Aerospace: Wind Tunnel Testing of ONERA-M, AGARD-B and HB-2 Standard Models at Off-Design Conditions

aerospace
Article
Wind Tunnel Testing of ONERA-M, AGARD-B and HB-2
Standard Models at Off-Design Conditions
Dijana Damljanović 1, *, Ðord̄e Vuković 1 , Goran Ocokoljić 1 , Biljana Ilić 1 and Boško Rašuo 2
1 Military Technical Institute (VTI), Ratka Resanovića 1, 11030 Belgrade, Serbia; vdjole@sbb.rs (Ð.V.);
ocokoljic.goran@gmail.com (G.O.); biljana.ilic@icloud.com (B.I.)
2 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Kraljice Marije 16, 11120 Belgrade, Serbia;
brasuo@mas.bg.ac.rs
* Correspondence: didamlj@gmail.com
Abstract: Published results for standard wind tunnel models at non-standard test conditions are quite
rare and/or may not be available. It has been found that those results are a useful aid in preparations
for a number of wind tunnel tests in the Military Technical Institute (VTI) in Belgrade. Test campaigns
of standard models at non-standard conditions are performed to serve as an internal database for
future wind tunnel tests in such environments. Those tests, that partially overlap the referenced
Mach number and/or angle of attack ranges, are conducted in different VTI’s test facilities; different
model sizes and support stings were used. The standard models used in static measurements in
VTI, ranging from simple missile shapes and re-entry bodies to complicated airplanes, are briefly
described and sample non-standard test results are given. The correlation of the test results among
models and facilities has been done with references in the available ranges, and, after confirming a
good agreement, it is assumed that the results are also valid in the extended ranges of conditions.

These results may be useful for researchers in other wind tunnel facilities and for those who handle
Citation: Damljanović, D.; Vuković, CFD tools.
Ð.; Ocokoljić, G.; Ilić, B.; Rašuo, B.
Wind Tunnel Testing of ONERA-M, Keywords: wind tunnel; standard model; off-design conditions; transonics; supersonics; hypersonics;
AGARD-B and HB-2 Standard correlation
Models at Off-Design Conditions.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275. https://
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8100275
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Hirotaka Sakaue
Despite projections dating back to the end of the last century that ground testing
facilities workload would be reduced as a consequence of computational fluid dynamics
Received: 14 July 2021
(CFD), the wind tunnel testing community did not see the pronounced decrease in testing
Accepted: 18 September 2021
Published: 22 September 2021
requirements during the past decade. Wind tunnel testing is still an indispensable tool
for flight regimes where the computational capability is not adequate, as well as for
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
verification and validation of the existing and emerging computational tools. Both industry
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
and academic community now agree that wind tunnel facilities will be needed to address
published maps and institutional affil-
the aerodynamic design challenges in the decades to come [1].
iations. In recent years, however, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on wind
tunnel data quality, uncertainty quantification and overall control and improvement of
measurement processes. This trend is mostly due to ever more stringent requirements set
before wind tunnel facilities to provide highly accurate measurements while operating
within tight cost margins. Thus, the current paradigm for wind tunnel testing seeks to
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
reliably and efficiently provide high-quality results at an affordable cost.
This article is an open access article
As a response to these requirements, a modern design of experiments (MDOE) ap-
distributed under the terms and
proach to wind tunnel testing was suggested instead of conventional pitch-polar test
conditions of the Creative Commons designs, in order obtain the necessary data while saving wind-on time and power consump-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tion [2–6]. The MDOE calls for developing highly efficient experiment designs tailored
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ to the specific problem, with an idea to increase efficiency by obtaining as much data as
4.0/). possible from each test entry. In the context of facility verification, it implies performing
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8100275 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 2 of 20
short, targeted and more frequent wind tunnel calibration campaigns, with the subsequent
reduction of test data uncertainties, instead of the former extensive and time-consuming
calibration test programs with hundreds of runs.
Nowadays, in addition to regular test section calibrations [7–9], wind tunnel data
quality assurance initiatives typically include periodic check standard model testing [10,11],
which is primarily intended to verify data reliability and in-test and test-to-test data re-
peatability [12,13]. In general, standard wind tunnel models are simplified representations
of typical aeronautic shapes, such as an airplane, a missile or a re-entry body, with precisely
defined geometries and known aerodynamic characteristics. Wind tunnel testing of these
models is performed in order to verify, by comparison with previously obtained results,
the complete measurement chain in a test facility, to check data repeatability over time,
as well as to provide a baseline for correlation of the results from different facilities [14].
Standard models are also tested with the aim of confirming the reliability of the data
from a new or upgraded test facility [15] by comparison with the results from other wind
tunnels. In addition, check standard model testing is used for the validation of new or up-
graded data reduction and correction techniques [16], as well as in applied CFD validation
studies [17–20].
Ground test facilities are increasingly faced with a challenge to design and perform
non-standard wind tunnel tests. Yet, most standard models have initially been designed
for a particular range of ‘conventional’ test conditions, e.g., for a specific speed range, a
specific angle-of-attack range, and a specific model support configuration. In addition, the
standard models were designed for wind tunnel steady-state loads, without considering
transient phenomena typical for many high-speed facilities [21,22].
Two approaches are discernible in the in the efforts to determine off-design behavior
of test objects. The first approach involves applying the modeling techniques to extrapolate
standard experimental results to non-standard conditions [23]. However, there are many
complex aerodynamic phenomena which can make CFD modeling methods unsuitable,
inaccurate or unvalidated. Thus, the second approach is based on wind tunnel testing at
the actual off-design conditions as the best way to determine the behavior of test objects
when analytical and numerical tools may not give reliable predictions [24].
The strategy adopted by the Military Technical Institute (VTI) in Belgrade involves
performing check standard model testing prior to the intended non-standard wind tunnel
test to verify the experimental setup and increase confidence in the results. This paper
presents some results of the off-design tests of standard models performed in the VTI’s
test facilities.
2. Wind Tunnel Testing of Standard Model in VTI

Experimental Aerodynamics Laboratory of VTI has a well-established practice of a
periodic wind tunnel testing of standard models [25,26]. The practice started with the
testing of the AGARD-B/C and ONERA-M models in the T-38 trisonic wind tunnel during
the commissioning of the facility [27]. Some tests were then repeated after a number of
years [28]. The practice has since grown into a procedure for wind tunnel data quality
assurance [29–31], similar to those in some other wind tunnel facilities [12,32], comprising
testing of standard models and establishing a statistical control by maintaining a database
of test results variability. These procedures have started being applied to the T-35 subsonic
wind tunnel as well [33]. VTI’s framework for overall wind tunnel data quality control also
includes correlation with test results from other experimental aerodynamics laboratories.
The continuous work of the VTI provides permanent monitoring of the reliability of VTI
wind tunnels, as defined by performance over an approximate three-year period.
It can be noted that correlation of test results from standard models in different wind
tunnel facilities inevitably involves comparison of data from models of different sizes and
structural designs. The geometric similarity of such models is generally satisfied, provid-
ing good correlation. However, there may remain inter-facility differences of Reynolds
numbers. As the majority of tests with standards models are performed with natural (i.e.,
numbers. As the majority of tests with standards models are performed with natural (i.e.,
uncontrolled) boundary-layer transitions, this may cause slight differences between re-
sults. As the facilities may also differ in test section noise and turbulence levels, and dif-
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275
ferent model designs and sizes may produce different static aeroelastic effects, Reynolds- 3 of 20
number-related scale effects may be masked by such additional factors.
Three types of 3D standard wind tunnel models are periodically tested in VTI’s test
facilities. The models, typically used in static measurements of forces and moments, are
uncontrolled)
shown in Figure boundary-layer transitions,
1, together with this may
their designed cause
Mach slightversus
ranges differences
Machbetween results.
ranges covered
As
so the facilities
far by tests inmay
twoalso differtest
of VTI’s in facilities.
test section noise and turbulence levels, and different
modelAGARD-B
designs and is sizes maythe
perhaps produce
most different
popular static aeroelastic
standard model.effects, Reynolds-number-
Although it was initially
related scale effects may be masked by such additional factors.
designed for the supersonic wind tunnels, it has since been tested in many wind tunnels
Three types
of various speedofranges,
3D standard
ranging wind
fromtunnel models
subsonic are periodically
to hypersonic tested
[34–36]. in VTI’sistest
AGARD-B the
facilities. The models,
primary standard modeltypically
used by used
VTIinfor
static measurements
the periodic of forces
wind tunnel and moments, are
checkouts.
shownAnother
in Figure 1, together
model with their
configuration designed
used by VTIMach
is theranges versusaMach
ONERA-M, ranges
generic covered
transport-air-
so far by tests in two of VTI’s test facilities.
craft shape, designed by ONERA for use in the transonic wind tunnels [37–39].
Figure1.1.Initially
Figure Initiallyintended
intendedand
andVTI-used
VTI-usedMach
Machnumber
numberranges
rangesfor
forstatic
statictests
testsofofstandard
standardmodels.
models.
Recently, the
AGARD-B interest the
is perhaps in high-speed
most popular wind tunnel model.
standard tests atAlthough
high angles of attack
it was in-
initially
designed
creased in forVTI.
the Two
supersonic wind tunnels,
configurations of the ithypervelocity
has since been tested correlation
ballistic in many wind tunnels
model, des-
of various
ignated asspeed
HB-1 andranges,
HB-2,ranging
have, from subsonic
therefore, beento hypersonic
introduced as[34–36].
suitableAGARD-B is the
reference models
primary standard verification
for experimental model usedof bythe
VTI for theofperiodic
quality wind tunnel
measurements at highcheckouts.
Mach numbers in the
T-38Another model
wind tunnel. configuration
Both configurations usedareby VTI isre-entry-body-like,
stubby, the ONERA-M, a blunted generic cone-cylin-
transport-
aircraft shape, designed
der shapes [40,41]. by ONERA for use in the transonic wind tunnels [37–39].
Recently,
On several theoccasions,
interest in the
high-speed
VTI waswind tunnel
in need tests at high
of reference angles
results of attack increased
of standard models at
in VTI. Twoconditions,
off-design configurations of the hypervelocity
discovering that such results ballistic correlation
were scarce model, designated
or non-existent. Therefore,
as HB-1
over theand
years,HB-2, have,
several windtherefore, beencampaigns
tunnel test introduced of as suitablemodels
standard reference models for
at non-standard
experimental
conditions were verification
performed,of the
toquality
serve asofan
measurements at high
internal database forMach numbers
future tests ininsuch
the envi-
T-38
wind tunnel. Both configurations
ronments. Those included: are stubby, re-entry-body-like, blunted cone-cylinder
shapes [40,41].
• Testing of the AGARD-B model at low speeds (down to Mach 0.1),
On several occasions, the VTI was in need of reference results of standard models at
• Testing of the ONERA-M model at subsonic speeds and at high angles of attack,
off-design conditions, discovering that such results were scarce or non-existent. Therefore,
• Testing of the HB-2 model at high angles of attack,
over the years, several wind tunnel test campaigns of standard models at non-standard
• Testing of the AGARD-B, HB-1 and HB-2 models at supersonic-flow-start conditions.
conditions were performed, to serve as an internal database for future tests in such envi-
Planned
ronments. Thoseforincluded:
the near future are also:
•• Testing
Testingofofthe
theAGARD-B
HB-2 model in the
model attransonic
low speeds speed
(downrange, and 0.1),
to Mach
•• Testing of the AGARD-B model at high angles of attack.
Testing of the ONERA-M model at subsonic speeds and at high angles of attack,
• Testing of the HB-2
The off-design testsmodel at highmodels
of standard angles of areattack,
mostly performed after, or as a continu-
•ationTesting
of theof the on
tests AGARD-B,
the sameHB-1 andat
models HB-2
more models
common at supersonic-flow-start
conditions, for which conditions.
reference
Planned for the near future are also:
• Testing of the HB-2 model in the transonic speed range, and
• Testing of the AGARD-B model at high angles of attack.
The off-design tests of standard models are mostly performed after, or as a contin-
uation of the tests on the same models at more common conditions, for which reference
results are available. They are conducted so that, when possible, test envelopes partially
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 4 of 21
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 4 of 20
results are available. They are conducted so that, when possible, test envelopes partially
overlapwith
overlap withthe
thereferenced
referencedranges.
ranges.After
Afterconfirming
confirminggood
goodagreement
agreementofofoff-design
off-designresults
results
with references in the available ranges, it is assumed that, by implication,
with references in the available ranges, it is assumed that, by implication, the obtained the obtained
resultsare
results arealso
alsovalid
validininthetheextended
extendedranges
rangesofofconditions.
conditions.
Generally, it has been found that a databaseofoftest
Generally, it has been found that a database testresults ofof
results standard
standard models at off-
models at
design conditions
off-design conditionsis aisuseful aidaid
a useful in in
preparations
preparations forfor
wind
windtunnel tests
tunnel in in
tests VTI.
VTI.
3.3.Test
TestFacilities
Facilities
Thegrowth
The growth ofof VTI
VTI as an aeronautical
aeronautical design
designand
andtesting
testingcenter
centerhashasbeen
beenbacked up
backed
byby
up development
development of wind
of windtunnel facilities
tunnel since
facilities 1952,
since when
1952, the first
when windwind
the first tunnel was built.
tunnel was
The most
built. significant
The most test facilities,
significant the T-38
test facilities, andand
the T-38 the the
T-35T-35
wind
windtunnels, were
tunnels, used
were to to
used ex-
perimentally support
experimentally supportprojectile
projectileand
and aircraft
aircraft programs former Yugoslavia
programs of former Yugoslaviaand andtoday
today
Serbia.
Serbia. This article provides
provides general
generalinformation
informationabout
aboutT-38
T-38and
andT-35
T-35facilities.
facilities. More
More de-
detailed descriptions
tailed descriptions of of their
their technical
technical characteristics,
characteristics, measuring
measuring techniques
techniques usedused
and and
prin-
principles of operation
ciples of operation is given
is given in [42–44].
in [42–44].
3.1.
3.1.The
TheVTI
VTIT-38
T-38Wind
WindTunnel
Tunnel
The VTI T-38 test facility
The VTI T-38 test facility in Belgrade is a is
in Belgrade blowdown-type
a blowdown-typepressurized windwind
pressurized tunnel [42]
tunnel
with a 1.5 × 1.5 m square test section, operating in subsonic, transonic and supersonic
[42] with a 1.5 × 1.5 m square test section, operating in subsonic, transonic and supersonic
speed
speedranges
ranges(Figure
(Figure2).
2).The
Thewind
windtunnel
tunnelwas
wasdesigned
designedandandbuilt
builtbybyaaCanadian
Canadiancompany
company
(DSMA)
(DSMA) and has been operational since 1986. In recent years, a number of upgradeshave
and has been operational since 1986. In recent years, a number of upgrades have
been
beenmade
madetotothe
thefacility,
facility,including
includingthe thereplacement
replacementofofmany manysensors
sensorswith
withmodern,
modern,more
more
reliable
reliableand
andmore
moreaccurate
accurateones,
ones,the
thereplacement
replacementofofthe thewind
windtunnel
tunnelcontrol
controlsystem
systemand
and
the replacement of the data acquisition system.
the replacement of the data acquisition system.
Figure2.2.The
Figure TheT-38
T-38test
testfacility
facilityininVTI,
VTI,Belgrade.
Belgrade.
AAsolid-wall
solid-walltest
testsection
sectionisisused
usedininsubsonic
subsonicand andsupersonic
supersonictests,tests,while
whileaatest
testsection
section
withperforated
with perforatedporous
porouswalls
walls[43]
[43]isisadded
addedtotothethewind
windtunnel
tunnelconfiguration
configurationinintransonic
transonic
tests.The
tests. Theporosity
porosityofofwalls
wallsof ofthe
thetransonic
transonictest
testsection
sectionisisvaried
variedbetween
between1.5% 1.5%andand4%,
4%,
depending on
depending on the
the Mach number, to to achieve
achieve the
thebest
bestflow
flowquality
qualityandandminimize
minimize wall in-
wall
interference.
terference. MachMachnumber
numberrange
range of of the
the facility is 0.2 to
to 4.0.
4.0. Mach
Mach number
numberin inthe
thesubsonic
subsonic
and
andsupersonic
supersonicspeed
speedranges
rangesisisset
setprior
priortotoaawind
windtunnel
tunnelrun,run,by
bysetting
settingthe
thesecond
secondthroat
throat
and
andthethevariable-geometry
variable-geometrynozzlenozzlecontour
contour[45],
[45],respectively.
respectively.Additionally,
Additionally,ininthe thetransonic
transonic
speed
speedregime,
regime,ananactive
activeblow-off
blow-off system
system performs
performs a fine regulation
a fine regulationof the Mach
of the Machnumber
numberto
within 0.3% of the nominal value.
to within 0.3% of the nominal value.
Stagnation
Stagnationpressure
pressure inin the
the test section of of the
the wind
windtunnel
tunnelcancanbebebetween
between1.1 1.1and
and 15
15 bar, the operating envelope depending on Mach number, and
bar, the operating envelope depending on Mach number, and resulting in Reynolds num- resulting in Reynolds
numbers
bers of up ofto
up110
to million
110 million per meter.
per meter. Stagnation
Stagnation pressure
pressure is regulated
is regulated to within
to within 0.1% 0.1%
of the
of the nominal value [46]. Run time can be up to approximately 60 s, depending on test
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 5 of 21
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 5 of 20
nominal value [46]. Run time can be up to approximately 60 s, depending on test condi-
tions. Minimum
conditions. usefuluseful
Minimum run time
runistime
about
is 10 s at 10
about anys at
Mach
anynumber within within
Mach number operating range.
operating
The primary
range. model support
The primary model system
supportinsystem
the T-38inwind tunnel
the T-38 is a pitch-and-roll
wind mechanism
tunnel is a pitch-and-roll
with a tail sting.
mechanism withA sidewall
a tail sting.pitch-only
A sidewallhalf-model
pitch-onlysupport is also
half-model available.
support is also available.
3.2. The
3.2. The VTI
VTI T-35
T-35 Wind
Wind Tunnel
Tunnel
The VTI
The VTI T-35
T-35 test
test facility
facility in
in Belgrade
Belgrade (Figure
(Figure 3)3) is
is aa continual
continual subsonic
subsonic wind
wind tunnel
tunnel
with 3.2 ×
with 3.2 4.4 m
× 4.4 m octagonal
octagonal testtest sections
sections [44].
[44]. The
The wind
wind tunnel
tunnel waswas designed
designed by
by VTI
VTI and
and
erected by Yugoslav companies. It has been operational since 1964
erected by Yugoslav companies. It has been operational since 1964 and upgraded on sev- and upgraded on
several occasions from 1985 to present. The upgrades included the
eral occasions from 1985 to present. The upgrades included the replacement of the main replacement of the
maintwo
fan, fan,replacements
two replacements of the
of the computer
computer systems,
systems, andandthethereplacements
replacementsofofsensors
sensors with
with
more modern ones. Mach number range of the wind tunnel is up
more modern ones. Mach number range of the wind tunnel is up to 0.52. Mach number to 0.52. Mach number
regulation is
regulation is achieved
achieved by by changing
changing thethe fan
fan rotation
rotation rate
rate and
and the
the pitch
pitch angle
angle of
of fan
fan blades.
blades.
Stagnation pressure
Stagnation pressure inin the
the test
test section
section is
is up
up toto 1.2
1.2 bar
bar (static
(static pressure
pressure is is atmospheric)
atmospheric) and
and
Reynolds number is up to 12 millions/m. The duration of a run is theoretically
Reynolds number is up to 12 millions/m. The duration of a run is theoretically unlimited. unlimited.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
The T-35
T-35 subsonic
subsonic wind
wind tunnel
tunnel of
of VTI:
VTI: (a)
(a) external
external view; (b) the
view; (b) the variable-pitch
variable-pitch fan
fan blades
blades of
of T-35
T-35 [44].
[44].
Two interchangeable
interchangeable test
test sections
sections are
are in use. The first one has an under-floor external
balance which also acts as a model support permitting movement in yaw and pitch. The
second test section
section comprises
comprisesaavertical
verticalquadrant
quadrantstrut
strutwith a tail
with sting,
a tail providing
sting, step-by-
providing step-
step or continuous
by-step movement
or continuous movementin pitch, yawyaw
in pitch, andand
roll.roll.
4. Standard
4. Standard Models
Models
4.1. ONERA-M Transonic Standard Model
4.1. ONERA-M Transonic Standard Model
The ONERA-M model represents a generic transport-aircraft shape, with sweptback
The ONERA-M model represents a generic transport-aircraft shape, with sweptback
wings, horizontal stabilizer and tail (Figure 4). Typical wind tunnel tests of these mod-
wings, horizontal stabilizer and tail (Figure 4). Typical wind tunnel tests of these models
els include measurements of forces and moments by an internal balance and pressure
include measurements of forces and moments by an internal balance and pressure distri-
distribution on several sections on the wing.
bution on several sections on the wing.
Body of the model is mostly cylindrical, with ogival front and rear ends. Airfoils of
Body of the model is mostly cylindrical, with ogival front and rear ends. Airfoils of
the wing, the horizontal and vertical tails are symmetrical, with a maximum thickness of
the wing, the horizontal and vertical tails are symmetrical, with a maximum thickness of
10.5% at the 37.5% of the chord. Aspect ratio of the wing is 7.31, its leading edge is swept
10.5%
by 30◦at theits
, and 37.5% of the chord.
installation angle Aspect
is 4◦ in ratio of the
relation wing
to the is 7.31,axis.
fuselage its leading
Leadingedge is swept
edges of the
by 30°, and its installation angle is 4° in relation to the fuselage axis. Leading
horizontal and vertical tail are swept 37.5◦ and 47.5◦ , respectively. The dihedral angles edges of the
of
horizontal
the wing and andthevertical tail are
horizontal tailswept
are 3◦37.5°
. and 47.5°, respectively. The dihedral angles of
the wing and themodels
ONERA-M horizontalare tail are 3°. in different sizes, fuselage diameter ranging from
produced
ONERA-M models are produced
36 to 307 mm. Model size is denoted by in adifferent
numerical sizes, fuselage
suffix diameter
after the ranging
M in the name from
(e.g.,
36 to 307 mm. Model size is denoted by a numerical suffix after
M1 to M12) [39]. The ONERA-M model tested in the T-35 and T-38 wind tunnel of VTI the M in the name (e.g.,
is
M1
of M4to M12) [39]. The
size (Figure ONERA-M
5) with model
a fuselage tested of
diameter in102
the mm.
T-35 and T-38 wind tunnel of VTI is
of M4 size (Figure 5) with a fuselage diameter of 102 mm.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 6 of 20
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 6 of 21
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 6 of 21
Figure
Figure4.4.
Figure Theoretical
4.Theoretical geometry
Theoreticalgeometry of
geometryof ONERA-M
ofONERA-M standard
ONERA-Mstandard model
standardmodel with
modelwith dimensions
withdimensions given
dimensionsgiven in
givenin terms
termsofof
interms of
body diameter,
bodydiameter,
body based
diameter,based
basedonon [37].
on[37].
[37].
Figure
Figure5.5. ONERA-M
5.ONERA-M model
ONERA-Mmodel (M4
model(M4 size)
(M4size) in
size)in the
inthe T-35
theT-35 wind
T-35wind tunnel
tunnelofof
windtunnel VTI.
ofVTI.
VTI.
Figure
4.2.
4.2. AGARD-B
4.2.AGARD-B Supersonic
AGARD-BSupersonic Standard
SupersonicStandard Model
StandardModel
Model
AGARD-B
AGARD-B standard
AGARD-B standard
standard model model
model isis aaabody-wing
is body-wing configuration
body-wingconfiguration
configurationrepresentingrepresenting
representingaaageneric
generic
generic
winged-missile
winged-missile
winged-missile or or a delta-wing high-speed
or aa delta-wing high-speed aircraft
high-speed aircraft [34,35].
aircraft[34,35].
[34,35].TheThe The model
model
model was
waswasoriginally de-
originally
originally de-
signed
designed for
signed forfor the
the calibration
the calibration
calibration of supersonic
of of supersonic
supersonic wind
windwindtunnels,
tunnels,
tunnels, but
butbutit is also
it isitalso used
is also
used in
used transonic, sub-
in transonic,
in transonic, sub-
sonic
sonic and
subsonic and even
and
even hypersonic
even hypersonic
hypersonic wind
windwindtunnels [36].
tunnels
tunnels [36].
[36].
Body
Body of the
Bodyofofthe model
themodel is cylindrical,
modelisiscylindrical,
cylindrical,withwith
withan an ogival
anogival nose.
ogivalnose.
nose.The The
Thedeltadelta wing
deltawing with
withaaa4%
wingwith 4% thick
4%thick
thick
bi-convex
bi-convex section
bi-convexsection
sectionhashas a span
hasaaspan of four
spanofoffour body
fourbody diameters
bodydiameters (Figure
diameters(Figure
(Figure6). 6). Its
6).Its standard
Itsstandard support
standardsupport sting
supportsting
sting
has
hasaaadiameter
has diameter
diameterof of 0.5
of0.5 body
0.5body diameter
bodydiameter
diameterand and
andaaalength
length
lengthof of
ofatat least
least333body
atleast body diameters.
bodydiameters.
diameters.
Reference
Reference area
area for
Reference area for the
for thecalculation
the calculationof
calculation the
ofof
thethecoefficients
coefficients
coefficients is
is the theoretical
is the
the delta-wing
theoretical
theoretical area,
delta-wing
delta-wing area,
and
and the
area, andreference
the reference lengths
the reference
lengths are
are the
lengths aremean
the aerodynamic
the mean
mean aerodynamic
aerodynamic chord
chord for
for the
chord forpitching-moment
the the pitching-moment
pitching-moment coef-
coef-
ficient,
ficient, and
coefficient,
andandwingspan
wingspan
wingspan for
for the
foryawing-
the the yawing-
yawing- and
and rolling-moment
and rolling-moment
rolling-moment coefficients. Data
Data are
coefficients.
coefficients. reduced
areData are
reduced
to
to a point (a.c.) at 50% of the mean aerodynamic chord. Test results are presented in the
a
reducedpoint
to (a.c.)
a pointat 50%
(a.c.) of
at the
50% mean
of the aerodynamic
mean chord.
aerodynamic Test
chord. results
Test are presented
results are in
presentedthe
wind-axes
in
wind-axes system
the wind-axes
system as
as ‘forebody’
system aerodynamic
as ‘forebody’
‘forebody’ aerodynamic
aerodynamic coefficients, i.e.,
i.e., with
coefficients,
coefficients, i.e.,the
with axial
with
the theforce
axial axialdue
force forceto
due to
base
due todrag
base subtracted
drag from
subtracted the
fromtotal
the
base drag subtracted from the total axial force. axial
totalforce.
axial force.
Aerospace2021,
Aerospace 2021,8,8,275
275 77 of 20
21
AGARD-B was
AGARD-B wasselected
selectedasasaastandard
standardforforperiodic
periodicmeasurement-chain
measurement-chain checkouts
checkouts in in
a
a number of wind tunnels, including those in VTI [34–36,47]. Therefore, confidence
number of wind tunnels, including those in VTI [34–36,47]. Therefore, confidence in the in the
validityof
validity ofthe
thedata
dataobtained
obtainedininthe
thewind
windtunnels
tunnelsofof VTI
VTI could
could bebe established
established on on
thethe basis
basis of
of both within-facility and inter-facility comparisons [25–31].
both within-facility and inter-facility comparisons [25–31].
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Theoretical
Theoretical geometry
geometry of
of AGARD-B
AGARD-B standard
standard model
model with
with dimensions
dimensions given
given in
in terms
terms of
of
body diameter, based on [34–36].
body diameter, based on [34–36].
Two AGARD-B
Two AGARD-B models,
models, with
with diameters
diameters of of 115.8
115.8 mm
mm and and 178
178 mmmm areare periodically
periodically
tested in
tested in the
the T-38
T-38 and
and T-35
T-35wind
windtunnels.
tunnels. TheThe 115.8
115.8 mm
mm diameter
diameter model
model hashas been
been used
used in in
the initial
the initial and and periodical
periodical calibrations
calibrations ofof the
the VTI’s
VTI’s T-38
T-38 wind
wind tunnel
tunnel in in subsonic,
subsonic, transonic
transonic
and supersonic
and supersonicspeed speedranges,
ranges,upuptotoMach
Mach2.2.TheThemodel
modelwas was produced
produced byby Boeing
Boeing (Figure
(Figure 7)
7) and
and it is itphysically
is physically the model
the same same model
as the oneas the
that one that had
had earlier beenearlier
testedbeen
in thetested
NRC/NAE in the
5ft wind tunnel
NRC/NAE in Canada,
5ft wind tunnel1.2 m trisonic
in Canada, 1.2wind tunnelwind
m trisonic of INCREST
tunnel of inINCREST
Romania and several
in Romania
wind tunnelswind
and several in the USA [36].
tunnels The
in the USA178[36].
mm Thediameter
178 mmmodel was produced
diameter model was byproduced
VTI and, so by
far,
VTIusedand,only in the
so far, T-35
used wind
only tunnel
in the T-35ofwind
VTI. Both
tunnelmodels
of VTI.can be tested
Both models oncan
several internal
be tested on
strain-gauge
several internal wind tunnel balances
strain-gauge windfrom
tunnel thebalances
VTI’s repository,
from the using
VTI’s suitable adaptors.
repository, For
using suit-
both models, suitable support stings are used. The sting vs. model base
able adaptors. For both models, suitable support stings are used. The sting vs. model base diameter ratio,
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 sting
diameterlength vs. model
ratio, base diameter
sting length vs. model ratio
base and the coneratio
diameter angleandof the transition
cone angleinto 8 oftran-
support
of the 21
mechanism satisfy recommended
sition into support values
mechanism satisfy for minimumvalues
recommended sting interference
for minimum (Figure
sting 6) [36].
interfer-
ence (Figure 6) [36].
(a) (b)
Figure7.7.The
Figure The115.8
115.8mm
mm diameter
diameter AGARD-B
AGARD-B standard
standard model:
model: (a)
(a) the
themodel
modelin
inthe
thetest
testsection
sectionofofthe
theT-35
T-35wind
windtunnel
tunnel[44];
[44];
(b) the model in the test section of the T-38 wind tunnel.
There is an extensive database already existing for comparison of the results obtained
from the new test campaigns [25–31]. Models were used to provide force and moment
data and base pressure.
Figure 7. The 115.8 mm diameter AGARD-B standard model: (a) the model in the test section of the T-35 wind tunnel [44];
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 from the new test campaigns [25–31]. Models were used to provide force and moment 8 of 20
data and base pressure.
4.3. The HB Hypersonic Standard Models

HB-1 standard model is an axisymmetric cone-cylinder body with 25° nose cone half-
from the new test campaigns [25–31]. Models were used to provide force and moment data
angle [40,41]. The more-used HB-2 configuration [40,41,48–50] has a 10° tail flare, added
and base pressure.
to reduce the sensitivity of the model to viscous effects (Figure 8a). The junctures of the
nose andHB
4.3. The theHypersonic
flare with Standard
the cylinder
Models are smooth radius fairings. The unit length for the
definition of model geometry is the diameter (D) of the cylindrical part of model◦ forebody.
HB-1 standard model is an axisymmetric cone-cylinder body with 25 nose cone
The model length is 4.9 D and the moments’ reduction point is at 1.95 D from◦ the nose
half-angle [40,41]. The more-used HB-2 configuration [40,41,48–50] has a 10 tail flare,
(though
added to tests in some
reduce wind tunnels
the sensitivity of thewere executed
model witheffects
to viscous the moments’ reduction
(Figure 8a). point
The junctures
defined at 2.45 D from the nose).
of the nose and the flare with the cylinder are smooth radius fairings. The unit length
A support
for the sting
definition of for the HB
model modelsisshould
geometry have a constant
the diameter (D) of thediameter of no
cylindrical more
part than
of model
0.3 D and a length of at least 3 D with a downstream fairing having a 20° half-angle
forebody. The model length is 4.9 D and the moments’ reduction point is at 1.95 D from the (Figure
8b). The
nose specified
(though testsdimensions
in some wind of the sting were
tunnels wereexecuted
selected in order
with theto ensure negligible
moments’ reductionsting
point
interference on the base pressure
defined at 2.45 D from the nose). in turbulent flow.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure8.8.Theoretical
Theoreticalgeometry
geometry(a)(a)ofofthe
theHB-2
HB-2standard
standardmodel,
model,and
and(b)
(b)ofofthe
thestandard
standardsting
stingfor
forthe
the
HB models [48] based on [40,41].
HB models [48] based on [40,41].
A support sting for the HB models should have a constant diameter of no more
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 than 0.3 D and a length of at least 3 D with a downstream fairing having a 20◦ 9half- of 21
angle (Figure 8b). The specified dimensions of the sting were selected in order to ensure
negligible sting interference on the base pressure in turbulent flow.
VTI
VTIhas
has produced
produced two HB HB models,
models,with
withthe
the7575mm
mm (Figure
(Figure 9) 9)
andand
100100
mmmm fore-
forebody
body
diameters, which are used for measurements of forces and moments in the T-38 windT-38
diameters, which are used for measurements of forces and moments in the tun-
wind
nel. tunnel.
Figure9.9.The
Figure The75
75mm
mmdiameter
diameterHB-2
HB-2model
modelininthe
thetest
testsection
sectionofofthe
theT-38
T-38wind
windtunnel
tunnel[48].
[48].
Both models can be configured as either HB-1 or HB-2. The models can be tested, by
means of suitable adaptors, on several force balances from the VTI’s repository. The mod-
els were designed as quick-check standards that can easily be installed in the wind tunnel
instead of any currently tested model. Force tests of these models were conducted mostly
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 9 of 20
Both models can be configured as either HB-1 or HB-2. The models can be tested,
by means of suitable adaptors, on several force balances from the VTI’s repository. The
models were designed as quick-check standards that can easily be installed in the wind
tunnel instead of any currently tested model. Force tests of these models were conducted
mostly in the supersonic Mach number range.
5. Non-Standard Wind Tunnel Tests

5.1. Instrumentation, Measurement and Data Processing
The performed wind tunnel tests comprised measurements of wind tunnel test section
flow parameters, measurements of model position, measurements of forces and moments
and measurements of base pressure. Additionally, schlieren visualizations were performed
in the supersonic tests in the T-38 wind tunnel. Generally, test setups were standard, as used
for other “force” tests in the T-35 and T-38 wind tunnels. As the tests spanned a number of
years, some parts of the setups were changed/modernized over time, as indicated below.
Test section flow pressures (stagnation pressure, static pressure, and, at supersonic
Mach numbers, pitot pressure) were measured by Mensor 11,603 quartz-bourdon-tube
analog-output pressure transducers, which formed the “primary measurement systems” in
the wind tunnels. In newer tests in the T-38 wind tunnel, these transducers were replaced
by CPT6100 piezoresistive transducers from the same manufacturer, which had higher
accuracy (0.01% FS vs. 0.02% FS), with digital outputs.
Stagnation temperature was measured by a K-type thermocouple probe in the T-35
wind tunnel and by a platinum RTD probe in the T-38 wind tunnel. Accuracies of the
sensors were about 2.5 and 0.5 K, respectively.
Model position (model support angles) was, in older tests, measured by resolvers,
which were, in newer tests, replaced by Hengstler-produced, AC-38, digital-output en-
coders with the accuracy between 0.01◦ and 0.02◦ . Model position was always corrected
for sting deflections, on the basis of measured loads and previous calibrations of balance-
sting assemblies.
Forces and moments on the models were measured using several six-components
strain-gauge balances, depending on the model configuration and expected load range,
including Able MkXVIII and MkXXVIII 2-inch-diameter assembled force balances, VTI40A
and VTI40B VTI-produced monolithic moment balances and an experimental high-stiffness
BV40 monolithic balance with semiconductor strain gauges. Generally, the accuracy of the
assembled balances was between 0.1% FS and 0.2% FS, mostly because of the hysteresis
inherent to the design type, and the accuracy of the monolithic balances was slightly
better than 0.1% FS, except for the axial force component on the high-stiffness balance,
which was accurate to 0.9% FS. To determine tare loads due to model and balance weight,
several recordings of balance outputs were made prior to each wind tunnel run (the
tare phase of each run), the model having a different position in pitch for each of the
recordings. Tare loads as functions of model position were then estimated using a least-
squares approximation [51].
Base pressure was measured by PDCR10 and PDCR42 silicon piezoresistive transduc-
ers produced by Druck, with 0.05% FS accuracy.
Data acquisition system for tests in the T-35 wind tunnel was a Neff System 620,
with Neff 300, Neff 600 and Neff 500 subsystems. Accuracy of the system was 0.02%
FS. Data acquisition systems used in the T-38 tests were first a Teledyne RMDU with
0.05–0.1% FS accuracy, in later tests replaced with a Pacific Instruments PI6000 system with
0.02% FS accuracy.
Flow visualization in the T-38 wind tunnel was performed using the schlieren method.
The apparatus was a Toepler-type folded parallel beam setup with 900 mm field-of-view
diameter. Circular optical-quality windows of the same diameter exist on the sidewalls of
the supersonic test section of T-38. Light source was a xenon lamp (in newer tests replaced
by a LED). A striped three-color red/green/blue filter was used instead of an optical
knife edge in the receiver cabinet, the filter being so oriented that the density gradients
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 10 of 20
positive in the direction of the main flow appeared in red color, while the negative gradients
appeared in blue. In the darkened areas present in the images the gradients exceeded the
set sensitivity range of the schlieren system, the effect being exacerbated by the less-than-
perfect collimation of the system optics. It should be noted that schlieren technique shows
the density gradients (actually, gradients of the refractive index) integrated through the
complete width of the test section, not a “cross-section” of the flow field in the model’s
plane of symmetry.
Schlieren images were displayed during runs and recorded using a low-fps-rate, low-
resolution (640 × 480 pixels) camera, primary for the purpose of monitoring model safety
and the correct establishment of supersonic flow.
Data reduction was performed after each run, using the standard VTI-developed
application software package in use with all wind-tunnel facilities in VTI. At the beginning
of data processing, all measured signals were converted to a common “normalized” format
so that they could be further processed irrespective of the wind tunnel, data acquisition
system type or sensor/balance type. The processing then proceeded with computation of
the flow parameters, determination of model attitude, computation of forces and moments
acting on the models, and computation of aerodynamic coefficients.
Estimates of the uncertainty of measurement were made in the sense of two stan-
dard deviations of the relevant quantities on the basis of uncertainties of contributing
measurements and the sensitivities of those variables to the changes of the contributing
variables (combined Type-B uncertainty). Because of the difficulty of analytically determin-
ing the necessary sensitivity coefficients as partial derivatives of various quantities in the
complex calculations needed to obtain the aerodynamic coefficients, the derivations were
performed numerically. Some of the computed estimates of measurement uncertainties of
aerodynamic coefficients are shown in the Table 1.
Table 1. Example of measurement uncertainty of aerodynamic coefficients, HB-2 and AGARD-B.
Measurement Uncertainty 2σCA 2σCN 2σCm

100 mm diameter HB-2 model, Mach 1.5, MkXVIII balance 0.0040 0.023 0.023
75 mm diameter HB-2 model, Mach 1.5, VTI40B balance 0.0029 0.009 0.013
115.8 mm diameter AGARD-B model, Mach 0.4, VTI40A balance 0.0029 0.020 0.004
5.2. ONERA-M Transonic Model in a Subsonic Flow

The ONERA-M4 standard model was adopted and tested in the T-35 facility as a check
standard to ensure confidence in wind tunnel tests of aircraft models.
Test results were given in the body axes system for the moments’ reduction point at
the distance of 425.56 mm from the model nose. The reference length for calculation of the
pitching-moment coefficient was the mean aerodynamic chord.
According to the VTI standard testing procedure, a symmetry check was performed for
two runs with the model in the upright and inverted positions [44]. A good repeatability of
test results was obtained; the small deviations existed due to the measurement uncertainty
of the used internal balance (Figure 10a). Task-type balances, with accuracy somewhat
lower than that of monolithic ones, had to be used because of the mechanical design of the
model. The tests at Mach 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 were performed and test data are available for the
statistical control and the test quality monitoring.
An inter-facility comparison of the obtained data was made with results from tests
of an M1-size model at Mach 0.25 in the NRC/NAE 5ft wind tunnel, under the same
aerodynamic conditions [37]. The comparison of the axial force, normal force and pitching
moment aerodynamic coefficients is given in the Figure 10b–d. The comparison showed a
good agreement with the results of the tests in the NRC/NAE 5ft wind tunnel.
design of the model. The tests at Mach 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 were performed and test data are
available for the statistical control and the test quality monitoring.
An inter-facility comparison of the obtained data was made with results from tests
of an M1-size model at Mach 0.25 in the NRC/NAE 5ft wind tunnel, under the same aer-
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 odynamic conditions [37]. The comparison of the axial force, normal force and pitching
11 of 20
moment aerodynamic coefficients is given in the Figure 10b–d. The comparison showed
a good agreement with the results of the tests in the NRC/NAE 5ft wind tunnel.
0.30 0.00 0.30

ONERA M4 ONERA-M, Mach 0.25
0.25 -0.02 0.25 M1 in NRC/NAE 5ft
Mach 0.25
0.20 VTI, T-35 -0.04 0.20 M4 in VTI T-35
Base pressure coefficient
Axial force coefficient

0.15 -0.06 0.15
Axial force coefficient
0.10 -0.08 0.10

0.05 -0.10 0.05
0.00 -0.12 0.00
-0.05 -0.14 -0.05
CA, model upright
-0.10 CA, model inverted
-0.16 -0.10
-0.15 Cpb, model upright -0.18 -0.15
Cpb, model inverted
-0.20 -0.20 -0.20
Aerospace 2021, 8,-8275 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 12
8 of 21
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 Angle of attack, deg Angle of attack, deg 12 of 21
(a) (b)
0.90 0.30
0.90 ONERA M, Mach 0.25 0.30
0.75 0.25 ONERA M, Mach 0.25
M1 in M,
ONERA NRC/NAE 5ft
Mach 0.25
0.75 0.25
Pitching moment coefficient M1 M,
ONERA in NRC/NAE
Mach 0.255ft
M4M1
in VTI T-35
in NRC/NAE 5ft 0.20 M4
M1ininVTI T-35 5ft
NRC/NAE
0.60 M4 in VTI T-35
Pitching moment coefficient
0.20
Normal force coefficient
0.15 M4 in VTI T-35

0.60
0.45 0.15
0.10
0.45 0.10
0.30 0.05
0.30 0.05
0.15 0.00
0.15 0.00
-0.05
0.00 -0.05
0.00 -0.10
-0.15 -0.10
-0.15 -0.15
-0.15
-0.30 -0.20
-0.30
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -0.20-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Angle of attack, deg Angle of attack, deg
(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Wind
Wind tunnel
tunnel test
test data;
data; ONERA−M
ONERA − Mmodel,
model,Mach
Mach 0.25;
0.25;(a)
(a)symmetry
symmetry check
check ininVTI;
VTI;(b)
(b)inter-facility
inter-facilitycomparison
comparison
Figure 10. Wind tunnel test data; ONERA−M model, Mach 0.25; (a) symmetry check in VTI; (b) inter-facility comparison
in axial
in axial force
force coefficient;
coefficient; (c)
(c) inter-facility
inter-facility comparison
comparison in
innormal
normal force
forcecoefficient;
coefficient;(b)
(b)inter-facility
inter-facility comparison
comparison inin
pitching
pitching
in axial force coefficient; (c) inter-facility comparison in normal force coefficient; (b) inter-facility comparison in pitching
moment coefficient [37].
moment coefficient
moment coefficient [37]. [37].
5.3.
5.3. ONERA-M
ONERA-MTransonic
ONERA-M
5.3. TransonicModel
Transonic Modelatat
Model atHigh
HighAngles
High Anglesofof
Angles ofAttack
Attack
Attack
ONERA-M4
ONERA-M4 standard
standardmodel
model was
was tested
tested
ONERA-M4 standard model was tested in the ininthe
theT-35
T-35facility
T-35 facilityas
facility asasaaacheck
checkstandard
check for
standard
standard forfor
wind
wind tunnel
windtunnel tests
tunneltests of models
testsofofmodelsat
modelsat high
at highangles
high angles of
angles ofattack (Figure
attack (Figure
of attack 11a).
(Figure11a).
11a).
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
Lift force coefficient
Lift force coefficient
ONERA-M,
ONERA-M,Mach
Mach0.25
0.25
0.3
0.3 NRC/NAE
NRC/NAE5ft,
5ft,M1
M1model
model
VTI
VTIT-35,
T-35,M4
M4model
modelon
on straight
straight sting
sting
VTI
VTIT-35,
T-35,M4
M4model
modelon
on bent
bent sting
sting
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-0.3
-9-9 -6-6 -3-3 00 33 66 99 12

12 15
15 18
18 21
21
Angle
Angleofofattack,
attack,deg
deg
(a)(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure
Figure 11.11.
11. (a)(a)
(a) ONERA−M4
ONERA−M4
ONERA model
−M4 model
model inin
in the
the
the T-35
T-35
T-35 wind
wind
wind tunnel;
tunnel;
tunnel; (b)
(b)
(b) high
high
high AoA
AoA
AoA test
test
test data
data
data ofofof the
the
the ONERA-M4
ONERA-M4
ONERA-M4 model
model
model obtained
inin
obtained
obtained the
thethe T-35
T-35 windwind tunnel
tunnel [37].
[37].
T-35 wind tunnel [37].
It It
waswasofofinterest
interesttotoensure
ensureconfidence
confidenceininthis
thistype
typeofofmeasurement
measurement priorprior to
to the wind
tunnel testing of a training combat aircraft at high angles of attack. There
tunnel testing of a training combat aircraft at high angles of attack. There were not were not avail-
able ONERA-M test results for correlation in high AoA range. The only available data
able ONERA-M test results for correlation in high AoA range. The only available
were
were fromtests
from testsininNAE
NAE5 5ftft[37]
[37]and
andVTI
VTIT-35
T-35facilities,
facilities,with
withaastraight
straight sting
sting and
and angles
angles of
of
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 12 of 20
It was of interest to ensure confidence in this type of measurement prior to the wind
tunnel testing of a training combat aircraft at high angles of attack. There were not available
ONERA-M test results for correlation in high AoA range. The only available data were
from tests in NAE 5 ft [37] and VTI T-35 facilities, with a straight sting and angles of attack
ranging to up to +6◦ . Angle of attack range in the T-35 wind tunnel model was extended to
up to +31◦ by using the 71◦ bent sting with additional 20◦ adaptor. Sample T-35 test results
are given in Figure 11b and correlated with referential [37].
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 5.4. AGARD-B Supersonic Model in a Subsonic Flow 13 of 21
AGARD-B standard model was adopted and tested in the T-35 facility as a check
standard to ensure confidence in wind tunnel tests of winged-missile-like models. AGRAD-
Btunnel
modelblockages
was used of in
115.8
thisand 178 mm
facility diameter
for the overallmodels are 0.1%The
verification. andfrontal
0.24% T-35
respectively
tunnel
at zero incidence angle.
blockages of 115.8 and 178 mm diameter models are 0.1% and 0.24% respectively at zero
Sample
incidence test results of AGARD-B standard models at Mach numbers 0.1 to 0.4 are
angle.
presented in Figure
Sample test 12. As
results of itAGARD-B
is customary for themodels
standard AGARD-B model,
at Mach test results
numbers are0.4
0.1 to given
are
in a wind-axes
presented system
in Figure 12. Aslocated in the reference
it is customary point of the
for the AGARD-B model
model, testatresults
50% ofarethe mean
given in
aaerodynamic chord,located
wind-axes system 5.943Dindownstream
the referenceof the of
point model nose. at
the model Within-facility
50% of the mean correlation
aerody-
was done
namic based
chord, on two
5.943D different model
downstream sizes, 115.8
of the model nose.and 178 mm diameter,
Within-facility at Mach
correlation was num-
done
bers from
based 0.1 to
on two 0.4, Figure
different model 12. sizes,
Different model
115.8 and 178sizes
mmwere presented
diameter, with the
at Mach frontalfrom
numbers tun-
nel blockage (FTB), as a ratio of the model and the test section cross sectional
0.1 to 0.4, Figure 12. Different model sizes were presented with the frontal tunnel blockage areas in
percentage.
(FTB), as a ratio of the model and the test section cross sectional areas in percentage.
0.200 0.200
Forebody drag force coefficient
AGARD-B, Mach 0.1

0.175 T-35, FTB=0.24% 0.175 AGARD-B, Mach 0.2
T-35, FTB=0.24%
T-35, FTB=0.10%
0.150 T-35, FTB=0.10%
0.150 T-38, FTB=0.53%
AEDC 4T, FTB=0.15%
0.125 0.125
0.100 0.100
0.075 0.075
0.050 0.050
0.025 0.025
0.000 0.000
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(a) (b)
0.200
0.200
0.175
AGARD-B, Mach 0.3 0.175 AGARD-B, Mach 0.4

T-35, FTB=0.24% T-35, FTB=0.24%

0.150 T-35, FTB=0.10% 0.150 T-35, FTB=0.10%
T-38, FTB=0.53% T-38, FTB=0.53%
0.125 AEDC 4T, FTB=0.15% 0.125 AEDC 4T, FTB=0.15%
NRC/NAE 5ft, FTB=0.51%
0.100 0.100
0.075 0.075
0.050 0.050
0.025 0.025
0.000 0.000
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(c) (d)
Figure 12.
Figure 12. Inter-facility
Inter-facility correlation
correlationin
inthe
theforebody
forebodydrag
dragforce
forcecoefficient
coefficientof
ofthe
theAGARD
AGARD−B model [28,33,44].
−B model [28,33,44].
The overall facility verification was done on the basis of inter-facility correlation, i.e.,
test-data from both AGARD-B models were correlated with those from the NRC/NAE 5ft
[28] the AEDC 4T [52] and the T-38 wind tunnel (Figure 12), where the same smaller (115.8
mm diameter) model was tested both in VTI T-38 and NRC/NAE 5 ft wind tunnels. A very
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 13 of 20
The overall facility verification was done on the basis of inter-facility correlation, i.e.,
test-data from both AGARD-B models were correlated with those from the NRC/NAE
5ft [28] the AEDC 4T [52] and the T-38 wind tunnel (Figure 12), where the same smaller
(115.8 mm diameter) model was tested both in VTI T-38 and NRC/NAE 5 ft wind tunnels.
A very good correlation was found among the different-model-sizes test-data and among
the test-data from different wind tunnel facilities.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 5.5. HB Hypersonic Model in a Transonic Flow 14 of 21

The 100 mm diameter HB-2 standard model has recently been used in the verification
tests of a new wind tunnel control system and the data acquisition system [21,22,46]. The
model was
model was tested
tested on
on the
the 48
48 mm
mm diameter
diameter straight
straight sting
sting using
using the
the Able
Able Mk
Mk XVIII
XVIII wind
wind
tunnel balance (Figure 13a).
tunnel balance (Figure 13a).
CA0, HB-2
VTI, 100mm model, bent sting + AbleXVIII
VTI, 100mm model, straight sting + AbleXVIII
VTI, 75 mm model, bent sting + AbleXVIII
1.8 VTI, 75mm model, bent sting + VTI40B
Zero-lift axial-force coefficient
1.7 VTI, 75 mm model, straight sting + BV40

AEDC, VKf, possible interpretation
1.6 ONERA, S5 Chalais
1.5 ONERA, C4 Vernon
1.4 NASA, Ames, free-flight
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Mach number
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 13.
13. (a)
(a) The
The 100
100 mm
mm diameter
diameter HB−2
HB−2standard
standardmodel
model in
in the
the T-38
T-38 wind
wind tunnel;
tunnel; (b)
(b) results of the
results of the HB
HB−2
−2 model
model obtained
obtained
in
in the T-38 wind tunnel correlated with those from AEDC, ONERA and NASA Ames [40,41,47,53–55]; the test
the T-38 wind tunnel correlated with those from AEDC, ONERA and NASA Ames [40,41,47,53–55]; the test has
has been
been
extended to the transonic part of the T-38 operating envelope.
extended to the transonic part of the T-38 operating envelope.
It
It was
was found
found to be of
to be of interest
interest to
to extend
extendtest
testMach
Machnumbers
numbersofofthe theHB-2
HB-2model
model[49]
[49]totoa
atransonic
transonic part of the wind tunnel operating envelope. The larger of the
part of the wind tunnel operating envelope. The larger of the two available HB-2 two available
HB-2
models models
producesproduces the frontal
the frontal blockage
blockage of about
of about 0.9% in0.9%
theintest
thesection
test section
of theof thewind
T-38 T-38
wind
tunnel,tunnel, i.e.,the
i.e., near near the recommended
recommended maximum
maximum blockage
blockage for transonic
for transonic wind wind tunnels.
tunnels.
Therefore,
Therefore, thisthis configuration
configuration cancan be
be useful
useful for
for tuning
tuning the
the Mach
Mach number
number control
control in
in the
the
transonic
transonic test
test section
section of of the
the T-38
T-38 wind tunnel. So So far,
far, the transonic tests were performed
only
only at
at Mach
Mach 1.2.1.2. The
The extended
extended test
test data
data are
are presented
presented in in Figure 13b and correlated with
supersonic test results from the same model and
supersonic test results from the same model and the smaller the smaller (75 (75
mmmm diameter) model
diameter) and
model
with results
and with fromfrom
results the wind tunnels
the wind of AEDC
tunnels and ONERA
of AEDC and ONERA[40,41,55] and limited
[40,41,55] free-flight
and limited free-
data
flightfrom
dataNASA
from NASAAmes Pressurized BallisticBallistic
Ames Pressurized Range [54].
Range It [54].
is planned to perform
It is planned a more
to perform
comprehensive
a more comprehensive transonic wind tunnel
transonic wind test using
tunnel testboth
usingthe larger
both and the
the larger andsmaller HB-2
the smaller
model.
HB-2 model.
5.6. HB-2
5.6. HB-2 Hypersonic
Hypersonic Model
Model atat High-Angles-of-Attack
High-Angles-of-Attack
With the
With the increased
increased interest
interest inin supersonic
supersonic wind
wind tunnel
tunnel tests
tests at
at high
high angles
angles ofof attack,
attack,
the capability to verify the high-angle-of-attack model-support provisions
the capability to verify the high-angle-of-attack model-support provisions in the T-38 in the T-38
wind tunnel of VTI was desirable. Such task is conveniently performed
wind tunnel of VTI was desirable. Such task is conveniently performed by tests of a stand-by tests of a
standard
ard model. model.
As the
As thereference
referencedatadataononstandard
standard models
models at high
at high angles
angles of attack
of attack werewere scarce,
scarce, it wasit
was decided to create VTI’s own standard-model reference database for
decided to create VTI’s own standard-model reference database for future supersonic future supersonic
high-AoA testing.
high-AoA testing. AA short
short series
series of
of tests
tests of
of HB-2
HB-2 models
models was
was performed
performed at at Mach
Mach numbers
numbers
1.5 to 4 at AoA up to 30°. Two sizes of the HB-2 model were tested, having 75 and 100 mm
body diameters, on two internal wind tunnel balances, Figure 14.
An articulated sting, with a 10° bend angle was used as the model support, shifting
the angle-of-attack range of the model support mechanism from the standard −12°/+20° to
−2°/+30°, Figure 15a. Results were correlated to lower-angle-of-attack data from other fa-
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 14 of 20
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 15 of 21
1.5 toSchlieren up to 30◦ . Twoofsizes

4 at AoA visualizations the of thearound
flow HB-2 model
the 75were
mmtested, having
diameter HB-275model
and 100
inmm
the
body diameters, on two internal wind tunnel balances, Figure 14.
T-38 wind tunnel at Mach numbers 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 at high AoA are shown in Figure 16.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 15 of 21
Schlieren visualizations of the flow around the 75 mm diameter HB-2 model in the
T-38 wind tunnel at Mach numbers 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 at high AoA are shown in Figure 16.
(a) (b)
Figure 14.
Figure 14. HB-2
HB-2 models
models on
on the
the articulated 10°◦ bent
articulated 10 bent sting
sting in
in the T-38 wind
the T-38 wind tunnel:
tunnel: (a) 75 mm
(a) 75 mm diameter
diameter [55];
[55]; (b)
(b) 100
100 mm
mm
diameter [47].
diameter [47].
An articulated sting, with a 10◦ bendCN, angle was used as the model support, shifting
HB-2, Mach 3
the angle-of-attack range of the model support mechanism
VTI, 100 mm model,from standard −12◦ /+20◦
the+ AbleXVIII
bent sting
◦ ◦ VTI, 75 mm model, bent sting +
to −2 /+30 , Figure 15a. Results4.5were correlated to lower-angle-of-attack data from AbleXVIII
VTI, 75 mm model, straight sting + BV40
other facilities, Figure 15b. Obtained 4.0 data was compared
AEDC, to results
VKf, Reference data [50] of previous tests
(a)
performed in the same wind tunnel 3.5 in the lowerONERA,
AoAS5range,Chalais,
(b) andReference
withdata
test results [40,41,55]
from the wind tunnels of AEDC 3.0 ONERA and limited free-flight data from NASA
and
Figure 14. HB-2 models on the articulated 10° bent sting in the T-38 wind tunnel: (a) 75 mm diameter [55]; (b) 100 mm
Ames Pressurized Ballistic Range [54]. 2.5
diameter [47].
2.0
1.5
1.0 CN, HB-2, Mach 3
0.5 VTI, 100 mm model, bent sting + AbleXVIII
VTI, 75 mm model, bent sting + AbleXVIII
0.0
4.5
VTI, 75 mm model, straight sting + BV40
-0.5
4.0 AEDC, VKf, Reference data
-4 -2 0 ONERA,
2 4 6S5 8Chalais,
10 12Reference
14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
data
3.5
Angle of attack, deg

3.0
(a) 2.5 (b)
2.0
Figure 15. (a) CAD rendering of the 100 mm diameter HB−2 model1.5 on the bent sting used in the tests at extreme AoA [47];
(b) Mach 3 results of HB−2 models obtained in the T-38 wind tunnel1.0
with the models on two stings and balances, correlated
with available results from AEDC (up to +14°) and ONERA (up to 0.5+8°) [40,41,55].
0.0
The collected data were included -0.5 in the local database of test results for the HB-2
models that is being formed in VTI to-4be-2 used 0 2 in4 future
6 8 10 12 14 16
periodic 18 20 22 24 26
verifications of 28
the30T-38
32
Angle of attack, deg
wind tunnel in the supersonic part of the operating envelope. It is also intended to extend
the AoA range up to 40° and to collect some data in the (b)
(a) transonic speed range as well
Figure 15.
15. (a) (some thetests were performed at Mach 1.2).bent
The results of the performed tests of the HB-2
Figure (a) CAD
CAD rendering of the
rendering of 100 mm
100 mm diameter
diameter HB−2
HB −2 model
model onon the
the bent sting
sting used
used in
in the
the tests
tests at
at extreme
extreme AoA
AoA [47];
[47];
(b) Mach
Mach 33 results
results of
of HB
HB−2 models were made available to the wind tunnel community [55], and they may be found
(b) −2models
modelsobtained
obtained in
in the
the T-38
T-38 wind
wind tunnel
tunnel with
with thethe models
models on
on two
two stings
stings and
and balances,
balances, correlated
correlated
to be of(up
with available results from AEDC usetoto the
+14°)
◦ researchers
and ONERA (up in other
to +8°)◦wind tunnel facilities, and as test cases for the high-
[40,41,55].
with available results from AEDC (up to +14 ) and ONERA (up to +8 ) [40,41,55].
angle-of-attack CFD codes.
The collected
Schlieren data were of
visualizations included
the flowinaroundthe local
thedatabase of test results
75 mm diameter for the in
HB-2 model HB-2
the
models
T-38 wind that is being
tunnel formed
at Mach in VTI 1.5,
numbers to be 2.5used
andin3.5future
at high periodic
AoA are verifications of the 16.
shown in Figure T-38
wind tunnel in the supersonic part of the operating envelope. It is also intended to extend
the AoA range up to 40° and to collect some data in the transonic speed range as well
(some tests were performed at Mach 1.2). The results of the performed tests of the HB-2
models were made available to the wind tunnel community [55], and they may be found
to be of use to the researchers in other wind tunnel facilities, and as test cases for the high-
angle-of-attack CFD codes.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 15 of 20
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 16 of 21
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 16. Snapshots
Snapshotsfromfromschlieren-visualization
schlieren-visualizationvideo
videomonitoring
monitoringof of
tests of of
tests thethe
75 75
mm HB-2
mm model:
HB-2 (a) Mach
model: 1.5, 1.5,
(a) Mach (b)
Mach 2.5,2.5,
(b) Mach (c) Mach 3.5,3.5,
(c) Mach 20°angle of attack.
20◦ angle of attack.
5.7. AGARD-B and HB

The collected Models
data were at Supersonic
included Flowlocal
in the Startdatabase
Conditions of test results for the HB-2
models that is being formed in VTI to be used in future periodic
The operation of most supersonic wind tunnels is characterized verifications
by transientofphenom-
the T-38
ena occurring at the time of the establishing and stopping of the supersonic flowextend
wind tunnel in the supersonic part of the operating envelope. It is also intended to in the
the AoA
test range
section, when to 40◦ and
upsystems to collect
of strong someand
normal data in the shock
oblique transonicwavesspeedpassrange
throughas well
the
(some tests were performed at Mach 1.2). The results of the performed
test section [56]. These shock waves subject the tested model to high aerodynamic loads tests of the HB-2
models
that can were
exceed made available
several times to
thethe wind tunnel
magnitude community
of loads expected [55],
in and they may be found
a steady-state-flow test
to be of use to the researchers in other wind tunnel facilities,
and can cause unacceptably high stresses in the model and the measuring and as test cases such
devices for the
as
high-angle-of-attack
force balances. TransientCFDloads
codes.generally increase with Mach number and at a particular
Mach number they
5.7. AGARD-B and HBareModels
proportional to minimum
at Supersonic operating
Flow Start Conditionspressure of the wind tunnel
at that Mach number. Often, transient loads are more severe during the stopping of the
The operation of most supersonic wind tunnels is characterized by transient phenom-
flow in the wind tunnel than during the starting of the flow, and last for a longer time (in
ena occurring at the time of the establishing and stopping of the supersonic flow in the test
the T-38 wind tunnel of VTI, the starting transient loads last about 0.5 s, while the stopping
section, when systems of strong normal and oblique shock waves pass through the test
loads can last up to 3 s).
section [56]. These shock waves subject the tested model to high aerodynamic loads that
Flow around the model during the transient processes is very different from the
can exceed several times the magnitude of loads expected in a steady-state-flow test and
steady state flow in the test section at an established supersonic Mach number. The tran-
can cause unacceptably high stresses in the model and the measuring devices such as force
sient phenomena, illustrated in Figure 17 by color schlieren visualizations of the transient
balances. Transient loads generally increase with Mach number and at a particular Mach
flow around various wind tunnel models, can comprise establishment of the supersonic
number they are proportional to minimum operating pressure of the wind tunnel at that
flow on one side of the model only (Figure 17a,b), symmetric flow patterns with gradual
Mach number. Often, transient loads are more severe during the stopping of the flow in
increase of Mach number around the model (c), normal shocks existing on one side of the
the wind tunnel than during the starting of the flow, and last for a longer time (in the T-38
model only (Figure 17d–f), large changes in flow directions along model length, as oblique
wind tunnel of VTI, the starting transient loads last about 0.5 s, while the stopping loads
shock
can lastwaves
up topass
3 s). along the model (Figure 17g–i), and complex flow patterns created by
several interacting
Flow around the shock
model waves
during(Figure 17h,j–l).
the transient The nature
processes is veryofdifferent
transient fromloads is dy-
the steady
namic—they are oscillatory, and in the T-38 wind tunnel, their main
state flow in the test section at an established supersonic Mach number. The transientfrequency component
is between 10illustrated
phenomena, and 20 Hz.in Figure 17 by color schlieren visualizations of the transient flow
Thevarious
around magnitudes of supersonic
wind tunnel models, transient
can comprise normal and side forces
establishment of the on the models
supersonic floware
on
similar to steady-flow loads that can be expected for the same models
one side of the model only (Figure 17a,b), symmetric flow patterns with gradual increase at angles of attack
of
of about
Mach30°, but transient
number around thepitching,
modelyawing
(Figureand rolling
17c), moments
normal shocksexceed
existingseveral
on one times
sidethe
of
magnitudes of moments at any angle of attack or created by any reasonable
the model only (Figure 17d–f), large changes in flow directions along model length, as deflections of
control
obliquesurfaces
shock waveson thepass
models.
alongTransient
the model pitching
(Figureand yawing
17g–i), andmoments
complexalso flowdepend on
patterns
model
createdlength, and interacting
by several can be veryshock
largewaves
for long, slender
(Figure models
17h,j–l). The(transient
nature of moments can be
transient loads is
estimated
dynamic—they by assuming a forceand
are oscillatory, couple,
in thewith
T-38 the
windmagnitude of each
tunnel, their main force beingcomponent
frequency 1/2 of the
maximum
is between total
10 and transient
20 Hz. force, and the distance of the forces being 1/2 of model length or
wingThespan).
magnitudes ofbecause
Moreover, supersonicof the stochastic
transient nature
normal andofside
the transient
forces on loads, they can
the models are
vary by as much as a factor of two between otherwise identical wind tunnel
similar to steady-flow loads that can be expected for the same models at angles of attack of runs.
about 30◦ , but transient pitching, yawing and rolling moments exceed several times the
magnitudes of moments at any angle of attack or created by any reasonable deflections of
control surfaces on the models. Transient pitching and yawing moments also depend on
model length, and can be very large for long, slender models (transient moments can be
estimated by assuming a force couple, with the magnitude of each force being 1/2 of the
maximum total transient force, and the distance of the forces being 1/2 of model length or
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 16 of 20
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 17 vary

wing span). Moreover, because of the stochastic nature of the transient loads, they can of 21
by as much as a factor of two between otherwise identical wind tunnel runs.
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
(g) (h) (i)
(j) (k) (l)

Figure 17. Schlieren
Figure 17. Schlieren visualizations
visualizations of
of transient
transient effects
effects around
around the
the HB-2
HB-2 standard
standard model
model and
and aa kinetic-energy
kinetic-energy projectile
projectile
model
model in the T-38 wind tunnel: (a,b) establishment of supersonic flow on one side of the model only; (c) symmetric flow
in the T-38 wind tunnel: (a,b) establishment of supersonic flow on one side of the model only; (c) symmetric flow
patterns with gradual increase of Mach number around the model; (d,e,f) normal shocks existing on one side of the model
patterns with gradual increase of Mach number around the model; (d–f) normal shocks existing on one side of the model
only; (g,h,i) large changes in flow directions along model length; (h,j,k,l) complex flow patterns created by several inter-
only; (g–i) large changes in flow directions along model length; (h,j–l) complex flow patterns created by several interacting
acting shock waves.
shock waves.
Therefore, in supersonic tests, the expected magnitudes of transient loads can be the
Therefore, in supersonic tests, the expected magnitudes of transient loads can be the
relevant criterion for the selection of a force balance and a support sting for a particular
relevant criterion for the selection of a force balance and a support sting for a particular
model. This is of particular interest for supersonic tests of standard models such as
model. This is of particular interest for supersonic tests of standard models such as
AGARD-B or HB-2, because these “reference” tests must often be performed using force
AGARD-B or HB-2, because these “reference” tests must often be performed using force
balances with a very high load range, or a support sting of a larger diameter, and with a
corresponding reduction in the accuracy of measurement. In fact, the relatively-large wing
area of the AGARD-B model results in transient loads so large that the testing of this
model in the T-38 wind tunnel must be restricted to Mach numbers 2 or lower, as neither
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 17 of 20
balances with a very high load range, or a support sting of a larger diameter, and with a
corresponding reduction in the accuracy of measurement. In fact, the relatively-large wing
area of the AGARD-B model results in transient loads so large that the testing of this model
in the T-38 wind tunnel must be restricted to Mach numbers 2 or lower, as neither of the
available force balances nor the standard model-support stings can withstand the transient
loads at higher Mach numbers. In the case of the HB-2 model, it proved unsafe [57] to
test it at angles of attack above approximately 30◦ or above Mach 2.5 on a sting having
the specified [40] sting diameter of 0.3 D (Figure 8b), and a local de-facto standard sting
diameter of 0.5 D was adopted.
6. Conclusions
Modern problems of aircraft aerodynamics are being solved by wind tunnel testing,
CFD simulations and/or flight testing. For most aerodynamic problems, none of these
disciplines alone can provide all the required information and, ideally, all three would
be employed. Although CFD simulation capabilities have seen extensive development in
the last few decades, there are many complex aerodynamic phenomena which must be
defined in an experimental way, preferably through wind tunnel testing, as flight testing is
prohibitively expensive. In recent years, one of the primary roles of wind tunnel testing is
providing data for CFD model development and validation, in addition to its traditional
role in the aircraft design and performance evaluation.
As experimental aerodynamics will continue to give a critical contribution to aircraft
development for the foreseeable future, importance of the validated wind tunnel facility
that can produce high-fidelity data cannot be overstated. In recognizing this fact, VTI
applies the best practice of continuous monitoring of wind tunnel health by performing
periodical check standard tests and transmitting the experience gained for years. Addition-
ally, the constant effort is being made to make standard wind tunnel test data visible and
exchangeable among experimental aerodynamics laboratories.
In recent years, VTI’s test facilities responded to increasingly frequent requests for
non-standard wind tunnel tests, such as, for example, tests at high angles of attack, by
enlarging its repository of standard models, support stings and balances, and embracing
the best practice of performing check standard model testing at off-design conditions to
verify the experimental setup prior to the intended non-standard wind tunnel test. These
activities resulted in further growth of VTI’s check standard testing database, which now
includes results of standard model testing at off-design conditions. The accumulated data
are used to verify measurement chains in VTI’s test facilities at off-design conditions, as
well as for VTI’s inter-facility comparison and correlation. In addition, the standard model
testing database extended to off-design conditions can be useful reference and guide for
other experimental aerodynamics laboratories.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.D. and Ð.V.; Methodology, Ð.V.; Software, Ð.V. and B.I.;
Validation, D.D., Ð.V., G.O. and B.I.; Formal Analysis, D.D., Ð.V. and G.O.; Investigation, D.D., Ð.V.,
G.O. and B.I.; Resources, G.O.; Data Curation, Ð.V. and B.I.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation,
D.D. and Ð.V.; Writing—Review and Editing, B.I.; Visualization, D.D.; Supervision, G.O. and B.R.;
Project Administration, G.O.; Funding Acquisition, G.O. and B.R. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Military Technical Institute (VTI) Belgrade and the
Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia (Project number
451-03-9/2021-14/200325).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not Applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not Applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not Applicable.
Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the Military Technical Institute (VTI) Belgrade.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 18 of 20
References
1. Ambur, D.; Kegelman, J.; Kilgore, W. Langley Ground Facilities and Testing in the 21st Century. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 4–7 January 2010.
[CrossRef]
2. Rhode, M.N.; DeLoach, R. Hypersonic Wind Tunnel Calibration Using the Modern Design of Experiments. In Proceedings of the
41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Tucson, AZ, USA, 10–13 July 2005. [CrossRef]
3. DeLoach, R. Applications of Modern Experiment Design to Wind Tunnel Testing at NASA Langley Research Center. In
Proceedings of the 36st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 12–15 January 1998. [CrossRef]
4. DeLoach, R. The Modern Design of Experiments for Configuration Aerodynamics: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 44th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 9–12 January 2006. [CrossRef]
5. Guo, R.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Li, Z.; Guo, T. A Case Study of Application of Modern Design of Experiment Methods in
High Speed Wind Tunnel Tests. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 444–445, 1229–1233. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, J.; Ma, H.; Qin, Y. Improving Quality of Wind Tunnel Test Data through the MDOE. Procedia Eng. 2015, 99, 1610–1618.
7. Owen, F.K.; Owen, A.K. Measurement and Assessment of Wind Tunnel Flow Quality. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2008, 44, 315–348.
[CrossRef]
8. Philpott, D.R. Pressure Measurement in a Blowdown Wind Tunnel. Measurement 1985, 3, 107–114. [CrossRef]
9. Reis, M.L.C.C.; Falcão Filho, J.B.P.; Moraes, L.F.G. The TTP Transonic Wind Tunnel Mach Number Uniformity Analysis. Measure-
ment 2014, 51, 356–366. [CrossRef]
10. Bobbit, C.; Everhart, J.; Foster, J.; Hill, J.; McHatton, R.; Tomek, W. National Transonic Facility Characterization Status. In
Proceedings of the 38th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2000.
11. Muylaert, J.; Walpot, L.; Haeuser, J.; Sagnier, P.; Devezeaux, D.; Papirnyk, O.; Lourme, D. Standard Model Testing in the European
High Enthalpy Facility F4 and Extrapolation to Flight. In Proceedings of the 28th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,
Nashville, TN, USA, 6–8 July 1992. [CrossRef]
12. Hemsch, M.; Grubb, J.; Krieger, W.; Cler, D. Langley Wind Tunnel Data Quality Assurance: Check Standard Results. In
Proceedings of the 21st AIAA Advanced Measurement Technology and Ground Testing Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 19–22
June 2000. [CrossRef]
13. Adamov, N.P.; Kharitonov, A.M.; Mazhul, I.I.; Vasenyov, L.G.; Zapryagaev, V.I.; Zvegintsev, V.I.; Muylaert, J.M. Investigations of
Aerogasdynamics of Re-entry ballistic vehicle Expert. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Methods of Aerophysical
Research (ICMAR 2008), Novosibirsk, Russia, 30 June–6 July 2008.
14. DeLoach, R. Check-Standard Testing Across Multiple Transonic Wind Tunnels with the Modern Design of Experiments. In
Proceedings of the 28th Aerodynamic Measurement Technology, Ground Testing, and Flight Testing Conference, New Orleans,
LA, USA, 25–28 June 2012. [CrossRef]
15. Adamov, N.P.; Vasenev, L.G.; Zvegintsev, V.I.; Mazhul, I.I.; Nalivaichenko, D.G.; Novikov, A.V.; Kharitonov, A.M.; Shpak, S.I.
Characteristics of the AT-303 Hypersonic Wind Tunnel, Part 2: Aerodynamics of the HB-2 Reference Model. Thermophys. Aeromech.
2006, 13, 157–171. [CrossRef]
16. Ulbrich, N.M.; Amaya, M.A.; Flach, R. Use of the Ames Check Standard Model for the Validation of Wall Interference Corrections.
In Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, FL, USA, 8–12 January 2018. [CrossRef]
17. Vassberg, J.; Dehaan, M.; Rivers, M.; Wahls, R. Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies.
In Proceedings of the 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 18–21 August 2008. [CrossRef]
18. Amaya, M.A.; Flach, R.; Garbeff, T.J. A Preliminary Investigation of the Check Standard Model in the NASA Ames Unitary Plan
Wind Tunnel. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA, 7–11 January 2019. [CrossRef]
19. Kostić, Č.; Bengin, A.; Rašuo, B.; Damljanović, D. Calibration of the CFD Code Based on Testing of a Standard AGARD-B Model
for Determination of Aerodynamic Characteristics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2021, 235, 1129–1145. [CrossRef]
20. Kryuchkova, A.S. Numerical Simulation of a hypersonic flow over HB-2 model using UST3D programming code. J. Phys. Conf.
Ser. 2019, 1250, 012010. [CrossRef]
21. Ilić, B.; Milosavljević, M.; Isaković, J.; Miloš, M. Stagnation Pressure Transient Control in a Supersonic Blowdown Wind Tunnel
Test Facility. Mater. Today Proc. 2016, 3, 987–992. [CrossRef]
22. Ilić, B.; Miloš, M.; Milosavljević, M.; Isaković, J. Model-Based Stagnation Pressure Control in a Supersonic Wind Tunnel. FME
Trans. 2016, 44, 1–9. [CrossRef]
23. Andreoli, V.; Lavagnoli, S.; Paniagua, G.; Villace, V.F. Robust Model of a Transient Wind Tunnel for Off-Design Aerothermal
Testing of Turbomachoinery. Measurement 2016, 82, 323–333. [CrossRef]
24. Kegelman, J.; Danehy, P.; Schwartz, R. Advanced Capabilities for Wind Tunnel Testing in the 21st Century. In Proceedings of the
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 4–7
January 2010. [CrossRef]
25. Damljanovic, D.; Vukovic, D.J.; Ocokoljic, G. Standard Models in the Experimental Aerodynamics Laboratory of VTI. In
Proceedings of the 47th International Symposium of Applied Aerodynamics, Paris, France, 26–28 March 2012.
26. Damljanovic, D.; Vukovic, D.J.; Isakovic, J. Standard Wind Tunnel Models and their use in the Wind Tunnels of the Military
Technical Institute (in Serbian). In Technical Information; VTI–Military Technical Inst.: Belgrade, Serbia, 2012; pp. 23–90.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 19 of 20
27. Isakovic, J.; Zrnic, N.; Janjikopanji, G. Testing of the AGARD B/C, ONERA and SDM Calibration Models in the T-38 1.5 m × 1.5 m
Trisonic Wind Tunnel. In Proceedings of the 19th ICAS Congress (ICAS), Anaheim, CA, USA, 18–23 September 1994; pp. 1–9.
28. Damljanovic, D.; Vitic, A.; Vukovic, D. Testing of AGARD-B Calibration Model in the T-38 Trisonic Wind Tunnel. Sci. Tech. Rev.
2006, 56, 52–62.
29. Damljanović, D.; Rašuo, B.; Isaković, J. T-38 Wind Tunnel Data Quality Assurance Based on Testing of a Standard Model. J. Aircr.
2013, 50, 1141–1149. [CrossRef]
30. Damljanović, D.; Isaković, J.; Rašuo, B. An Evaluation of the Overall T-38 Wind Tunnel Data Quality in Testing of a Calibration
Model. In Proceedings of the 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 25–28 June 2012. [CrossRef]
31. Damljanovic, D.; Rasuo, B. Testing of Calibration Models in Order to Certify the Overall Reliability of the Trisonic Blowdown
Wind Tunnel of VTI. FME Trans. 2010, 38, 167–172.
32. Kozlovsky, V.A.; Lipnitsky, Y.M.; Lapygin, V.I. A System for Providing Quality of Testing, and Accuracy of Determining Aerodynamic
Characteristics of Models at Tsniimash Facilities; TsNIIMash Korolev: Moscow Region, Russia, 2002; pp. 132–137.
33. Ocokoljić, G.; Damljanović, D.; Rašuo, B.; Isaković, J. Testing of a Standard Model in the VTI’s Large-subsonic Wind-tunnel
Facility to Establish Users’ Confidence. FME Trans. 2014, 42, 212–218. [CrossRef]
34. AGARD. Specification for AGARD Wind Tunnel Calibration Models AGARD Memorandum; Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research
and Development: Paris, France, 1955.
35. AGARD. Wind Tunnel Calibration Models; AGARD Specification 2; Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development:
Paris, France, 1958.
36. Hills, R. A Review of Measurements on AGARD Calibration Models; AGARDograph, 64; Hill, A., Ed.; Aircraft Research Association:
Bedford, UK, 1961.
37. Galway, R.D.; Mokry, M. Wind Tunnel Tests of ONERA Aircraft Models; Laboratory Technical Report, LTR-HA-5x5/0115; National
Aeronautical Establishment: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1977.
38. Binion, T.W., Jr. Tests of the ONERA Calibration Models in Three Transonic Wind Tunnels; Arnold Engineering Development:
Tullahoma, TN, USA, 1978.
39. Yokokawa, Y.; Aoki, Y.; Morita, Y.; Takahashi, H.; Hoshino, H.; Murota, K.; Nonaka, O.; Mashiro, J.; Endo, A.; Yoshida, K.;
et al. Transition Measurements of the Aircraft-Model in the 6.5 m × 5.5 m Low-Speed Wind Tunnel. In JAXA Special Publication:
Proceedings of the Wind Tunnel Technology Association 71st Meeting; JAXA Special Publication: Tokyo, Japan, 2005.
40. Gray, J.D. Summary Report on Aerodynamic Characteristics of Standard Models HB-1 and HB-2; AEDC-TDR-64-137; Arnold Engineering
Development Center: Tullahoma, TN, USA, 1964.
41. Gray, J.D.; Lindsay, E.E. Force Tests of Standard Hypervelocity Ballistic Models HB-1 and HB-2 at Mach 1.5 to 10; AEDC-TDR-63-137;
Arnold Engineering Development Center: Tullahoma, TN, USA, 1963.
42. Elfstrom, G.M.; Medved, B. The Yugoslav 1.5 m Trisonic Blowdown Wind Tunnel. In Proceedings of the A Collection of Technical
Papers—14th AIAA Aerodynamic Testing Conference, West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 5–7 March 1986.
43. Elfstrom, G.M.; Medved, B.; Rainbird, W.J. Optimum porosity for an inclined-hole transonic test section Wall Treated for Edgetone
Noise Reduction. In Proceedings of the 15th Aerodynamic Testing Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 18–20 May 1988.
44. Ocokoljic, G.; Damljanovic, D.; Vukovic, D.J.; Rašuo, B. Contemporary Frame of Measurement and Assessment of Wind-Tunnel
Flow Quality in a Low-Speed Facility. FME Trans. 2018, 46, 429–442. [CrossRef]
45. Ilić, B.; Milosavljević, M. FPGA-based Embedded System for Wind Tunnel Variable-Geometry Nozzle Positioning. Sci. Tech. Rev.
2019, 69, 3–9. [CrossRef]
46. Ilić, B.; Miloš, M.; Isaković, J. Cascade Nonlinear Feedforward-feedback Control of Stagnation Pressure in a Supersonic Blowdown
Wind Tunnel. Measurement 2017, 95, 424–438. [CrossRef]
47. Damljanović, D.; Vuković, D.J.; Isaković, J.; Milos, M. Supersonic Test Cases at High Angles of Attack. In Proceedings of the 35th
Danubia-Adria Symposium on Advances in Experimental Mechanics, Sinaia, Romania, 25–28 September 2018.
48. Damljanović, D.; Rašuo, B.; Mandić, S.; Vuković, D.J.; Isaković, J. Usability of Comparative Experimental–Numerical Supersonic
Test Cases with the HB Reference Model. In Proceedings of the 29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical
Scences, St. Petersburg, Russia, 7–12 September 2014.
49. Damljanovic, D.; Rašuo, B.; Vukovic, Ð.; Mandic, S.; Isakovic, J. Hypervelocity ballistic reference models as experimental
supersonic test cases. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2016, 52, 189–197. [CrossRef]
50. Vuković, D.J.; Damljanović, D. Evaluation of a Force Balance with Semiconductor Strain Gauges in Wind Tunnel Tests of the HB-2
Standard Model. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2015, 229, 2272–2281. [CrossRef]
51. Galway, R.D. A General Approach to the Application of Force Balance Tares in Wind Tunnel Testing; Aeronautical Report LTR-HA-36;
National Research Council of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1978.
52. Anderson, C.F. An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Agard Model B for Mach Numbers from 0.2 to 1.0; AEDC-TR-
70-100; Arnold Engineering Development Center: Tullahoma, TN, USA, 1970.
53. Ceresuela, R. Mesurés d’Efforts et de Pressions sur la Maquette Balistique Etalon HB-2 de Mach 2 a Mach 16,5. Note Technique 13/1879 A;
ONERA: Palaiseau, France, 1964.
54. Malcolm, G.N.; Chapman, G.T. A Computer Program for Systematically Analyzing Free-Flight Data to Determine the Aerodynamics of
Axisymmetric Bodies; NASA TN D-4766; NASA Ames Research Center: Mountain View, CA, USA, 1968.
Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 20 of 20
55. Damljanović, D.; Vuković, D.J. Supersonic wind tunnel tests of a standard model at high angles of attack. In Proceedings of the
7th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences EUCASS, Milan, Italy, 3–7 July 2017. [CrossRef]
56. Pope, A.; Goin, K.L. High Speed Wind Tunnel Testing; John Willey and Sons: London, UK, 1965.
57. Vuković, D.J.; Ćurčić, D.; Marinkovski, D.; Damljanović, D.; Samardžić, M.; Vitić, A. Living with Supersonic Starting Loads in the
T-38 Trisonic Wind Tunnel of VTI. In Proceedings of the 29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Scences,
St. Petersburg, Russia, 7–12 September 2014.

Aerospace: Wind Tunnel Testing of ONERA-M, AGARD-B and HB-2 Standard Models at Off-Design Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerospace: Wind Tunnel Testing of ONERA-M, AGARD-B and HB-2 Standard Models at Off-Design Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

aerospace

Aerospace 2021, 8, 275. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8100275 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

2. Wind Tunnel Testing of Standard Model in VTI

4.3. The HB Hypersonic Standard Models

5. Non-Standard Wind Tunnel Tests

Table 1. Example of measurement uncertainty of aerodynamic coefficients, HB-2 and AGARD-B.

Measurement Uncertainty 2σCA 2σCN 2σCm

5.2. ONERA-M Transonic Model in a Subsonic Flow

0.30 0.00 0.30

Base pressure coefficient

Axial force coefficient

0.10 -0.08 0.10

0.15 M4 in VTI T-35

-9-9 -6-6 -3-3 00 33 66 99 12

AGARD-B, Mach 0.1

AGARD-B, Mach 0.3 0.175 AGARD-B, Mach 0.4

T-35, FTB=0.24% T-35, FTB=0.24%

Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 5.5. HB Hypersonic Model in a Transonic Flow 14 of 21

1.7 VTI, 75 mm model, straight sting + BV40

1.5 toSchlieren up to 30◦ . Twoofsizes

Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 15 of 21

Angle of attack, deg

(a) (b) (c)

5.7. AGARD-B and HB

Aerospace 2021, 8, 275 17 vary

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i)

(j) (k) (l)

You might also like