6.1. The three view drawing of the aircraft is given in Fig.

6.5. Since, this aircraft configuration was extensively studied in

1960's during its development, it is interesting to study the

comparisons

between

theoretical

predictions

and

measurements made then 23 (period in which the finite element

panel methods for subsonic and supersonic flows had not yet

been developed), and now fairly recently 21, wherein, there has

been an extensive use of combined subsonic/supersonic

computer codes available for analysis. A summary of these

studies is as follows:

6.1.1

airplane in power-off flight at supersonic and hypersonic Mach

numbers have been presented in this work, both as derived from

the then existing theoretical methods and as measured in various

wind tunnel facilities. Calculations were made for Mach numbers

within and beyond the estimated flight envelope and for angles of

attack from 0 to 25. The results were compared with the

experimental data in the Mach number range from 2 to

approximately 7 and, for the static derivatives, with the limiting

values given by the Newtonian theory. Because the report23 is old,

originally classified and not easily available, some details of the

prediction methodology used in their work is presented below.

6.1.2

Lift Characteristics

method24, in which the total lift is considered initially to be the sum

of the individual lifts of the exposed wing and horizontal-tail

surfaces and of the fuselage, each treated as an isolated body.

Incremental lifts are then added which represent corrections for the

interference that arises when the components are placed adjacent

to one another in the overall configuration. The interference is

reciprocal, consisting of reflection-plane and upwash effects on the

wing due to the presence of the fuselage, and of the carryover lift on

the fuselage due to the exposed wing and tail panels. Both these

effects were treated as wing contributions in accordance with the

method described by Pitts, et al 24. The forces on the horizontal-tail

115

116

According to the procedure24, the X-15 lift coefficient can be

expressed as

CL =

SW

C LW (K W B + K B W )

S

S cos T

C LT (K T B + K B T

+Q T

S

) 1

+ C LB

(6.1)

for the lift of the wing and the horizontal tail in the presence of the

body, KWB and KTB, and for the lift of the body in the presence of the

wing and the horizontal tail, KBW and KBT respectively. In the above

equation, the aerodynamic coefficients when used without a

superscript, were based on the dimensions of the wing with leading

and trailing edges extended to the plane of symmetry of the

airplane, and when primed, on the dimensions of the isolated

surface or body. Sw and ST are the exposed wing and tail areas

respectively, T is the dihedral angle of the horizontal tail measured

from the x-y plane, positive when rotated upwards, is the

downwash angle at the tail in degrees.

Q =

q 1 (C L )1

q (C L )

pressure of downstream flow where the local stream pressure

behind the bow shock wave is equal to the free stream static

pressure; (C L )1 is the lift curve slope in the downstream based on

the local Mach number and (C L ) is the lift curve slope in freestream flow.

6.1.3

Wing

Assuming that both the wing and the tail surfaces can be

considered as flat plates for the lift analysis, Van Dykes unified

small disturbance theory was used for calculating the lift

coefficient. This method is suitable to both the supersonic and

hypersonic speed regimes. For a 2-dimensional flat plate wing at an

angle of attack ,

Methods

c n = (C p )low er (C p )u p p er

cn = 2

+1

+

+1

4

H

(6.2)

1 1 H 1 1

(6.3)

1 .

2-dimensional to 3-dimensional lift at hypersonic speeds by the

following approximation based on the linear theory.

C L

C N' =

4

M

cn

(6.4)

theory for the 3-dimensional planform as given in ref 25, and cn as

given by the Eqn. 6.3. Neglecting the wave drag and skin friction

drag, the lift coefficient for the isolated wing becomes

C L W = C N cos

(6.5)

while that for the wing in the presence of the body (based on

reference area S ),

C L

C L W = (K W B + K B W )

4

M

cn

SW

S

cos

(6.6)

taken from Pitts, et al 24, were substituted in the above equation to

get the value of CLW. The Newtonian theory limit was also evaluated

with KWB = 1 and KBW = 0.

117

118

6.1.4

Horizontal Tail

incidence were calculated in a similar manner to that of the wing

with dihedral angle taken into account. The fuselage-induced

upwash at the tail plane was considered negligible and also the

term KTB corresponding to KWB in Eqn. 6.1 was taken as unity. The

wing downwash parameter d/d was estimated from the charts of

Haefeli, et al 26. This downwash was found to be negligible for Mach

number values greater than 4.0.

6.1.5

Fuselage

The lift from the fuselage was derived both from the inviscid

flow and the viscous crossflow. Second-order Shock-Expansion

theory was used to calculate the inviscid lift. Since the fuselage

cross-section of the X-15 aircraft was noncircular, the second-order

shock-expansion expressions, as given in Syvertsons report27, was

multiplied by a factor equal to the ratio of the actual planform area

to that of an equivalent body of revolution having the same local

cross-sectional area as the X-15 configuration. This approximation

lead to the relationship for the inviscid flow as

(C )

LB

In which

in viscid

(C )

'

N

= R

( )

SB

C N

S

cos

(6.7)

R =

Planform area of equ ivalen t body of revolu tion

Allen and Perkins theory28

(C )

LB

viscou s

= c d c

A 2

cos

S

(6.8)

of forebody area only (vertex to the leading edge approximately,

since the wing and tail in effect block the crossflow over the

remaining sections). A value of c d = 1.2 was taken in the overall

c

Mach Number and angle of attack ranges.

Newtonian theory was applied approximately assuming that

the X-15 fuselage may be represented from the vertex to a station

Methods

remaining length by a cylinder of constant diamond-shaped crosssection similar to that of the combined fuselage and side fairings.

6.1.6

Pitching-Moment Characteristics

various components as determined above and from the centre-ofpressure charts given in Pitts, et al24, the buildup of the moments

about a centre of gravity location of 20 per cent of the mean

aerodynamic chord (based on area S, the reference area equal to

area of wing with leading and trailing edges extended to the plane of

symmetry) was calculated as follows.

6.1.7

The moment arm for the lift of the wing in the presence of

the body differs in general from that for the lift induced by the wing

on the body, with the difference depending primarily on Mach

number and fuselage diameter. The moments from the two sources

therefore must be determined separately. For consistency with the

lift calculations described earlier, both effects are charged to the

wing. The characteristics for the horizontal tail at zero incidence

are also determined likewise, although the moment arms for the

various interference effects, due to the absence of the fuselage

afterbody, are essentially equal. The pitching moment of the

combined wing and tail in the presence of the fuselage is given by

C m W +C m T =

SW

x

x

C LW K W B W B + K B W B W

S

c

c

S Tcos T

x

d

+ Q

C L T 1 (K TB + K B T ) T

d

S

c

(6.9)

of pressure of component lift measured in direction of fuselage

centre line. The subscripts WB, BW, TB, and BT refer to wing in the

presence of the fuselage, fuselage in the presence of the wing,

horizontal tail in the presence of the fuselage, and fuselage in the

presence of horizontal tail respectively. c is mean aerodynamic

chord. Other symbols are defined in the earlier lift section.

119

.2

.4

.6

0

4

8

,deg

12

16

Horizontal tail on

(iT=0)

.1

Airplane

trimmed

(a) M = 2.01

20

Wing

Calculated

0

-.1

Horizontal

tail off

-.2

Cm

-.3

Horizontal

tail on

-.4

Wing

-.5

Figure 6.6. Comparison of calculated and experimental lift and pitching-moment characteristics for the X-15

airplane at various Mach numbers.

CL

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

120

Aerodynamic Predictive Methods and their Validation in Hypersonic Flows

CL

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Horizontal tail on

12

,deg

16

Wing

Horizontal tail off

Calculated

(b) M = 2.29

.1

20

Airplane

trimmed

-.1

Horizontal

tail off

-.2

Cm

-.3

Wing

Horizontal tail

on

-.4

-.5

Methods

121

CL

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

12

.1

(c) M = 2.98

20

Airplane

trimmed

16

Wing

, deg

Horizontal tail on

Horizontal tail off wind tunnel .3)

Calculated

0

-.1

Horizontal

tail off

-.2

Cm

-.3

Wing

Horizontal

tail on

-.4

-.5

122

Aerodynamic Predictive Methods and their Validation in Hypersonic Flows

.2

.4

CL .6

.8

1.0

1.2

12

(d) M = 4.65

20

.1

Airplane

trimmed

16

,deg

Wing

Horizontal tail on

Horizontal tail off

Calculated

-.1

Horizontal

tail off

-.2

Cm

Wing

-.3

Horizontal

tail on

-.4

Methods

123

CL

.2

.4

.6

.8

1.0

12

Horizontal tail on

20

24

(e) M = 6.86

,deg

Wing

16

Horizontal tail off wind tunnel (ref.1)

Calculated

.1

Airplane

trimmed

-.1

Cm

-.2

Wing

Horizontal

tail on

Horizontal

tail off

-.3

124

Aerodynamic Predictive Methods and their Validation in Hypersonic Flows

Methods

22

Calculated

(iT, deg (refs. 3,4)

20

20

15

18

16

14

, deg

12

10

8

6

4

2

iT = 15

iT = 15

iT =20

iT =20

0

(a) M = 2.29

(b) M = 2.98

20

18

16

14

12

, deg 10

8

6

4

iT = 15

iT = 20

iT = 20

iT = 15

2

0

-.4

-.2

0

Cm

.2

(c) M = 4.65

.4 -.4

-.2

0

Cm

.2

.4

(d) M = 6.86

stabilizer effectiveness of the X-15 airplane for

incidence settings of 150 (leading edge up) and -200

(leading edge down) at various Mach numbers.

125

126

20

M=2.98

M=2.29

M=4.65

M=6.86

16

, deg

12

8

4

0

-.008 -.004

0

C n , per deg

R

20

-.008

Cn

-.004

0

, per deg

R

-.008

-.004

0

, per deg

Cn

-.008

Cn

-.004

0

, per deg

R

Calculated

Data

(refs. 3,4)

16

12

, deg

8

4

0

M=2.98

M=2.29

-.001

C l

.001

, per deg

R

-.001

C l

.001

, per deg

R

M=6.86

M=4.65

-.001

.001

C l , per deg

R

-.001

C l

.001

, per deg

R

Figure 6.8. Comparison of the calculated and experimental directionalcontrol derivatives for the X-15 airplane at several Mach

numbers.

Methods

20

M=2.98

M=2.29

M=6.86

16

M=4.65

12

, deg

8

4

Calculated

Data

(refs. 3,4)

0

C l1'

.001 .002

, per deg

C l1'

-.001 .002

, per deg

20

C l1'

.001 .002

, per deg

-.001

C l1'

M=4.65

M=2.98

M=2.29

002 003

, per deg

M=6.86

16

12

, deg

8

4

0

.001 .002

C n1

'T '

, per deg

.001 .002

C n1

'T '

, per deg

.001 .002

C n 1'

, per deg

T'

C n 1'

, per deg

T'

Figure 6.9. Comparison of the calculated and experimental lateralcontrol derivatives for the X-15 airplane at several

Mach numbers.

127

128

6.1.8

Fuselage

The centre of pressure for the lift due to the inviscid flow

over the fuselage was calculated by the Second-order ShockExpansion method27, (Appendix C) and that due to viscous cross

flow by the procedure described by Perkins & Jorgensen29. The

former was found to vary slightly with the Mach number and the

latter to be essentially constant. The moment coefficient for the

fuselage was expressed as

x

xB

+ C L

C m B = C L B B

c in viscid B c viscous

(6.10)

experimental data with the theoretical predictions in the Mach

number ranges of 2.01 to 6.86. The figures are reproduced from

Walker and Wolowicz 23.

Walker also deals with the study of longitudinal control

characteristics such as lift variations due to incidence as well as

angle of attack for wing body combinations, damping in pitch and

lateral directional derivatives by the methods outlined in

Pitts et al 24.

The main conclusions reached were that the calculated

longitudinal characteristics for the most part were in close accord

with the results from the wind tunnel data. The lateral and

directional characteristics agreed well with the wind tunnel results

in the lower angle-of-attack range. However, due to the interference

of the bow shock wave on the tail surfaces and other effects not

accounted for in the theory, some disagreement was found at higher

angles for the stabilizer effectiveness and several of the lateral

directional characteristics at high angles of attack. Both stability

and controllability were maintained well beyond the estimated

speed limit.

Further, it was found that the limiting values predicted by

the Newtonian theory for the static derivatives were found, in

general, to be lower than the trends shown by the unified

supersonic-hypersonic small disturbance theory used for wing and

tail lift calculations and the second-order shock-expansion theory

used for flow over the fuselage.

6.1.9

analysis. Panel method was the basis for subsonic and supersonic

Methods

flows. For the hypersonic analysis, the impact methods chosen for

the various components were: tangent cone empirical for the bodies;

tangent wedge empirical for the surfaces; and modified Newtonian

with the factor K =C p m ax

used for all shadow regions except for blunt ends or trailing edges

where the high Mach number base pressure method was used.

Viscous corrections were calculated assuming 100 per cent

turbulent boundary layer and the use of reference temperature/

Spalding-Chi method. The HABP had a choice of whether or not

to ignore the aerodynamic contributions of components

shielded(or shadowed) in the wake of upstream parts of the vehicle.

For the X-15 aircraft it was found that the shielding had very little

impact on the results and as such the shielding option was not

utilised.

Predicted results were compared with experimental values

at Mach numbers of 0.56, 0.8, 1.03, 1.18, 2.96, 4.65 and 6.83,

covering the entire speed range. Some representative comparison

figures taken from the above work are reproduced in Figs. 6.10 to

6.17. Summary of their findings are as follows:

At very low speeds, the lift and drag were well predicted up

to angle of attack of 25, both for zero flap deflection and 40 flap

deflection. The change in lift and drag due to elevator control

deflection were all reasonably well predicted although the absolute

values of the coefficients were somewhat in error. However, this

was not the case with the pitching moment versus angle of attack

and versus lift coefficient. The general trend of the changes in

pitching moment coefficient with angle of attack and CL with

elevator deflections were captured but not the values. Regarding

the lateral/directional coefficients, viz., the side force, yawing

moment and rolling moment, due to aileron and vertical tail

deflections, the predictions were good enough for conceptual design

purposes. The inclusion of edge forces did not make much

difference in the results.

In the transonic speed regime, the longitudinal

characteristics were compared with the panel method. The lift and

drag predictions at angles of attack up to 20 were good with and

without control deflections. Similar to the low speed case, the

pitching moment values were unsatisfactory apart from the correct

trend in the changes with horizontal tail deflection.

129

0.3

NASA RM

L57D09 APAS II

0.2

f

40

0

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

10

40

30

20

ANGLE of ATTACK (deg)

0.3

0.2

PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENT

130

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the North American X-15 at Mach

0.056 for flap deflections of 00 and 400.

Methods

0.4

NASA RM

TM X-24 APAS II

0.2

h

0

-3

-6

a

0

3

0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the North American X-15 at Mach

1.18 for various horizontal tail deflections.

131

2.0

NASA RM

TM X-820 APAS II

DRAG COEFFICIENT

1.5

h

0

-20

-35

-45

1.0

0.5

0.0

-10

10

30

20

40

50

2.0

1.5

DRAG COEFFICIENT

132

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

LIFT COEFFICIENT

coefficients for the North American X-15 at Mach 2.96

for various horizontal tail deflections.

Methods

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.5

NASA

TM X-820

0.0

APAS II

h

0

-20

-35

-45

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the North American X-15 at

Mach 2.96 for various horizontal tail deflections.

133

1.00

NASA TM X-236

APAS II

APAS II with Shielding

0.75

LIFT COEFFICIENT

0.50

0.25

0.00

0.25

5

15

10

20

25

0.4

0.3

DRAG COEFFICIENT

134

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

LIFT COEFFICIENT

aerodynamic coefficients for the North American X-15

at Mach 6.83 showing the effect of including the

hypersonic shielding option.

Methods

NACA RM L57D09

APAS II Potential + LE +Tip

CY

0.000

0.002

0.004

10

20

30

40

Cn

0.002

0.000

0.002

0

10

20

30

40

30

40

Cl

0.004

0.002

0.000

10

20

ANGLE OF ATTACK (deg)

effectiveness for the North American X-15 at Mach

0.056.

135

136

NASA TM X-820

APAS II Potential

APAS II Potential + LE

APAS II Potential + LE + Tip

0.000

CY

0.005

0.010

10

10

20

ANGLE OF ATTACK (deg)

30

40

0.004

Cn

0.002

0.000

10

0

10

20

ANGLE OF ATTACK (deg)

30

40

0.001

Cl

0.000

0.001

10

10

20

ANGLE OF ATTACK (deg)

30

40

effectiveness for the North American X-15 at Mach 2.96.

Methods

NASA TM X-236

APAS II

0.050

C Y

0.025

0.000

10

5

ANGLE OF ATTACK (deg)

15

20

15

20

15

20

0.000

Cn

0.002

0.004

5

10

0.001

C l

0.000

0.001

5

10

effectiveness for the North American X-15 at Mach 6.83.

137

138

good. The prediction of the slope of moment coefficient against lift

curve was much better when compared with the results at low

speed. The prediction of lateral/directional coefficients missed

the nonlinear behavior observed in the experimental results but

was found acceptable for preliminary design work, provided the

angle of attack was not too great.

The comparison of theoretical and experimental results of

the longitudinal data for the hypersonic Mach numbers showed

that the lift, drag and the pitching moment coefficients were good.

Regarding the lateral/directional coefficients, at low angles of

attack, the comparison between theoretical values and

experimental data was reasonably good for the case of aileron

deflection. However, at higher angles of attack, only the sign of

the force and moment were predicted correctly. The predictions

of side force, yawing moment, and rolling moment due to vertical

tail deflection were relatively good and acceptable for conceptual

design studies.

Comparison of the work of Walker and Wolowicz 23 done in

1960 with that of Maugmer, et al.21, in 1991, on the same X-15

aircraft reveal the following: both at supersonic and low

hypersonic speeds the theoretical results obtained by using the

second-order shock-expansion method for the fuselage,

inclusion of viscous crossflow contribution as proposed by Allen

and Perkins, and the use of the small disturbance pressure

coefficients for hypersonic flows with the unified similarity

parameter as suggested by Van Dyke for lifting surfaces and

utilizing the data presented in the report by Pitts, et al.24 for the

interference effects between various components of the vehicle

and their method of determining the lift and centre of pressure of

wing-body tail combinations, etc., gave very good correlation with

the experimental data. However, in this work, the drag was not

computed. Prediction of the longitudinal characteristics and the

directional derivatives due to vertical tail deflections were as good

and somewhat better than that presented in Maughmer, et al.21,

where the panel method was utilised for analysis in the

supersonic case. In the hypersonic regime, the predictions from

both the Gentrys program contained in Bonner, et al.22 and the

prediction methods used in Walker and Wolowicz 23, agreed

equally well with the experimental data.

Methods

6.2

(HRA) was developed at NASA Langley Research Center in the mid

1970's to serve as a hypersonic flight technology demonstrator.

The wind tunnel results on this configuration are reported3, 30, 31, 32

in the Mach number ranges from subsonic to low hypersonic.

The configuration of the vehicle consisted of a body, a

cropped delta wing having a 2.1 negative incidence and 10

dihedral and a centre vertical tail. The airfoil was a modified

circular arc with a leading edge radius (normal to L.E.) followed by

a wedge section. It was equipped with full span elevons that could

be deflected symmetrically for pitch control and asymmetrically

for roll control. The centre vertical tail had a dual hinge line that

allowed for a diamond shaped airfoil at subsonic and supersonic

speeds. At hypersonic speeds, the rear portion deflected to form

a wedge shaped airfoil. They could also be deflected to form

speed brakes at high speeds. The dual hinged rudder could also

be deflected in the same direction to provide yaw control.

Dillon and Pittman32 deal with an experimental

investigation of the static aerodynamic characteristics of scale

model of the above research airplane at a Mach number 6 and

comparison of the measurements with theoretical predictions

using Gentrys method. The geometrical characteristics of the

model tested are given in Table 6.2, the model dimensions in

Fig. 6.18. Comparisons between some of the predicted values

and wind tunnel measurements, taken from the above referenced

report are reproduced in Figs. 6.19 to 6.21. In these figures, the

symbols B, BW, and BWVCH refer to the body or fuselage, the body

and wing, and the combination of body, wing and centre vertical

tail (wedge airfoil used in hypersonic testing) respectively. The

following options were used in the Gentrys program for

theoretical predictions: for compression regions, tangent cone on

the fuselage and tangent wedge on the wing and vertical tail; for

expansion regions, Prandtl-Meyer expansion; and for skin

friction, Spalding-Chi method (with 100 per cent turbulent

boundary layer). The conclusions reached were that, in general,

the Gentrys Hypersonic Arbitrary Body Aerodynamics computer

program gave reasonable predictions of longitudinal aerodynamic

characteristics. At lower angles of attack the lift was

underpredicted and drag and pitching moment overpredicted,

whereas, at the higher angles of attack the lift was overpredicted,

and the drag and pitching moment were underpredicted.

However, lateral-directional stability parameters were not well

predicted except for the isolated body.

139

140

Table 6.2

Research Airplane)

Wing

0.060 (92.63)

0.030 (47.00)

0.064 (98.98)

Span, m (in.)

0.244 (9.62)

Aspect ratio

0.999

0.371 (14.59)

0.119 (4.7)

Taper ratio

0.322

(includes fuselage intercept), m (in.)

0.294 (11.57)

Sweepback angles:

Leading edge, deg

67.5

61.1

Dihedral

angle,deg

Incidence

10

angle,deg

-2.1

Exposed root

0.051

Tip

0.078

0.064 (0.025)

0.064 (0.025)

Elevons:

Tip chord, percent wing tip

36.6

59.8

0.0064 (9.89)

Vertical Tail

Area, exposed, m2 (in2)

0.007 (10.93)

0.077(3.06)

0.857

0.101 (3.99)

0.057 (2.256)

Taper ratio

0.565

0.097(3.804)

Sweepback angles:

Leading edge, deg

49.9

18.5

Methods

Vertical Tail

Hinge line location, per cent chord

68.7

Arudder/Atotal

0.295

0.064 (0.025)

Fuselage

Length, m (in.)

0.584 (23.0)

0.159 (0.063)

0.076 (2.98)

0.097 (3.83)

6.86

0.042(65.12)

Wetted area:

Without components of base, m2 (in2)

0.122 (188.6)

0.116 (179.4)

Ab, m2 (in2)

0.0023 (3.54)

Complete model:

Planform area, m2 (in2)

0.072 (112.12)

0.825

141

10

.045

.132

x-STATION

0.0 .045

.018

.132

.408

.531

.561

7.6

.075

7.6

.075

MODEL REFERENCE

LINE

.365

1.350

.297

.212

.182 .254

.026

.506

.204

10 .016 .238

.057

.687

67.5

.65

c.g.

.751

.830

.870

HL

1.088

y-STATION

.209

1.000 1.075

HL

Y-STATION

.209

Figure 6. 18. Model general dimensions. All dimensions have been normalized by body length (l = 58.4 cm)

.254

.212

.182

.531

.408

.297

.561

.751

.830

.870

X-STATION

1.000

BASE PRESSURE

MEASUREMENT

LOCATION

142

Aerodynamic Predictive Methods and their Validation in Hypersonic Flows

Methods

7.75

12

.0312

12

.0226

12

.0022

.0161

.0673

.0981

HL

.1326

49.9

1.8

22.8

.0216

.1735

.1485

12

SUBSONIC AIRFOIL

12

.0384

HYPERSONIC AIRFOIL

7.75

12

.0454

SPEED BRAKES

Figure 6.18. Model general dimensions. All dimensions have been

normalized by body length (l = 58.4 cm) (Concluded).

143

144

.025

.020

.015

.010

Cm

.005

0

- .005

-.010

20

15

10

, deg

5

Exp.

Theory

.15

.20

BW

BWVCH

-5

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.25

CL

buildup

.30

Methods

0

L/D

-2

-4

.12

.10

Exp.

Theory

B

BW

.08

BWVCH

.06

CD

.04

.02

0

-.10

-.05

.05

.15

.10

.2.0

.25

.30

CL

buildup (Concluded).

145

146

Exp.

Theory

B

BW

BWVCH

CY

-.02

.002

Cl

-.002

C n -.002

-.004

-5

10

5

, deg

15

.20

buildup on static lateral-directional stability

characteristics = 2

2.

Methods

.015

.010

.005

Cm

0

-.005

-.010

-.015

-.020

20

15

10

, deg

-5

e,deg Exp. Theory

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

0

0

-5

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

.30

.35

CL

of elevon deflection on BWV CH configuration.

147

148

.18

e, deg Exp. Theory

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

.16

.14

.12

.10

CD

.08

.06

.04

.02

0

0

0

0

0

0

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

.30

.35

CL

of elevon deflection on BWV CH configuration (Continued).

Methods

4

2

0

0

0

L/D

0

e, deg Exp. Theory

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

0

-2

-4

-.10

-.05

.05

.10

.15

.20

.25

.30

.35

CL

elevon deflection on BWV CH configuration (Concluded).

al.21 using the APAS code at Mach numbers of 0.80, 0.98, 1.20

and 6.00. The main results of their work were as follows:

a)

experimental data both at the low and high speeds for the

longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics were good, as in

the case of X-15. The lift coefficient was slightly

underpredicted possibly due to the fact that the vortex lift

was not fully taken into account. The change in lift

coefficient with symmetric elevon deflection was predicted

well enough for conceptual design. The pitching moment

coefficient predictions were much better for HRA than for

X15.

b)

side force, yawing moment, and rolling moment with

149

150

potential flow plus the leading edge suction force agreed

well the experimental data. However, the changes in the

coefficients due to vertical tail deflection were not at all

predicted well and were typically in error by 50 per cent or

more. Further, for these cases the trends in general were

also not captured.

c)

using HABP, both with and without shielding. For

longitudinal cases, the shielded values compared better

with the experimental data. For lateral coefficients with

aileron deflections, the predictions without shielding agreed

somewhat better with experimental data than those with

shielding. The lateral derivatives due to vertical tail

deflection at zero angle of attack agreed well at M = 6.0 only,

unlike the low and supersonic Mach number cases.

Figs. 6.22 to 6.26 illustrate some of the typical comparisons

between the predictions based on APAS code and wind

tunnel experiments as reported21.

Methods

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

-5

10

15

25

20

0.10

NASA

TP-1189

APAS II

0

-5

-10

-15

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the hypersonic research airplane

at Mach 0.20 for various elevon deflections.

151

0.02

0.01

0.00

NASA

TP-1249 APAS II

-0.01

e,

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-0.02

-0.03

-5

10

15

20

0.02

PITCHING MOMENT COEFFICIENT

152

0.01

0.00

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the hypersonic research airplane

at Mach 6.0 for various elevon deflections. The

hypersonic shielding option was not included in the

theoretical calculations.

Methods

NASA TP-1189

APAS II POTENTIAL

APAS II POTENTAIL + LE

APAS II POTENTAIL + LE + TIP

0.004

0.002

0.000

-5

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

Cn

0.000

-0.002

-0.004

-5

10

Cl

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-5

10

effectiveness for the hypersonic research airplane at

Mach 0.20.

153

NASA TP-1249

APAS II

APAS II WITH SHIELDING

CY

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-5

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

Cn

0.000

-0.001

-0.002

-5

10

0.002

Cl

154

0.001

0.000

-5

10

effectiveness for the hypersonic research airplane at

Mach 6.0 showing the effect of including the hypersonic

shielding option in the theoretical calculations.

Methods

EXPER

APAS II

CY

0.004

0.002

0.000

0

MACH NUMBER

Cn

0.000

-0.002

-0.004

0

2

MACH NUMBER

Cl

0.001

0.000

-0.001

0

2

MACH NUMBER

effectiveness as a function of Mach number for the

Hypersonic research airplane.

155

156

6.3

body, a double delta wing, a body flap and a centre vertical tail.

The double delta wing is equipped with full span elevons broken

into two panels in each side. These can be deflected

symmetrically as an elevator for longitudinal control or

asymmetrically as ailerons for roll control. The body flap, located

on the bottom side at the rear of the Orbiter is used as the primary

trim device. Body flap deflections range from +22.5 (trailing edge

down) to 11.7. The vertical tail consists of a split rudder that

can be deflected together for yaw control and separated to act as

a speed brake. The Space Shuttle Orbiter physical geometry and

hypersonic analysis model figure used in the APAS analysis is

given in Fig. 6.27.

Results of the comparison of the predicted values by the

application of APAS code with the experimental data for three

different Mach number values as reported by Maughmer, et. al.

are as follows:

*

subsonic panel method of APAS code were compared with

the experimental data at a Mach number of 0.25. Included

in the comparisons were the results of full span elevon deflections from - 20 to +10 .

*

The predicted lift coefficients for the most part were within

10 per cent of the experimental data although the lift curve

slopes were not well predicted. However, the flap effectiveness of the elevon CL was predicted reasonably well except

at low angles of attack and large negative deflection angles.

*

Drag predictions were also good for preliminary design

analysis purposes.

*

The pitching moment coefficients as a function of angle of

attack did not agree well.

*

The slopes of the predicted and experimental curves were

sometimes of opposite sign.

*

Regarding the lateral control derivatives, the potential flow

modified with the leading edge suction analogy only yielded

the best agreement with experiments.

*

Similar were the cases for directional control derivatives.

The same kind of results were also observed with the tests

at Mach 0.8.

Comparison of the predictions using the HABP without

employing the shadowing of downstream components at the

hypersonic Mach number of 5.0 showed excellent agreement of

Figure 6. 27. Space shuttle orbiter physical geometry and hypersonic analysis model

Methods

157

158

reasonably good till even upto 40. The predicted CD vs and CD

vs CL curves agreed well with the experiments. The flap

effectiveness for symmetrical elevon deflection was also well

predicted. The characteristic trends of the pitching moment

coefficient variation with angle of attack and lift were captured.

However, the control effectiveness was significantly overpredicted

for large negative elevon deflections. The changes in the values of

CD, CL and Cm due to the Shuttle body flap deflections as observed

in the experiments were more or less captured by the HABP. The

lift and drag data were not affected or influenced much whether

the shielding due to upstream influences were taken into

account or not. However, for the case of the pitching moment the

shielded results were better at low angles of attack while the

unshielded results were better at higher angles of attack.

Comparisons between HABP predictions without shielding for the

control derivatives showed that both the trend and magnitudes

were captured quite well. But this was not the case for the

directional control derivatives. Similar comparisons were also

exhibited for Mach 20 case. It was noted that HABP predictions

improve as the Mach number increases. Some representative

figures taken from Maughmers work showing comparisons

between theoretical predictions and experiments are reproduced

in Figs. 6.28 to 6.36.

CONCLUSIONS

From a critical study of the comparisons between various

prediction methods and the experimental data on a wide variety

of hypersonic vehicles, some of which have been described

above, the following general conclusions are drawn.

At subsonic speeds, the vortex lattice and the panel

methods give reasonably accurate values for the lift and drag in

the linear angle of attack range. But the pitching moment was not

well predicted. For the case of lateral and directional coefficients

the potential flow panel method with leading edge suction

analogy yields the best agreement with the experiments, and the

results are satisfactory for preliminary design analysis. The vortex

lattice method that was used to analyze some hypersonic

configurations in subsonic flow did not have the ability to include

vertical surfaces, and for this reason it could not be used to

determine lateral-directional control characteristics.

Methods

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-5

10

20

15

0.4

ADDB

APAS II

e,

10

0

-10

-20

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the space shuttle orbiter at

Mach 0.25 for various elevon deflections.

159

1.25

ADDB

DRAG COEFFICIENT

1.00

APAS II

10

0

-10

-20

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

-10

20

10

30

40

1.25

1.00

DRAG COEFFICIENT

160

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

LIFT COEFFICIENT

coefficients for the space shuttle orbitter at Mach 5.0

for various elevon deflections. The hypersonic shielding

option was not included in the theoretical calculations.

Methods

0.05

0.00

-0.05

ADDB

APAS II

10

0

-0.10

-10

-20

-0.15

-10

10

20

30

40

0.05

0.00

-0.05

-0.10

-0.15

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

LIFT COEFFICIENT

moment coefficients for the space shuttle orbiter at

Mach 5.0 for various elevon deflections. The hypersonic

shielding option was not included in the theoretical

calculations.

161

1.5

LIFT COEFFICIENT

ADDB

APAS II

APAS II WITH SHIELDING

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

0

-10

20

10

30

40

1.00

DRAG COEFFICIENT

162

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

LIFT COEFFICIENT

aerodynamic coefficients for the space shuttle orbiter

at Mach 5.0 showing the effect of including the

hypersonic shielding option.

Methods

1.00

ADDB

APAS II

10

0

0.75

-10

-20

0.50

0.25

0.00

-10

10

30

20

40

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

LIFT COEFFICIENT

coefficients for the space shuttle orbiter at Mach 20.0

for various elevon deflections. The hypersonic shielding

option was included in the theoretical calculations.

163

0.04

ADDB

APAS II

bf

-11.7

10.0

22.5

c L

0.02

0.00

-0.02

-10

10

20

30

40

30

40

0.06

0.04

0.02

c D

164

0.00

-0.02

-10

10

20

in longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients for the space

shuttle orbiter at Mach 20.0 for various body flap

deflections.

Methods

ADDB

SHUTTLE FLIGHT TEST

APAS II

CY

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-10

10

20

30

40

30

40

30

40

Cn

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-10

10

20

Cl

.002

.001

.000

-10

10

20

in lateral force and moment coefficients due to

differential elevon deflections for the space shuttle

orbiter at Mach 5.0.

165

ADDB

0.002

APAS II

0

10

CY

0.000

-0.002

-0.004

0

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

MACH NUMBER

X10-3

0.5

Cn

1.0

0.0

-0.5

0

10

MACH NUMBER

.0050

Cl

166

.0025

.0000

0

10

MACH NUMBER

in lateral force and moment coefficients due to

differential elevon deflections as a function of Mach

Number for the space shuttle orbiter.

Methods

ADDB

APAS II

APAS II WITH SHIELDING

CY

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-10

10

20

30

40

30

40

30

40

0.000

Cn

0.001

-0.001

-10

10

20

Cl

0.001

0.000

-0.001

-10

10

20

effectiveness for the space shuttle orbitter at Mach 20.0

showing the effect of including the hypersonic shielding

option in the theoretical calculations.

167

168

method predicts the longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics

very well. Due to the separated flow, some results at supersonic

speeds for the lateral/directional control derivatives are found to

be unacceptable. The rolling moment derivative due to aileron

deflection and the yawing moment derivative due to rudder

deflection are predicted well enough for conceptual design

purposes. The methods based on the linear supersonic flow

theory and slender body approximations give reasonably good

predictions only in the low supersonic speed ranges. Utilisation

of the second-order shock-expansion theory for the body, Van

Dykes unified hypersonic-supersonic similarity relations and the

approximate methods of the Pitts, Neilsen, and Kaattari24 for the

interference and downwash effects gave very good predictions in

the supersonic and as well as low hypersonic speed ranges, both

for longitudinal and lateral control aerodynamic characteristics.

In the hypersonic flow regimes there are no intermediate

theoretical models between the simple flow inclination methods

and the nonlinear CFD methods (Euler or Navier Stokes). Setting

up of computational grids as well as its execution requirements,

make CFD method unsuitable for preliminary design analysis.

For this reason, the original HABP as developed by Gentry or with

slight improvements or additions to the basic program as

contained in APAS is being universally used as a prediction

methodology at hypersonic speeds. To account for viscous

effects, the most commonly adopted method is Spalding-Chi. The

longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics particularly the lift and

drag are well predicted by the HABP when the tangent cone

theory is applied on the body for compressive forces and the

tangent wedge on the lifting surfaces and the Prandtl-Meyer

expansion for the lee-side surfaces with limiting value of a

pressure coefficient of 70 per cent of vacuum conditions. The

magnitudes of the pitching moment coefficients are not always

well predicted in almost all of the cases tested due to errors in the

locations of the centres of pressures. However, the trends in the

changes in the pitching moment as a function of angle of attack

and flap or elevon deflections, are generally captured. Lateral

control has been well predicted when the shielding is not taken

into account. The prediction methodology using the surface

inclination method improves as the Mach number increases.

Some conventional aircraft configurations like X-15 may be

influenced by body interference effects at low hypersonic Mach

numbers, which are not accounted for in the HABP. For cases

Methods

the one suggested by Walker and Wolowicz23 that utilizes the

procedures outlined in the work of Pitts, et. al 24 to account for

interference and downwash effects between various components

of the vehicle.

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

characteristics of interacting lifting surfaces with separated

flow around sharp edges predicted by a vortex lattice

method, NASA, 1975. TND-7921.

Polhamus, E.C. Concept of the vortex lift of sharp-edge

delta wings based on a leading-edge suction analogy, NASA,

1966. TND-3767.

Penland, J.A.; Dillon, J.L. & Pittman, J.L. An aerodynamic

analysis of several hypersonic research airplane concepts

from M=0.2 to 6.0. 16th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA.

January 1978. pp. 78-150.

Pittman, J.L. & Dillon, J.L. Vortex lattice prediction of

subsonic aerodynamics of hypersonic vehicle concepts, J.

of Air., 1977, October.

Pittman, J.L. Application of supersonic linear theory and

hypersonic impact methods to three nonslender hypersonic

airplane concepts at mach numbers from 1.10 to 2.86,

NASA, 1979. TP-1539.

Middleton, W.D.; & Carlson, H.W. Numerical method of

estimating and optimizing supersonic aerodynamic

characteristics of arbitrary planform wings. J. of Air., 1965,

2(4).

Lamb, M.; Sawyer, W.C. & Thomas, L. Experimental and

theoretical

supersonic

lateral-directional

stability

characteristics of a simplified wing-body configuration with

a series of tail arrangements, NASA, August 1981. TP-1878.

Jackson(Jr), C.M.; & Sawyer, W.C. A method for calculating

the aerodynamic loading on wing-body combinations at

small angles of attack in supersonic flow. NASA, 1971. TN

D-6441.

Ehlers, F.E.; Epton, M.A.; Johnson, F.T.; Magnus, A.E. &

Rubbert, P.E. An improved higher order panel method for

linearized supersonic flow. AIAA 16th Aerospace Sciences

Meeting. AIAA. January 1978. pp. 78-15.

169

170

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

aerodynamic characteristics of two hypersonic cruise

aircraft concepts at Mach numbers of 2.96, 3.96, and 4.63.

NASA, TP-1767.

Middleton, W.D. & Lundry, J.L. A computational system for

aerodynamic design and analysis of supersonic aircraft,

part 1-general description and theoretical development,

NASA, 1976. CR-2715.

Sommer, S.C. & Short, B.J. Free-flight measurements of

turbulent boundary layer skin friction, in the presence of

severe aerodynamic heating at Mach numbers from 2.8 to

7.0. NACA, 1955. TN-3391.

Stock, H.W. Ein Verfahren zur Berechnung der

aerodynamischen Beiwerte von Flugkorpen im hohen

Uberschall fur massige Anstell-und Ruderausschlagwinkel

und bei beliebigen Rollagen, Z.Flugwiss, 1976, 24(Heft 4).

Gentry, A.E. & Smyth, D.N. Hypersonic arbitrary-body

aerodynamic computer program (Mark III version), Vol. II.

McDonnel Douglas Corp, April 1968. DAC61552.

Clark, L.E. Hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics of an

all-body research aircraft configuration. NASA, December

1973. TN D-7358.

Penland, J.A. & Pittman, J.L. Aerodynamic characteristics

of a distinct wing-body configuration at Mach 6. NASA,

1985. TP-2467.

Covell, P.F.; Wood, R.M. & Bauer, S.X. Configuration trade

and code validation study on a conical hypersonic vehicle.

AIAA/AHS/ASEE Aircraft Design, Systems and Operations

Conference. September 1988.

Middleton, W.D.; Lundry, J.L. & Coleman, R.G. A system for

aerodynamic design and analysis of supersonic aircraft,

Part-1. NASA, 1980. CR3352.

Shankar,V.; Szema, K. & Bonner, E. Full potential methods

for analysis of complex aerospace configurations. NASA,

1987. CR-3982.

Moore, M.E.; & Williams, J.E. Aerodynamic prediction

rationale for analyses of hypersonic configurations. AIAA 27th

Aerospace Sciences Meeting. AIAA, January 1989. pp.

89-525,

Maughmer,M.; Ozoroski, L.; Straussfogel, D. & Long, L.

Validation of engineering methods for predicting hypersonic

Methods

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Dyna., 1993, 16(4).

Bonner, E.; Clever, W. & Dunn, K. Aerodynamic preliminary

analysis system II, Part I-Theory. NASA, April 1981. CR165627.

Walker, W.J. & Wolowicz, C.H. Theoretical stability

derivatives for the X-15 research airplane at supersonic

and hypersonic speeds including a comparison with windtunnel results. NASA, August 1960. TM X-287.

Pitts, W.C.; Nielsen, J.N. & Kaattari, G.E. Lift and center of

pressure of wing-body-tail combinations at subsonic,

transonic and supersonic speeds. NACA, 1957. 1307.

Harmon, S.M. & Jeffreys, I. Theoretical lift and damping in

roll of thin wings with arbitrary sweep and taper at

supersonic speeds. Supersonic leading and trailing edges.

NACA, 1950. TN-2114.

Haefeli, R.C.; Mirels, H. & Cummings, J.L. Charts for

estimating downwash behind rectangular, trapezoidal, and

triangular wings at supersonic speeds, 1950. NACA,

TN-2141.

Syvertson, C.A. & Dennis, D.H. A second order shockexpansion method applicable to bodies of revolution near

zero lift, NACA, 1957. 1328.

Allen, H.J. Estimation of the forces and moments acting on

inclined bodies of revolution of high fineness ratio. NACA,

1949. RMA9126.

Perkins, E.W. & Jorgensen, L.H. Comparison of

experimental and theoretical normal force distributions

(including reynolds number effects) on an ogivecylinder

body at mach number 1.98. NACA, 1956. TN-3716.

Dillon, J.L. & Creel(Jr.), T.R. Aerodynamic characteristics at

Mach number 0.2 of a wing-body concept for a hypersonic

research airplane. NASA, 1978. TP-1189.

Dillon, J.L. & Pittman, J.L. Aerodynamic characteristics at

mach numbers from 0.33 to 1.20 of a wing-body design

concept for a hypersonic research airplane. NASA, 1997.

TP-1044.

Dillon, J.L. & Pittman, J.L. Aerodynamic characteristics at

Mach 6 of a wing-body concept for a hypersonic research

airplane. NASA, 1978. TP-1249.

171

PART III

AERODYNAMICS OF RAREFIED GASES

CHAPTER 7

GAS DYNAMICS OF RAREFIED FLOWS

7.1

INTRODUCTION

gas flows. The earliest detailed theoretical study of forces and heat

transfer on bodies in free molecule flow and their comparison with

experiments were done by Stalder and his associates2-4. Then

followed review articles by Schaaf and Chambre5 and Schaaf and

Talbot6. These works still serve as basic introduction to mechanics

of rarefied gases.

The characteristics of the flow over a body flying at very

high altitudes depend on the degree of rarefaction of the

atmosphere. As the aerodynamic and heat transfer effects depend

on the type of flow, it is necessary to identify this. Towards this, a

dimensionless parameter called the Knudsen number is

introduced. Knudsen number is defined as the ratio of the

molecular mean free path , of the gas, to the characteristic

dimension of the body d

Kn =

(7.1.1)

d

L and width D are combined as a function of effective angle of attack

to determine d, the characteristic length. For this case, the

relation for Knudsen number becomes

Kn =

(L sin + D cos )

(7.1.2)

176

standard atmosphere tables.

From the kinetic theory of gases, the mean free path is given

by

=

16

RT

(7.1.3)

5 2 p

where is the viscosity of the gas, p, the gas pressure, T, the gas

temperature and R, the gas constant.

From the above equation, one can obtain a relation for the

Knudsen number in terms of the Mach and Reynolds number as

Kn = 1.27

M

Re

(7.1.4)

arbitrarily defined as

Slip flow

Transition Flow

Free Molecule flow

0.01 Kn 0.1

0.1 Kn 10

Kn 10

Stokes equations), except for the introduction of modified boundary

conditions for the finite velocity, known as the slip velocity, and a

temperature jump at the body surface.

In free molecule flow, molecules reemitted from the body

surface after collision, do not collide with the incoming stream until

very far away from the body. This implies that the free stream

molecular velocity distribution is unaffected by the presence of the

body. Flow phenomena are entirely governed by the moleculesurface interaction, and the kinetic theory of gases is utilised to

analyse the flow.

In transitional flow from free molecular to continuum,

inter-molecule collisions near the body and molecule-surface

collisions are of equal importance, and the theoretical analyses are

quite formidable, and no results of direct aerodynamic interest are

available. Except for the highly computer oriented Direct

Simulation Monte Carlo Technique to analyse the flow in this

regime to get accurate values, approximate, empirical bridging

formulae between free molecular and continuum flows are

invariably made use of.

7.2

that there are no collisions between the incident molecules and the

surface reflected ones near the body. This allows us to consider the

effects of incident and reflected molecules on the body

independently. Further, we assume that the reflected molecules do

not collide again with any other part of the body, implying that the

body surface is concave everywhere.

In free molecule flow, the molecule-surface interaction

determines the amount of energy and momentum transfer. Towards

this, interaction parameters, one for the energy and the other for

momentum transfer are defined.

7.2.1 Surface Interaction Parameters

The degree of energy equilibrium attained between the

surface element and the molecules before they are reemitted is

expressed in terms of a parameter known as the thermal

accommodation coefficient defined as

dE i dE r

dE i dE w

(7.2.1)

where

dEi =

dEr =

dEw =

in unit time.

energy flux reemitted from the surface of unit

area in unit time.

energy flux of the reemitted molecules if all the

incident

molecules

were

reemitted

in

Maxwellian equilibrium with the surface.

accommodation coefficients for each degree of freedom, viz.,

translational, rotational and vibrational can also be similarly

defined, as all of them are involved in energy transfer. Experiments

have indicated that vibrational degrees of freedom are not affected

by collision with a surface, while only the translational and

rotational energies are involved.

Similarly, two momentum reflection coefficients are defined,

one for the tangential momentum and the other for normal

momentum transfer.

177

178

by

t =

i r

i w

i r

i

(7.2.2)

where

i

surface by incident molecules

tangential momentum carried away from unit

area by reflected molecules

tangential momentum carried away from unit

area by diffusely reflected molecules in thermal

equilibrium with the surface. By definition w = 0.

n =

pi pr

pi pw

(7.2.3)

where

pi

pr

pw

the surface

flux of normal momentum (pressure) carried

away by reflected molecules

flux of normal momentum reemitted if all

incident molecules were reemitted in Maxwellian

equilibrium with the surface.

It corresponds to an interaction in which the incident molecules

come to a complete thermodynamic equilibrium with the surface.

The case in = t = n = 0 is called specular reflection. In this type

of reflection, there is no energy and tangential momentum transfer

to the surface. It has been observed that the materials used in space

vehicles are of such a type that the accommodation and reflection

coefficients are close to one.

For a gas in equilibrium, kinetic theory states that the

molecular velocities are specified by the Maxwellian equilibrium

velocity distribution function f. The distribution function f is the

probability that the velocity of a randomly selected molecule will

have velocity components lying in an element of velocity space (dU,

dV, dW ), centered at (U,V,W ). It is given by the expression

f (U,V,W ) dU dV dW =

1

cm

( c m )2

(U 2 + V 2 + W 2 )

dU dV dW

(7.2.4)

Here, cm = most probable molecular speed = 2 R T , where R, is

the gas constant and T, the temperature of the gas. U, V and W are

the velocity components of the random or thermal motion of the

molecules.

To calculate the forces experienced by a body, it is first

necessary to obtain the basic momentum transfer to a differential

elemental area dA and then integrate over the body. The motion of a

body with a velocity - q may be transformed into an equivalent

dynamical problem by considering the body to be at rest and the

gas moving towards it with a velocity q. The distribution of velocities

for the incident molecules relative to an observer moving with the

steady gas velocity q is Maxwellian. Consider an orthogonal

coordinate system such that the axes x and z lie on the plane of the

surface element and the y axis is the inward directed normal. Let

u , v and w be the components of the mass velocity along x, y and

z axes respectively. The molecules approaching the element will

have the thermal velocity components superimposed on the mass

velocity components, viz.,

u = u + U , v = v + V and w = w + W

to v + dv and w to w + dw per unit volume is

ni f du dv dw

where, ni is the number density of incident molecules.

(7.2.5)

179

180

q

x

range u to u + du, v to v + dv and w to w + dw that strike the surface

element of area dA in unit time must lie in a cylinder of height v and

base area dA and is

ni v f du dv dw dA

(7.2.6)

component mu in the x direction where m is the mass of a molecule.

The number of molecules in the velocity range u to u + du, v to v +

dv and w to w + dw which strike the front surface will impart to it a

force in the x direction of magnitude.

m n i uv f du dv dw dA

(7.2 .7)

dA due to incident molecules in all velocity ranges is

+ + +

m ni

u v f du dv dw dA

(7.2.8)

+ + +

m ni

f du dv dw dA

(7.2.9)

m ni

+ +

v w f du dv dw dA

(7.2.10)

from 0 to because only the molecules with a velocity component

in the positive y direction will hit the surface.

The vector sum of Eqns. 7.2.8, 7.2.9 and 7.2.10 gives the

total force on the element due to molecules in all the velocity ranges.

We are interested in calculating the components of these forces in a

particular direction. Let ax, ay and az be the direction cosines

between the direction in which the force is required and the x, y and

z axes respectively. Then the component in a particular direction of

the total force on the element due to incident molecules is

dF

= m ni

dA incident

+ + +

(a

u + a y v + a z w )v f du dv dw

(7.2.11)

In a similar manner we can compute the force due to

reflected molecules. It is assumed that the molecules are reemitted

from the surface randomly with a Maxwellian velocity distribution

at a temperature of Tr . The reflected molecules are thought of as a

fictitious gas issuing from the rear side of the surface at a

temperature Tr. The number of molecules reemitting from the

elemental surface of area dA in unit time in the velocity range u to

u + du, v to v + dv and w to w + dw is

n r ( v ) f du dv dw dA

(7.2.12)

of velocity component in the negative y direction will leave the

surface. nr is the number density of the reflecting molecules. The

force on the surface element due to reflected molecules must be

equal to the change in momentum between the initial and final

conditions.

Force =

reflecting molecules.

surface. Therefore, the force in the x direction on the surface due to

reemitted molecules in all the velocity ranges is

m nr

u v f du dv dw dA

(7.2.13)

181

182

molecules is

m nr

+ 0

v 2 f du dv dw dA

(7.2.14)

+ 0 +

v w f du dv dw dA

m n r

(7.2.15)

The limits of integration for v are from to 0 as only the

molecules having a velocity component in the negative y direction

will leave the surface.

direction having the direction cosines ax, ay and az is

dF

dA

= m nr

reflected

(a

u + a y v + a z w v f du dv dw

(7.2.16)

The sum of Eqns. 7.2.11 and 7.2.16 give the total force on

the surface element in a specified direction due to both the incident

and reemitted molecules and is given by

dF

dA

= m n i

+ + +

(a

+ m nr

u + a y v + a z w )v f du dv dw

(a

u + a y v + a z w ) v f du dv dw

(7.2.17)

the thermal velocity components. Performing the integration results

in

dF = m n 1 (a u + a v + a w )

i

x

y

z

dA

2

v (1 + erf v ) + 1 e 2 v 2

ay

a

+

(1 + erf v ) + m nr y2

4 2

4 r

(7.2.18)

r =

, ni and nr are

2 RTi

2 RTr

the number densities of incident and reflected molecules and

x

erf x =

y2

dy

unit time must be equal to the number of molecules reflected in

unit time, a relation exists between ni and nr.

The number of molecules in the velocity range u to u + du, v

to v + dv and w to w + dw that strike the unit area of the surface in

unit time is given by

ni v f du dv dw

(7.2.5)

surface in unit time having all possible velocity ranges is given by

+ + +

N i = ni

vf du dv dw

(7.2.19)

function

3

N i = ni

2 R T

i

+ + +

ve

[ (u u )

2 RT i

+ (v v

)2

+ w2

]

du dv dw

(7.2.20)

on integration, it reduces to

v

RT i 2 R T

i

+

e

2

N i = ni

v

2 R Ti

1 + erf

2 R Ti

(7.2.21)

v

to V + dV and W to W + dW that are reemitted from the surface of

unit area, in unit time is

183

184

n r ( V ) f dU dV dW

(7.2.22)

velocity. Hence, their velocity components are due to thermal

motion only. The total number of such molecules in all velocity

ranges is

+

N r = nr

( V )

2 R Tr

3 2

1

2 R Tr

(U 2 +V 2 +W 2 )

dU dV dW

(7.2.23)

The result of the integration is

N r = nr

R Tr

(7.2.24)

and 7.2.24.

n r = n i r v

(1 + erf v ) +

v2

(7.2.25)

1

1

= mn i

(a x u + a y v + a z w ) v (1 + erf v ) + e 2 v 2

dA

2

ay

ay

1

2 v 2

+

(1 + erf v ) +

v 1 + erf v + e

2

4

4

dF

(7.2.26)

Let bx, by and bz be the direction cosines between the mass

velocity and the x, y and z axes respectively. Then,

u = b x q , v = b y q and w = b z q

(7.2.27)

speed ratio, which is the ratio of the mass velocity to the most

2 RTi

dF

= mn i

dA

q2

2

{(a x b x

+ a y by + a z b z

1

(b s )2

e y

b y (1 + erf (b y s )) +

s

ay

+

(1 + erf (b y s ))

2s2

+

ay

by

2 r s

(1 + erf (b y s )) +

1

s

(7.2.28)

e

(b y s )2

Tr

) the

Ti

as

dF

dA

= i

q2

2

{(a

x bx

+ a y by + a z b z

ay

1

(b s )2

e y

(1 + erf (b y s ))

b y (1 + erf (b y s )) +

+

2

s

2s

+

Tr b y

1 (b s )2

1 + erf (b y s ) + 2 e y

Ti s

s

ay

2

(7.2.29)

2

divide the above by q A . The result is

i

ref

2

{(

dC

1

=

dA

A ref

ay

+

2s 2

ay

+

2

a xb x + a yby + a zb z

(1 + erf

Tr

Ti

( ))

b y 1 + erf b y s

(b s ))

( )

bys

b y

(1 + erf

s

(b s )) + s1

y

( )

bys

(7.2.30)

185

186

the assumption of diffuse reflection. All the quantities in the

above equation are known except T r. For this, we have to know

the energy transfer to the surface. If the body is a good thermal

conductor, the surface temperature T w will be the same all over

the surface. If the thermal accommodation coefficient for the

surface material is known then T r can be determined from

Eqn. 7.2.1.

We can remove the restriction of complete diffuse reflection

by introducing the normal and tangential accommodation

coefficients in the force coefficient equation. From Eqn. 7.2.2

r = (1 t ) i

(7.2.31)

p r = 1 n

)pi

+n pw

(7.2.32)

= i r = i (1 t

)i

= t i

(7.2.33)

p = p i + p r = p i + (1 n ) p i + n p w = (2 n ) p i + n p w

(7.2.34)

Substituting the above in the force coefficient Eqn. 7.2.30

we have

dC

dA

1

Aref

2 n a y b y + t a x b x + a z b z

(2 n )a y

1

(b s )2

e y

[1 + erf (by s )]

+

b y (1 + erf (b y s )) +

2s 2

s

n a y

2

Tr b y

1 (b s )2

(

1 + erf (b y s )) + 2 e y

Ti s

s

(7.2.35)

surface of the body, the aerodynamic forces and moments can be

calculated for any arbitrary shaped body. Since a body in free

vehicle configuration is resolved into a combination of simple subshapes, such as flat panels, cylinders, cones, conical frustums,

spheres and spherical segments. Each sub-shape is subdivided into

an arbitrary number of elemental areas and is integrated over its

area. For each elemental area set up by the integration routine, it is

necessary to determine if the velocity vector intersects the elemental

area directly without first intersecting any portion of the sub-shape

or any of the other composite sub-shapes. If it does, then it is

considered to be in the shadow region and this has to be treated

appropriately.

7.3

simple body shapes can be determined by the application of the

results of the previous section. In the analysis it is assumed that

the body temperature Tw , the tangential and normal momentum

accommodation coefficients and the temperature Tr of the molecules

reflected from the surface are all constant over the entire surface.

7.3.1 Flat Plate

CASE 1: ONLY THE FRONT SIDE EXPOSED TO THE FLOW

The flat plate is at an angle of attack a to the incoming

velocity q. The elemental surface coordinates x, y and z are as

shown. It is to be remembered that while deriving the basic relation

for the force on an elemental surface, positive y axis was specified

as inward normal to the surface. X and Y are the directions in which

the force coefficients are sought, viz., the tangential and normal

force coefficients.

Y

y

j

i

z OUT OF PAGE

z OUT OF PAGE

Figure 7.2. The flat plate exposed on the front side only

187

188

dC

dA

1

Aref

2 n

a b + a b + a b

y y

t

x x

z z

b y 1 + erf b y s +

2 a

n

y

+

2

2s

n a y

2

1 + erf

1

s

b y s

b s +

y

b y s

Tr b y

1

1 + erf b y s + 2 e

Ti S

s

(7.3.1)

In the above ax, ay and az are the direction cosines between

the local x, y and z axes and the desired force direction, bx, by and bz

are the direction cosines between the local x, y and z axes and the

mass velocity vector.

The unit vector in the direction of the mass velocity is

q = i cos + j sin

x = i ; y = j and z = k

and z axes are

bx = q . x = cos ; by = q . y = sin and bz = q . z = 0

Normal Force

For the force in the normal direction, the direction cosines are

ax = x . j = 0; ay = y . j = 1 and az = z . j = 0

Substituting the values of ax , ay , az and bx , by , bz in

Eqn. 7.3.1 and basing the reference area as the area of the front

surface of the flat plate, the expression for the normal force

coefficient is

dC N front = (2 n

sin e ( s sin )

1

sin 2 +

(1 + erf (s sin )) +

2s 2

s

Tr

2s 2

Ti

[e

( s sin )2

(7.3.2)

Axial Force

The axial force is in the X direction. The direction cosines

between the x, y and z axes and the X axis are given by

ax = 1, ay = 0 and az = 0

as before

bx = cos , by = sin and bz = 0.

Substituting the above in Eqn. 7.3.1, we obtain for the axial

force coefficient as

dC A front

= t sin cos

CASE 2:

e (s sin )

+ (1 + erf s sin )

s sin

(7.3.3)

EXPOSED TO THE FLOW

Y

Z IN TO PAGE

j

x

i

X

Z OUT OF PAGE

q

y

with the y axis pointing downwards (inward normal to the rear

surface). As before, X and Y are the directions of axial and normal

forces sought respectively.

189

190

x = i ; y = j and z = k

Normal Force

The direction cosines in this case are

ax = 0, ay = -1 and az = 0

and

bx = cos , by = - sin and bz = 0

Substituting the values in Eqn. 7.3.1, we obtain the normal

force coefficient as

dC N rear = (2 n

sin e (s sin )2

1

sin 2 +

2 s2

s

Tr

2s 2

Ti

[e

( s sin )2

(1 erf (s sin ))

(7.3.4)

Axial Force

The corresponding direction cosines in this case are

ax = 1, ay = 0 and az = 0

and

bx = cos , by = - sin and bz = 0.

Substituting in the Eqn. 7.3.1 we get

dC Arear

CASE 3.

e (s sin )

= t sin cos

(1 erf (s sin ))

s sin

(7.3.5)

THE FLOW

dC N = dC N front + dC N rear

normal force coefficient as

dC N

= (2 n )

1

2 sin e ( s sin )

s

s

+ n sin

Tr

Ti

(7.3.6)

From Eqns. 7.3.3 and 7.3.5, the axial force coefficient is given

by

dC A

e (s sin )

= 2 t cos sin erf (s sin ) +

(7.3.7)

be determined by the relation

CL = CN cos - CA sin

CD = CN sin + CA cos

7.3.2 INFINITE RIGHT CIRCULAR CYLINDER AT AN ANGLE

OF ATTACK,

The cylinder being axially symmetric, we can orient the body

axis system in such a way that the velocity vector is in the XY

plane.

The elemental area chosen for integration is

dA = r d dL

where, dL is the elemental length along the cylinder symmetry axis.

A reference body coordinate system X, Y and Z is chosen such that

the axes X and Y represent the directions of desired tangential and

normal forces respectively and Z axis normal to them as shown. Let

x, y and z be the local elemental surface coordinates with y axis

radial inwards and x and z axes normal to each other and tangential

to the surface element.

The unit vector in the direction of the mass velocity is

q = i cos + j sin

191

192

Y

j

y

k

Z

system are

x =i

y = j cos k sin

z = j sin + k cos

bx = q . x = cos

by = q . y = sin cos

bz = q . z = sin sin

Normal Force

For the normal force, the direction coefficients are

ax = x . j = 0

ay = y . j = cos

az = z . j = sin

The integration limits for are from 0 to 2.

C N cyl . =

1

Aref

2 L

(dC ) r d dL

for dC from Eqn. 7.3.1 and integrating over the surface area of the

cylinder, the normal force coefficient for the cylinder, based on the

frontal projected area 2rL as the reference area Aref is

CN =

n sin

4s

e

Tr

Ti

s 2 sin 2

2

+ sin 2 (4 + t 2 n

f (s sin )

(7.3.8)

where

1

1

+ s sin I o

f (s sin ) =

2

3

s

sin

1

s sin

+

+

I1

3

6 s sin

and

s 2 sin 2

s 2 sin 2

(7.3.9)

s 2 sin 2

Io

= Bessel function of first kind and zero order

2

s 2 sin 2

I1

= Bessel function of first kind and first order

2

Axial Force

The direction cosines for the axial direction force are

ax = x . i

=1

ay = y . i

=0

az = z . i

=0

for dC in Eqn. 7.3.1, and integrating over the cylindrical surface

gives the result

C Acyl. =

(s sin )2

2

(s sin )2

cos

2

1 + (s sin ) I o

2

(s sin )2

2

+ (s sin ) I 1

(7.3.10)

where, Io and I1 are Bessel functions mentioned earlier

193

7.3.3 SPHERE

An expression for the drag coefficient of an element of area

dA when both of its sides are exposed to the flow can be obtained

from the normal and axial force relations for a flat plate discussed

earlier, by the relation

CD = CN cos + CA sin

Multiplying Eqn. 7.3.6 by cos and Eqn. 7.3.7 by sin ,

and adding the two expressions we get

dC D =

1

Aref

+

2 e (s sin )2

sin 2

s

(2 n

[ (2

Tr

Ti

) sin 2 +

) sin 2 + t cos 2 ]

1

+ t cos 2 dA

2

2s

(7.3.11)

Element of area for sphere dA = 2R2 cos d

Choose an elemental ring surface of area dA = 2 R 2cos

on the front and rear side of the sphere as shown in Fig. 7.3.4. Each

d

R cos

194

exposed on both sides to the flow.

point on this ring element will be at the same angle of attack and

the expression for dCD can be applied. In general, the temperature

Tw varies from one surface element to another. In the special case

where the body is a perfect thermal conductor, Tw is constant over

the entire surface, the above expression can be integrated over the

surface to get the drag coefficient of the sphere based on the frontal

projected area.

C D sph ere

1

=

A ref

dC

dA

(7.3.12)

C D sphere

2 n + t

=

s3

2 n

3 s

4 s 4 + 4 s 2 1

e s

erf s +

4s

2 1

s +

2

Tr

Ti

(7.3.13)

Closed form solutions for the force coefficients are not

available for other body geometries and one has to go in for

numerical integration. The analysis for a cone at an angle of attack

has been outlined in detail5,7. The final results for the normal and

axial force coefficients taken from Sentman7 is reproduced below. It

is assumed that the accommodation coefficients n and t are equal

to one.

L2

L1

j

y

x

Figure 7.3.5. Figure depicting normal and axial force coefficients for

a cone frustrum.

195

196

rear ends of the cone.

From the figure

r = L tan and dr = dL tan

The element of area considered is

dA = r d ds

(ds)2 = (dL)2 + (dr)2 = (dL)2 (1 + tan2 ) = (dL)2 sec2

ds = sec dL

dA = L

tan

cos

dL d

The unit vectors in the direction of the local axis system are

x = j sin k cos

y = i sin + j cos cos k cos sin

z = i cos j sin cos + k sin sin

in the X-Y plane.

The unit vector in the direction of mass velocity is

q = i cos + j sin

b x = x . q = sin sin

b y = y . q = cos sin + sin cos cos

b z = z . q = cos cos sin sin cos

Normal Force

For the normal force the direction cosines are

a x = x . j = sin

a y = y . j = cos cos

a z = z . j = sin cos

7.3.1 and integrating the resulting expression for from 0 to 2 we

get for the normal force coefficient

L 22 L12 tan

C N cone =

cos

2 Aref

s o

2 sin

s

(b y s )2

d +

3

Tr 2

sin cos 2 +

Ti 2s

cos

s

o

cos

s

cos e

(b y s )2

(7.3.14)

Axial Force

For this case the direction cosines are

ax = x . i = 0

a y = y . i = sin

a z = z . i = cos

between the limits 0 to 2 we get for the axial force coefficient

C Acone

L 22 L12 tan

1

2

sin 2 cos + 2

2 Aref cos

s

s o

2 cos

s

Contd ...

197

198

(b y s )2

d +

sin

Tr 3 2

cos sin 2 +

Ti s

(cos sin

y

sin

s

(b y s )2

(7.3.15)

Most of the space vehicles have spherical caps in front of the

body. It is therefore useful to have relations about the normal and

axial pressure coefficients for a spherical segment. The details of

the analysis are given by Sentman7 and the final results from it are

reproduced below. The back side of the spherical segment is not

considered. The element area of the sphere chosen for integration is

dA = r

sin d d

0 to 1 for

and 0 to 2 for .

Substituting the relevant direction cosines in the expression

for the force on an element Eqn. 7.3.1 one obtains the following

expressions for the normal and axial force coefficients.

The normal force coefficient is given by

Y

j

segment.

CN =

sin

cos

sin

2

sin

cos

sin cos erf by s dd

1

Aref

o o

r2

+ 2 sin 2 +

s2

+

2 sin

s

sin e

sin

cos erf b y s d d

o o

by s 2

d d

o o

cos 3 1

2

Tr 3 2

cos 1 +

sin

3

3

Ti 2 s

cos sin 2 cos erf b y s d d

cos

s

o o

+ sin

1

s2

o o

(b y s )2

sin 2 cos e

d d

o o

(7.3.16)

199

200

C A sph . sg

r2

2

2

sin 2 1

=

cos sin 1 +

2

Aref

2s

1

+ 2 cos 2 + 2

s

y

o o

+ 2 sin cos

sin

cos erf (b y s )d d

o o

+

+

2 cos

s

sin e

d d

o o

Tr 3 2

cos 1 cos 3 1

Ti 3 s

+ sin

sin

o

1

s2

erf (b y s ) d d

(7.3.17)

o o

(b y s )2

o o

sin cos e

(b y s )2

d d

7.4

FLOWS

Burnett equations to approximate the integro-differential equation

of Boltzman have been utilised to analyse the flow problems in the

near free molecule or transitional flow conditions. Only a few special

cases such as shock structure, couette flow, etc., have been studied

and these are of no practical use in the determination of the

aerodynamic forces or heat transfer of bodies in this flow regime.

Computer oriented Direct Simulation Monte Carlo Technique is the

only known method to give reliable quantitative aerodynamic force

and heat transfer parameters all the way from free molecule to

analysis for each flow condition does not allow this method to be of

use in the preliminary analysis stage.

Simple empirical formulae have been suggested for quick

determination of the flow parameters in the transitional flow

regime. It has been experimentally observed that the aerodynamic

force parameters vary monotonically from free molecule to

continuum flows. Utilizing this aspect, several authors have

suggested so-called bridging formulae.

Some of these are,

C FTRAN = C FCONT

1

1

2

+ C F FM C FCONT sin

+

log 10 Kn

3

(7.4.1)

where, CF is the force coefficient and the subscripts TRAN, CONT

and FM refer to transition, continuum and free molecule flow

regimes respectively. The continuum values are usually based on

the Newtonian analysis. The above equation and its correlation with

the experimental data are discussed by Lott8.

Another similar empirical bridging formula suggested by

Blanchard9 is

C FTRAN = C FCONT + C F FM C FCONT sin 2 w

(7.4.2)

where

w = ( 3 + log 10 Kn ) / 8

appropriate to hypersonic viscous flows over blunt nosed bodies,

Potter10, 11 has suggested a method for estimating the lift and drag

coefficients in the transitional flow regime. According to him, a

simulation parameter suitable for scaling viscous, hypersonic flow

effects was devised. The characteristic length in this parameter was

taken to be a shape factor modified wetted length in the streamwise direction. To quote Potter, this approach was suggested by the

empirical data showing that projected area and wetted area override

detailed body shape variations in determining overall forces in

hypersonic, transitional flows.

201

202

coefficients in hypersonic rarefied transitional flows are as follows:

A normalized form of drag coefficient is defined as

C D C Di

CD =

(7.4.3)

C D fm C D i

correlated with a simulation parameter defined as

Pn D

H

s * *

(7.4.4)

where

U = free stream velocity

= kinematic viscosity

1

s * =s (P F A /W A )2

= 0.63

H

H

s

H

( 0.2 H o + 0.5 H w )

WA = wetted area

2nD = drag parameter

CD = drag coefficient

Similarly for the lift case

_

CL =

C L C Li

C L fm C L i

(7.4.5)

(7.4.6)

transitional flow was normalised as above and plotted against 2nL

and 2nD . From the graph it was found that one analytical curve was

able to adequately fit the lift and drag data. A simple form of such a

curve is

_

CL

CD

2. 6

=

2 . 6 + Pn1L.6

2. 6

=

2 . 6 + P 1. 6

nD

0.5

0.5

(7.4.7)

(7.4.8)

flight data, Potter10, feels that Eqns. 7.4.7 and 7.4.8 represent

useful tools for preliminary design studies.

7.5

involved by the incident and reflected molecules can be determined

in a manner very similar to that of momentum transfer studied

earlier.

Incident energy on the front side of an element

The translational energy incident on the front side of an

element of are dA due to incident molecules in unit time is

(dE )

i tr

1

2

+ + +

n i u 2 + v 2 + w 2

v f u ,v , w

du dv dw dA

(7.5.1)

The result of the integration is

dE = i R T i

i tr

f

2

3 2

5

+ s2 +

2

s + 2

2

e s (s sin )

)]

(7.5.2)

203

204

given by the above expression. However, if the gas is composed of

diatomic molecules, then each molecule carries an additional

amount of energy called the internal energy. By the principle of

equipartition of energy, the amount of energy carried by each

molecule is () j mRTi, where j is the number of degrees of freedom.

j is related to the ratio of specific heats by the relation.

j = (5 3 )/( 1)

(7.5.3)

freedom, the process of vibrational energy exchange is inefficient as

thousands of collisions are required for effective energy transfer.

For this reason, at normal temperatures the translational and

rotational degrees of freedom are considered active, and vibration

as an inert degree of freedom. At normal temperatures, the value of

j is approximately 2 for air.

The internal energy of molecules striking the front surface

in unit time is

j

m R T i N i f dA

( dE int ) f =

(7.5.4)

2

where, Nifront is the number of molecules striking the front surface in

unit time and is given by the Eqn. 7.2.21, viz.,

{e

2

RT i

N i f = ni

( s sin )2

(s sin )

( 1 + erf s sin ) dA

(7.5.5)

( dE int ) f =

j

2

{e

m (R T i

( s sin )2

ni

)3 2

2

(s sin )

( 1 + erf s sin ) dA

(7.5.6)

(dE )

i

(RT )

3 2

= i

( s sin )2

e

s sin

s2 + 2 + j

) (1 + erf s sin ) s

5

2

j

dA

2

(7.5.7)

(dE i )r = i

(RT i )3 2

2

(s sin )

( s sin )2

j

2

s + 2 + 2

( 1 erf s sin ) s 2 + + dA

2 2

(7.5.8)

The energy dEw carried by the reflected molecules that are in

Maxwellian equilibrium with the surface can be calculated in a

similar manner.

+

dE

= 1mn

w tr

wf

f

2

+V

+W

V f U ,V ,W

dU dV dW dA

(7.5.9)

On integration

dE

= 2 w

w tr

(RT )

w

3 2

dA

(7.5.10)

wf = i

T i (s sin )2

+

e

Tw

)]

(7.5.11)

f

3

dE = 2 i R

r tr

f

2

Tw f

Ti

)]

(s sin )2

e

(7.5.12)

205

206

(dE )

int

(7.5.13)

m R T w f N w f dA

j i R3

(dE int ) f =

{e

Tw f

2 2

( s sin

)2

Ti

(7.5.14)

The total energy of reflected molecules in equilibrium with

the surface is

(dE w )f

tr

+ dE w int

)f

= (dE w ) f

3

j i R

(dE w ) f = 2 +

2

Tw f

(7.5.15)

Ti

{e

( s sin )2

(7.5.16)

Similarly, for the rear side of the surface

3

j i R

(dE w )r = 2 +

2

{e

( s sin ) 2

Tw r

Ti

(7.5.17)

and there is no energy transfer to the body. If 0 and if there is no

internal and radiation heat transfer, then the elemental surface will

reach a temperature known as the Equilibrium Temperature. This

value can be determined by equating the incident energy to the

reflected energy.

Flat Plate: Front surface only exposed to the flow

The energy relations derived above for an elemental surface

refers to the case of a flat plate at angle of to the free stream. The

following expression gives the ratio of the equilibrium temperature

to the free stream temperature when only the front surface is

exposed to the flow.

(T )

wequ

Ti

1

j

2 +

2

j (s sin )2 2 5 j

2

+ s + + s sin [1 + erf (s sin )]

s + 2 + e

2

2

2

( s sin )2

e

(7.5.18)

(T )

wequ r

Ti

1

j

2 +

2

j (s sin )2 2 5 j

2

s + 2 + 2 e

2 2

(s sin )2

s sin [1 erf (s sin )]

e

(7.5.19)

When both the front and rear surfaces are in perfect thermal

contact

Twequ

1

=

j

Ti

2 +

2

j (s sin )2 2 5 j

2

s + 2 + 2 e

2 2

2

(s sin )

+ s sin erf (s sin )

e

(7.5.20)

207

208

Sphere

If the temperature Tw is constant over the entire surface of

the sphere then the expressions for incident and reflected energies

on an element of the sphere can be integrated to obtain the

equilibrium temperature. The elemental area chosen is identical to

the momentum calculation case. The result of the integration is

Tweq .

Ti

1

=

j

2+

2

j 1 3 j

2 5 j s2 3

s + + e

+ s + s 3 + + +

2 2

2 s 4 4

2

1

erf (s )

e s + s +

s

2

erf (s )

(7.5.21)

For a monatomic gas j = 0 and j =2 for a diatomic gas.

Cylinder

For the case of a cylinder having a constant surface

temperature, the energy transport equations for an elemental area

can be applied and integrated over the cylinder surface to get the

equilibrium temperature. The elemental area chosen for integration

is similar to the case of momentum transfer. The result is

Tweq

Ti

s2 4 2 7 j

s2

j

5s2 j s2

+

I o s + s + + 2 + + I 1 s 4 +

2

2

2

2

2 2

1 2

=

j

s2 2

s2 2

2+

I o s +1 + I 1 2 s

2

2

2

(7.5.22)

where, Io and I1 are modified Bessel functions of first kind, zero and

first order respectively.

7.5.2 Heat Transfer for Typical Bodies in Free Molecule Flow

The two non-dimensional parameters that are normally

used in heat transfer calculations are the thermal recovery factor

and the Stanton number. They are defined by

r =

Tw eq . Ti

Ttot . Tw

(7.5.23)

St =

A i V i c p Tw eq . Tw

(7.5.24)

temperature, Ti is the free stream temperature, Tw is the body

surface temperature, pi is the free stream density, Vi is the free

stream velocity and cp is the specific heat at constant temperature

and A is the total heat transfer surface area.

dQ = (incident energy reflected energy ) = dEi - dEr

The thermal accommodation coefficient from Eqn. 7.2.1 is

dE i dE r

dE i dE w

dQ = dEi dEr = (dEi dEw)

Eqns. 7.5.7 and 7.5.16 give the expressions for dEi and

dEw for a front-surface element.

When dQ is zero

Tw = T eq.

temperature of a surface element.

The Stanton number can be obtained by integrating the

dQ

expression

over the total surface of the body of interest.

Teq . T w

Similarly, for the thermal recovery factor. The results thus obtained

for various simple shaped bodies are given by Schaff & Talbot6 and

are presented below.

Front Face of a Flat Plate at an Angle of Attack

r =

( + 1)s

2

2s + 1

1+

(7.5.25)

1

209

210

{e

( +1)

St =

4 s

( s sin 2 )

(7.5.26)

For the case of the rear side of the flat plate exposed to the

flow, the expressions are obtained by replacing by in the above

equations, viz.,

r =

( + 1)s 2

1

2

2s + 1

2

(7.5.27)

St =

( + 1 )

4 s

{e (

s sin )2

(7.5.28)

Front and Rear Surfaces of the Flat Plate

It is assumed that the front and rear surfaces are in perfect

thermal contact and the plate temperature Tw is the same

throughout.

r =

( + 1)s 2

2

2s + 1

1+

1

(7.5.29)

St =

{e

( + 1)

4 s

( s sin )2

(7.5.30)

r =

( + 1)s 2

2

2

2

2

+ 2 1 + 2s 2

s

I

+

+

2

1

2

2

I

I

+

1

1

o

2

2

)]

[ (

)] I 1 2

(7.5.31)

St =

( + 1 )

4s

2

2

2

2

2

2

+ I1

1+ I o

2

2

(7.5.32)

2

2

and I 1

are modified Bessel

where, = s sin and I o

2

2

functions of the first kind, zero and first order respectively. The

area considered being the total curved surface area L d where L is

the length of the cylinder.

Sphere

2

2s + 1

r =

+1

s2

1

erf ( s )

2s

1

1

(

)

erf

s

1 + ierfc (s ) +

2

2s

) 1 + 1s ierfc (s ) + 2s

(7.5.33)

St =

( +1 )

8s

2

s + s ierfc ( s

)+

1

2

erf

( s )

(7.5.34)

where, ierfc = {1 erf (s)} dA is the complimentary error function

integrated over the total heat transfer area, d 2.

Cone at an angle of attack

Only the conical surface considered neglecting the base.

Q = L 2 i R Ti

+

R Ti tan

2 cos

+ 1 Tw

2

s +

1 2 ( 1 ) Ti

2

e ( s sin )

2

( s sin )2

e

(7.5.35)

cone and

sin = cos cos sin + cos sin

211

212

Eqn. 7.5.24, the Stanton number can be obtained.

When there is no heat transfer, by equating Q = 0, the

equilibrium temperature is obtained, as Tw will be equal to T w ( eq .)

Tw ( eq . )

Ti

=1 + r

( 1)

(7.5.36)

s2

determined.

7.5.3 Heat Transfer In Slip & Transitional Flow Regimes

Due to the complexity of interactions between the viscosity,

rarefaction and compressibility, it has not been possible to

theoretically analyze the heat transfer parameters in the slip and

transitional flow regimes, although some approximate theories have

been advanced for limited cases particularly in the slip flow regime.

The Navier-Stokes equations with modified boundary conditions for

slip and temperature jump are the best theoretical approach in the

slip flow regime. Only the computer oriented Direct Simulation

Monte Carlo technique is able to give the aerodynamic and heat

transfer parameters all the way from free molecular to continuum.

For approximate preliminary analysis, recourse is made to empirical

relations.

One such relation is listed below.

The near free molecular heat flux (qnfm ) to a surface is given

in terms of the free molecular heat flux by the following relationship

described by Caruso and Naegeli12

q nfm

q fm

Tw

= 1 + 2

0.1414 s

2

s

Tw

12

Kn

(7.5.37)

flow conditions.

For the recovery factor in the slip and transitional flow

regime the suggested formula is

r =

rc + Kn r fm

1 + Kn r fm

(7.5.38)

recovery factor in free molecule flow.

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

J. Aero. Sci. 1946, 13(12).

Stalder, J.R. & Jukoff, D. Heat transfer to bodies travelling at

high speed in the upper atmosphere. NACA, 1949. Rep. 944.

Stalder, J.R.; Goodwin, G. & Creager, M.O. A comparison of

theory and experiment for high speed free molecule flow.

NACA, 1950. TN 2244.

Stalder, J.R. & Zurik, V.J. Theoretical aerodynamic

characteristics of bodies in free-molecule flow field. NACA,

July 1951.TN- 2423.

Schaaf, S.A. & Chambre, P.L. Flow of rarefied gases, Section

H, In Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics, Vol. III. High Speed

Aerodynamics and Jet Propulsion, Princeton University

Press, 1958.

Schaff, S.A. & Talbot, L. Mechanics of rarefied gases In

Handbook of Supersonic Aerodynamics, Section 16.

NAVORD, 1959. Report 14885.

Sentman, L.H. Free molecule flow theory and its application

to the determination of aerodynamic forces. Lockheed Missile

& Space Company Report, October 1961. LMSC - 448514.

Lott, R.A. Aerodynamic characteristics for the saturn SA-6

vehicle and the SA-5 after orbital breakup. Lockheed Missiles

and Space Company, Huntsville, Ala. Feb. 1964. LMSC/

HREC TM 54/01-44.

Blanchard, R.C., Rarefied flow lift-to-drag measurements of

the shuttle orbiter, Presented at the 15th ICAS Conference,

London, 1986. Paper No. ICAS 86-2.10.2.

Potter, J.L. Transitional, hypervelocity aerodynamic

simulation and scaling. AIAA 20th Thermophysics Conference,

Williamsburg, VA, 1985.

Potter, J.L. Procedure for estimating aerodynamics of three

dimensional bodies in transition flow. In Rarefied Gas

Dynamics. Edited by Muntz, E.P., Weaver, D.P. & Campbell,

D.H. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics. Vol. 118.

213

214

12.

Caruso, P.S. Jr. & Naegeli, C.R. Theoretical and empirical low

perigee aerodynamic heating during orbital flight of an

atmosphere explorer. Proc. of the 1976 Heat Transfer and

Fluid Mechanics Institute, Stanford University Press.

APPENDIX

The Mark IV Supersonic-Hypersonic Arbitrary Body

Program known as SHABP or HABP for short, is a digital computer

program package that is capable of calculating the supersonic

hypersonic aerodynamic characteristics of complex arbitrary

3-dimensional shapes. This program was developed by A.E.

Gentry and his group at Douglas Aircraft Corporation. In

literature it is sometimes referred to as Gentry's Program.

Complete documentation of the work is presented in three

volumes as Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Flight Dynamics

Laboratory, Technical Reports, (AFFDL-TR-73-159, Vols. 1,2 and

3 , November 1973). The outstanding features of this program are

to quote from its documentation page:

"Itsflexibility in covering a wide variety of problems and the

multitude of program options available. The program is a

combination of techniques and capabilities necessa ry in performing

a complete aerodynamic analysis of supersonic and hypersonic

shapes. These include: vehicle geometry preparation: computer

graphics to check out the geometry; analysis techniques for defining

vehicle component flow field effects; surface streamline

computations; the shielding of one part of the vehicle by other;

calculation of surface pressures using a great variety of pressure

calculation methods including embedded flow field effects; and

computation of skin friction forces and wall temperature. Although

the program primarily uses local-slopepressure calculation methods

that are most accurate at hypersonic speeds, its capabilities have

been extended down into supersonic speed range by the use of

embedded flow field concepts. This pennits the first order effects of

component interference to be accounted for."

The functional organization of th; program is given in

Fig. A. 1. The program is written in Fortran.

2 16

above mentioned AFFDL reports, the aerodynamics group at

DRDL, Hyderabad, has replicated the program and made it

operational so that it could be used for its in-house work. To test

that the replicated program is a copy of the original SHABP

program of Gentry et al., and is capable of giving the desired

results, a test case was chosen. Wind tunnel measurements of

normal force and pitching moment coefficients of body alone, wing

alone and wing body combination at Mach No. 6 and their

comparisons with theoretical predictions have been reported in

NASA TP 2467. Figure A-2 gives details of the model tested and

Figures A-3 to A-8, the measured test results and the comparison

of the same with the theories. In these figures three theoretical

curves are drawn and compared with the experimental data. The

theoretical curves are:

(a) Theoretical curve from the earlier version of SHABP (known

a s the Mark I11 version) a s given in the NASA TP 2467.

(b) Theoretical curve a s calculated from the DRDL program

which is a duplicate of Mark IV version.

(c) Theoretical curve from the DRDL developed program based

on the tangent cone method for the body and tangent wedge

for the wing.

Close agreement with the Mark I11 version results and the

DRDL developed SHABP based on the original Mark IV version of

SHABP shows that the DRDL replicated programme is a true

duplicate of the original version and could be used with

confidence for preliminary aerodynamic analysis. Figures A1-A8

are given on the following pages.

EXECUTIVE

PROGRAM

SERVICE ROUTINES,

ERROR HANDLING, ETC.

READ SURFACE

PROPERTY DATA

CALCULATE

STREAMLINE

TRAJECTORIES

CALC

FRIC

INTEG

FRICT

SURFACE PRO

PERTY DATA SAVE

SKIN FR

FORCE

INTEGRA

FORCE DAT

Appendix 21 9

7

SHABP (DUD\)

-0.04 - - -

I

-0.08

-15.0

-1d.O

-5.0

0.0

I

I

5.01

10.

Appendix 221

0.20

----

I

I

0I

---h&kFor---Te-I

I

I

I

I

I

-I-

- - -f-

1

I

I

EXPT (TP246Y)

SHABP (TP 2487)

- - - - ySHxB~D(g-qDjj

---T---7---- t T C W (DRDL)1

0.10-

- - - -k-----+--

0.00-

-0..20

0

I

-15.0

I

I

I

-10.0

I

I

I

I

-5.0

i

I

I

0.0

5.0

10.0

.---

-----I----

I -

MACH NO 6 . 0 ~ -

-7----7

I

EXPT ( ~ 2467)

h

I

I

I

-I

I

I

I

Appendix 223

I

I

I

I

- - - - - _I

I MACH NO 6.0 I

I

I

SHABP ( D R D ~ )

T P n V (DRDL) I

I

I

I

-6-7

INDEX

A

Adiabatic wall 39

Aerodynamic

preliminary analysis II

(APAS II) 109

heating at hypersonic

speeds 67

performance 3

preliminary analysis II

(APAS II) 109

Aerodynamics 175

body-alone 34

wing alone 45

of rarefied gas flows 175

Ailerons 156

Analysis

drag buildup 96

APAS 97

code 156

APAS II 109

Aspect ratio 107

Asynchronous elevon deflection 150

Axial pressure coefficient 40

Circular cylinder 45

Compressibility factors 39

Compressible turbulent flow

62

Compression flow 46

Computation of

aerodynamic coefficients

98

Cone 16, 211

frustrum 195

Convective heating equation

83

Cylinder 42, 208,

Empirical equations 65

Energy transfer 203

Enthalpy 68, 73, 74

recovery 70

stagnation 70

empirical 65

Expansion 46

Bessel function 193

Bessel functions 193

Blast wave 18

Boundary layer transition

86

D

DahlemBuck empirical 109

method 17

Delta wing emperical

method 14

Direct simulation monte

carlo technique 176

Double circular arc 56

226

Isentropic expansion 11

Fluid dynamic simulation

201

Force

axial 37, 190, 197

normal 41, 50, 188, 190

Free molecule flow 176, 203

Maxwellian

distribution function 183

equilibrium velocity distribution function 179

Method

DahlemBuck empirical 17

delta wing emperical 14

Hankey flat surface empirical 17

hypersonic impact 96

nonlinear CFD 168

OSU blunt body 17

panel 95

prediction method 95

Quinn & Gong 80

second-order shock-expansion 128, 138

Sommer & Short 62

Spalding & Chi 64,

98,108, 109

subsonic panel 156

tangent wedge, tangent

cone 14

tangent-cone empirical 96

tauber 87

Van driest-II 63

vortex lattice 95

MISLIFT 97

MNT 7

Modified

Newtonian theory 7

circular arc 56

double wedge 55

Monte carlo technique 200

Gentrys

hypersonic arbitrary body

aerodynamics 139

program (HABP) 109

H

HABP 101, 108, 168, 215

predictions 158

Hankey flat surface empirical

method 17

Heat flux 69

transfer analysis 80

transfer coefficient 75

transfer methodology of

Tauber 87

Heating

analysis 67

rates cone flat plate 89

Hemisphere 45

Hemispherical nose 42

HYFAC 101

Hypersonic

impact methods 96

isolation principle 107

Mach numbers 110

rarefied transitional flow

202

speeds 67

research airplane 95, 110,

139

I

Inclined cone 109

Inviscid zero lift drag 108

L

Laminar flow 66, 78

Index

N

Newtonian & Prandtl-Meyer

model 10

Newtonian theory 6

North American X-15 110

O

OSU blunt body method 17

P

Pan air 97

Panel method 95

Pitching moment 52

coefficient predictions 149

characteristics 119

Planform area 107

Pointed

cone 40, 41, 44

ogive 42, 44

Potential flow theory 110

Prandtl number 71

Prandtl-Meyer expansion

108

flow 96

Prediction methods 95

Preliminary design analysis

158

Program

supersonic implicit marching (SIMP) 108

R

Ramp surface 9

Real time heating analysis

80

Recovery enthalpy 70

Reynolds

analogy factor 77

number 65

Rolling moment 149

Rudder 51

S

SHABP 215

Shuttle orbiter 109

SIMP 108

Single

parabolic arc 58

wedge 55

Skin friction

coefficient 37

forces 61

Slip & transitional

flow regime 212

flows 200

Solar radiation 68

Sommer-Short

estimate 108

skin friction estimate 108

Space shuttle orbiter 156

configuration 156

Spalding & Chi method 64

Sphere 194, 208

Spherical

nose 69

segment 198

Stagnation

density 71

enthalpy 70,74

line heat transfer 72

point 71

heat transfer 69,88

heating rate 80

temperature 71

Stanton number 77

Subsonic flow analysis 95

Sutherland law 71

Sutherland relation 79

Swept infinite cylinder 88

Swept wing 72

T

Tangent

cone 101

wedge 109

Tangential accommodation

coefficients 186

Taper ratio 107

Theory

2-D airfoil 25

227

228

theory in hypersonic

flows 25

Allen & Perkins viscous

cross flow 43

first order 18

linear 108

linear supersonic 96

modified Newtonian 7, 34

Newtonian 6

potential flow 110

Prandtl-Meyer 98

expansion 10

second order shock expansion 19, 168

SOSET 19

Shock expansion 18

tangent-cone 98

unified supersonic-hypersonic small disturbance

128

Van dyke unified 24

small disturbance 116

Thickness ratio 107

Transitional flow 176

U

Unified distributed panel

109

V

Validation 95

Vortex lattice method 95

W

Walker and Wolowicz

115, 138

Wedge 16

Wing

cone configuration 107

leading edge variations

107

sections 52

X

X-15 118, 168

Y

Yawing moment 138, 149

- Aircraft Design - CorkeUploaded bySujith Subramanian
- Fundamentals of Spacecraft Attitude Determination and ControlUploaded byCesar
- Understanding Aircraft StructuresUploaded byGiridharadhayalan
- Aircraft Performance NPTELUploaded byShabbir Ali
- The Design of the Airplane -Darrol StintonUploaded byLeandro Pedreiro
- Aircraft Design Project - 150 seater passenger aircraftUploaded bysonusingh7867
- Flight DynamicsUploaded bysuneeth1992
- Basics of Flight DynamicsUploaded bynmsrinm
- 2 Theory GuideUploaded by159amin159
- Some Effects of Tip Fins on Wing Flutter CharacteristicsUploaded bymegustalazorra
- 400 Seater Passenger AircraftUploaded byganeshyams
- Aircraft Design Project Group 5Uploaded byPugal Venthan
- B.L.stevens %26 F.L.lewis Aircraft Control and Simulation 1992Uploaded byAlan Badillo Salas
- Schaufele - Elements of Aircraft Preliminary DesignUploaded byMiguel Vasquez
- Prouty Raymond - Helicopter Performance, Stability and Control - 2002 [en].pdfUploaded byAnandGupta
- Supersonic Flow Over WedgeUploaded bysack2003
- (UAV) - Aircraft DesignUploaded byginno18019048
- McDonnell USAF Datcom 1979 Volume 1 User ManualUploaded byFabian Zender
- WholeUploaded byahmed_6879
- Description of USAF Digital DatcomUploaded byvalstav
- CFD_in_indiaUploaded bynileshrane
- 4-lockheedUploaded byJu-Suk Yang
- 01 Aerodynamics 2012Uploaded byGulshan Kumar Sinha
- AUTODYN_2010_Miller_An Explicit Numerical Model for the Study of Snow's Response to Explosive Air BlastUploaded byrzsolt
- Shock initiation and detonation extinction in homogeneous and heterogeneous explosivesUploaded byMichael Clark
- 5. Wellbore Models GWELL, GWNACL, and HOLA User's Guide.pdfUploaded byWisnu Ardhi
- SubseaGasPipeline (1)Uploaded byEileen Wong
- FM Report.docxUploaded byAshutosh Routray
- 1-s2.0-S2212540X14000030-mainUploaded byOukkta Ekka Pristya
- s 0869864309020152Uploaded byalex

- Flight Path to DestructionUploaded byBen Chergui
- faa-s-8081-4e.pdfUploaded byHoyNo Vine
- A320 MMELUploaded byjavier_upiig
- Manual of s1Uploaded byAli Salman
- CAT35001 Total Warfare Errata 2.2Uploaded byadlard_matthew
- MODEL ROCKETRY 1Uploaded byOscar Pamos
- 02-2 - Wing ContributionUploaded byHamza Ashraf
- runway marking and lightingUploaded byapi-337821897
- Trixy AviationUploaded byIvan SABO
- CEASIOM-tier1tier1plusModulesUploaded byedmundac
- AerospaceEngineering MScUploaded byUmAr Malick
- RandInt Canvas (B)EaglesUploaded bygreycompanion
- Air Crash DisastersUploaded byNia Nws
- 103Uploaded bypann
- AME01_2019Uploaded byravi
- KJFK ChartsUploaded byA340_600
- Monsoon Operations Mel Weather OperationsUploaded byja-ffer
- The ADS-B Impact Over ATM Concepts (2012)Uploaded byBernardo Luz
- JT15DUploaded byDamian Cuenca
- Glossary LegendsUploaded byEddie Esnarriaga
- DCS_Su-27_Flight_Manual_EN.pdfUploaded bysulistyo widodo
- Basic HelicopterUploaded byKevin Ramadhan Luqman
- Aerodynamic Modeling of a Membrane WingUploaded bymatthew_6
- Center for Military Airworthiness and Certification [CEMILAC]Uploaded byLuptonga
- MA6621 - Chapter 01 - IntroductionUploaded bySayantan Datta Gupta
- Lockheed’s airship gets the green light and could launch in 2018 _ Daily Mail Online.pdfUploaded byKamineni Jagath
- Tri Volley Talkies-Edition 05-29Apr2012Uploaded bythen03
- Ghosts of the Eastern 401 DisasterUploaded byGustavo Adolfo Romero Herrera
- CAR MUploaded byJaya Raj
- C172S Pre Flight Inspection Checklist Issue 1-1.1Uploaded bys_m_wilcox