Some Supersonic
Aerodynamics!
W.H. Mason
Configuration Aerodynamics Class
Grumman Tribody Concept from 1978 Company Calendar
The Key Topics!
Brief history of serious supersonic airplanes
There arent many!
The Challenge
L/D, CD0 trends, the sonic boom
Linear theory as a starting point:
Volumetric Drag
Drag Due to Lift
The ac shift and cg control
The Oblique Wing
Aero/Propulsion integration
Some nonlinear aero considerations
The SST development work
Brief review of computational methods
Possible future developments
Are Supersonic Fighters Really Supersonic?!
If your cars speedometer goes to 120 mph,
do you actually go that fast?
The official F-14A supersonic missions (max
Mach 2.4)
CAP (Combat Air Patrol)
150 miles subsonic cruise to station
Loiter
Accel, M = 0.7 to 1.35, then dash 25nm
4 minutes and 50nm total
Then, head home or to a tanker
DLI (Deck Launch Intercept)
Energy climb to 35K ft., M = 1.5 (4 minutes)
6 minutes at 1.5 (out 125-130nm)
2 minutes combat (slows down fast)
After 12 minutes, must head home or to a tanker
Very few real supersonic airplanes!
1956: the B-58 (L/Dmax = 4.5)
In 1962: Mach 2 for 30 minutes
1962: the A-12 (SR-71 in 64) (L/Dmax = 6.6)
1st supersonic flight, May 4, 1962
1st flight to exceed Mach 3, July 20, 1963
1964: the XB-70 (L/Dmax = 7.2)
In 1966: flew Mach 3 for 33 minutes
1968: the TU-144
1st flight: Dec. 31, 1968
1969: the Concorde (L/Dmax = 7.4)
1st flight, March 2, 1969
1990: the YF-22 and YF-23 (supercruisers)
YF-22: 1st flt. Sept. 29, 1990, F-22 1st flt. Sept. 7, 1997
YF-23: 1st flt. Aug. 27, 1990
The B-58!
Static margin, 3% for longitudinal
stability, > 3% needed for directional
stability margin in the engine out
case. An ARI was used to cancel the
yawing moment due to aileron
deflection.
Used GE J79 engines
See Erickson, Flight Characteristics of the
B58 Mach 2 Bomber, J. of the Royal Aero.
Soc., Nov. 1962, Vol. 66, No. 623, pp 665-671
SR-71!
See Ben Richs paper
Heating issues make it hypersonic
Used the P&W J58 turboramjet
See Peter W. Merlin, Design and
Development of the Blackbird,
AIAA Library of Flight Series,
2008
XB-70!
The single remaining (of 2)
XB-70 is at the USAF
Museum in Dayton, Ohio
2nd airplane collision with
F-104, June 8, 1966
Wingtips deflected down at high
speed: almost no ac shift, sub- to
supersonic speeds
Retired: Feb. 4, 1969
The Concorde!
Front cover of the French
display brochure at Expo 67,
held in Montreal, Canada
Introduced into service: Jan. 21, 1976
Retired from service: Nov. 26, 2003
Reality!
Do you think this
supersonic fighter can
fly supersonic with this
load??
The Challenge!
Entirely different physics (hyperbolic vs elliptic pde - remember?)
Max L/D trends with Mach number!
Unknown origin - Masons files
Low CD0 is critical!
Unknown origin - Masons files
Typical CD0 trends
for Fighters!
From Nicolai, Fundamentals of Aircraft Design
The real problem!
You will probably never have
enough thrust to reach L/Dmax at
cruise, CD0 dominates
Understanding Drag!
Break into zero lift and drag due to lift
Use linear theory to provide conceptual basis for
your design thinking
Wave Drag!
Primarily due to volume, but also lift
Minimum drag area distributions and
fineness ratio are your primary tools
We talked about the area rule discussing drag in
general earlier
Fineness Ratio, l/d: A powerful way to
reduce wave drag!
0.20
A Sears-Haack body, with Volume V
Based on slender body theory
l/d, the length to diameter ratio
0.15
D/q
V
2/3
Note: using the drag, D, and
dynamic pressure, q, removes
the reference area issue
0.10
0.05
0.00
4
10
12
l/d
14
16
18
20
Wave drag
and friction
drag combined!
From Applied Aerodynamics
and Flight Mechanics, by W.
Bailey Oswald, Journal of the
Aeronautical Sciences, May
1956.
Note the difference
in fineness ratio
for min drag for
the two cases
Mason did this and
then found it had
already been done,
but it is a good
exercise
Min Wave Drag of Axi-body
with zero base area:
Radius Given Volume & Length!
Sears Haack Body Radius Distribution
0.07
0.06
0.05
r/l
0.04
0.03
D 128 Vol
=
4
q
l
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
fineness ratio of 8
0.20
0.40
x/l
0.60
0.80
1.00
Note: No Mach number dependence with the slender body theory used here.
Min Drag Radius for Axi-body
Given Base Area/Length!
0.20
von Karman Ogive Radius
0.15
r/l
0.10
D 4 S(l)2
=
2
q l
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
x/l
0.60
0.80
1.00
Note: No Mach number dependence with the slender body theory used here.
Min Drag Area Distribution
for axi-body with zero base area
Given Length & Volume!
Sears Haack Area Distribution
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.008
2
S/l
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.00
fineness ratio of 8
0.20
0.40
x/l
0.60
0.80
1.00
Min Drag Area Distribution for Axi-body
Given Base Area and Length!
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
S/l2 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
von Karman Ogive Area Distribution
0.20
0.40 x/l 0.60
0.80
1.00
The strange story of the LE radius!
Both the Sears-Haack
body and the von
Karman ogive behave
like a power law body
with an exponent, n, of
0.75 at the nose.
r " x%
$ '
l #l&
The slope at the nose
is 90, but the leading
edge radius is zero!
AIAA paper 92-2727
Demo Wave Drag Interactive Toy!
Note: opening up the base allows a reduction in drag
Available on http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html
Wave drag of slender wing planar surfaces
relative to the Sears-Haack body!
K0 is drag relative to Sears-Haack
You can get less than one!
From D. Kchemann, The Aerodynamic Design of Aircraft, Pergamon Press, 1978
Drag Due To Lift and Wings I!
The distinction between a subsonic and
supersonic edge is important
Mach number zones of influence!
For a subsonic edge, the top and bottom surfaces can communicate
Drag Due To Lift and Wings II!
Note: the supersonic flow model equivalent to a 2D
subsonic flow is the conical flow model. The figure
shows how constant values along rays through the
apex can lead to a 2D problem to solve
Spanwise Pressure Distributions!
Note: conical flow means
the spanwise pressure
distributions look the
same at every
longitudinal station
Delta Cp on an uncambered delta wing
(conical flow)
Subsonic LE
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
Cp/CL
Cp/CL
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
-1.00
Leading
edge
-0.50
0.00
y/(b/2)
Centerline
0.50
1.00
Leading
edge
0.0
-1.00
Leading
edge
Supersonic LE
edge of Mach cone
-0.50
0.00
y/(b/2)
Centerline
0.50
Subsonic edges CAN generate leading edge suction
Supersonic edges CANNOT produce leading edge suction
1.00
Leading
edge
The Arrow Wing !
arrow.f can be used to find the supersonic aerodynamics of these wings:
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/MRsoft.html
The Arrow Wing Lift Curve Slope
(code on class website)"
4.5
computation from arrow.f
4.0
CL
3.5
3.0
notch ratio = 0
(pure delta)
notch ratio = 0.2
Supersonic
Subsonic
Leading Edge
Leading Edge
2.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
m = cot(LE)
Formulas available in R.T. Jones and D. Cohen, High-Speed Wing Theory,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957
Arrow Wing Drag
(code on class website)"
0.40
computation from arrow.f
0.35
0 % LE suction
0.30
notch ratio = 0.0
C /(CL2)
notch ratio = 0.2
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.40
100 % LE suction
Supersonic
Leading Edge
Subsonic
Leading Edge
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
m = cot(LE)
Formulas available in R.T. Jones and D. Cohen, High-Speed Wing Theory,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957
Conical Camber to achieve the effect
of LE Suction!
F-102, taken at the Pima Air Museum, Tucson, AZ
The Application of the concept!
Conical Camber was used on the F-102, the F-106
and the B-58 Hustler, as well as the F-15
Charles Hall, inventor, looking at a WT model with conical camber.
John Boyd, a Hokie, was also a key contributor at NACA Ames
What Conical Camber Does!
From Theodore von Krmn, Some Significant Developments in Aerodynamics Since 1946,
Journal of the Aero/Space Sciences, March, 1959.
The Modified Arrow Wing!
How the arrow starts to disappear
From Don Baals, Warner Robins and Roy Harris, Aerodynamic Design Integration of
Supersonic Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Sept-Oct 1970, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 385-394
Note: Warner Robbins is a Hokie
The ac shift!
All supersonic airplanes shift fuel to control the static margin
From the AIAA Concorde Case study
The Concorde cg travel!
Note narrow range everywhere, the ref chord is the root chord for the Concorde
ac shift II!
A double delta planform reduces the shift
From NASA TN D-3581, October 1966, by John Lamar and Joe Alford
An F-14
ac shift III!
On a variable sweep wing, the aft swept position
leads to the static margin being way too high
thus the glove vane on the F-14
The glove vane
was another Bob
Kress invention
from AIAA Paper 80-3043
But, there is one other
important concept:
The Oblique Wing!
Due to R.T. Jones
AD-1 1st Flight: Dec 21, 1979
Last flight: Aug. 7, 1982
Possibly the only practical
supersonic concept !
The physics are so compelling,
its worth overcoming all the
other problems
The Oblique wing layout improves both:
volumetric area distribution for low zero-lift wave drag,
and
spreads lift longitudinally and laterally to reduce drag
due to lift
Sometimes a homework problem!
Elizabeth Eaton, Spring 2006
Example: wing volumetric wave drag!
Wings with the same
thickness and aspect ratio,
showing the importance of
distributing volume over a
longer longitudinal distance
Note: advantage decreases
with increasing Mach
number
From R.T. Jones, Wing Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1990
The AD-1 and a flying wing UAV!
The NASA AD-1
Aero-Propulsion Integration
becomes a critical consideration!
Example: details are critical to optimizing the design
From Don Baals, Warner Robins and Roy Harris, Aerodynamic Design Integration of
Supersonic Aircraft, Journal of Aircraft, Sept-Oct 1970, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 385-394
The computations story!
Linear Theory
For volumetric wave drag: The Harris Code, using the Eminton-Lord
integral integration scheme
The common input, the so-called Craidon input format
Lifting surfaces panels:
For the US SST, The Boeing system of panel methods for both
analysis and design
Later, Harry Carlsons Codes Aero2S and WINGDES
The concept of attainable leading edge suction introduced to
include nonlinear aero in a linear methodology
Nonlinear Theory
Space marching Euler and PNS finally RANS
An irony: to a very good approximation a flat surface
with 100% leading edge suction defines the minimum
drag due to lift you can get.
Comparison of Linear Theories with Euler!
and RANS for a supersonic transport!
A Drag Polar Comparison!
Comparison made by Duane Knill
Note: PNS stands for Parabolized Navier Stokes
The US SST Program!
Started in Response to British/French and USSR
Supersonic Transport Programs
Too big for one company, a national program funded by
the US and administered mainly by the FAA!?
Aug. 15, 1963: FAA Issues RFP
May 15, 1964: Govt selects Boeing and Lockheed and
GE & P&W to compete for final concept
Lockheed proposes a double delta
Boeing proposes a variable sweep wing
Dec. 31, 1966: Boeing & GE selected
Oct. 21, 1968: Boeing abandons variable sweep
March 24, 1971: Program cancelled
Comparison of concepts!
Walter C. Swan, A Review of the Configuration Development of the
U.S. Supersonic Transport, 11th Anglo-American Aeronautical
Conference, London, Sept., 1969.
But first, a most bizarre variable sweep
concept, the 2707-200!!
Engines mounted
on horizontal tail!
Ramps bring air to the engines
from above the wing, and shield
the engine inlets from landing
gear spray/wake!
M. Leroy Spearman, The Evolution of the High-Speed Civil Transport,
NASA TM 109089, Feb., 1994
That drawing doesnt do the 2707-200
justice!!
Looks sleek in cruise
configuration
A nightmare in TO/Ldg Config.
Mason made this model in
1969, when it appeared
Final Design: The
Boeing 2707-300!
M = 2.7
Range: 3,500nm
Still a tight fit,
only 5 cramped
seats abreast
200 passengers
TOGW: 750,000 lbs
From Interavia, Feb., 1969
The plot thickens: linear theory
breakdown at high lift!
Rudy Meyer at Grumman
identifies a problem
(and a solution)
NASA CR 3763
The physics of the breakdown!
The physics
If the crossflow is supercritical, need to
address, just as for 2D transonic flow
NASA CR 3763, 1983
The implications for theory
The Super Critical Conical Camber Concept (SC3)!
Conceived by Rudy Meyer, 1977
Concept drawn by Gianky daForno, 1977
NASA CR 3763, 1983
Computational Method by Bernie Grossman, 1978: COREL
Aerodynamic design by W.H. Mason. 1978-82
The Outcome: NASA/Grumman Demo Wing!
Supercritical Conical Camber, SC3
An attached flow maneuver wing with
controlled supercritical crossflow
This wing set a record at NASA
LaRC for low drag at high lift
supersonic performance.
NASA CR 3763/AIAA 83-1858
Through the 90s: The HSR Studies - the HSCT -!
The Reference H public study configuration
WT Model (inches), NASA/TM-1999-209702, Kemmerly, et al
M = 2.4
250 300 passengers
Range: 5,000 6,500 nm
TOGW: 700,000 lbs
Brenda Kulfan quotes sensitivity of 10,400 lbs/drag count
In the end, too tough for now.
Erik M. Conway, High Speed Dreams, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2005
In the 90s At Virginia Tech: HSCT MDO!
Knill, D.L., Giunta, A.A., Baker, C.A.,
Grossman, B., Mason, W.H., Haftka, R.T. and
Watson, L.T., Response Surface Models
Combining Linear and Euler Aerodynamics for
Supersonic Transport Design, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1999, pp.
75-86.
Lucky Break in Grid Generation!
The key to the next step: sonic boom -
can we reduce the strength?!
Typical boom overpressure: 1.5 psf
Would 0.3 psf be OK?
Need new FAA rule
An F-5E modified to
demonstrate shaping
of the sonic boom
signature, success
achieved in 2003
The heritage here is the
DARPA Quiet Supersonic
Platform (QSP) program,
that kicked off in late 2000
Conventional N-wave, and future target
for the sonic boom!
1.5
Conventional N-Wave Boom Signature
Pressure Change (psf)
1.0
Target
0.5
Ramp
Time (milliseconds)
Flat
0.0
-20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
-0.5
-1.0
Initial Overpressure
0.4 pounds/foot2
-1.5
From Conceptual Design of a Sonic Boom Constrained Supersonic Business
Aircraft by David C. Aronstein and Kurt L. Schueler, AIAA Paper 2004-0697
Keys to Reducing Boom Strength!
Extending the configuration length
Low Aircraft weight
Careful shaping of volume and lift
distribution
X-54 X-plane designation obtained by Gulfstream
for a low boom strength demonstrator
One way to increase length: The Quiet Spike!
Spike extends in flight, see AIAA Paper 2008-123, Jan. 2008 for overview
The hope is for Supersonic Biz Jets!
One concept from
Aerion, depends also
on obtaining laminar
flow
From the Aerion web site: http://www.aerioncorp.com/
A Breakthrough?!
AIAA Daily Launch, April 3, 2012
NASA Claims Supersonic Aircraft Breakthrough.
Aviation Daily (4/2, Warwick) reported, NASA is claiming a breakthrough in the
design of supersonic aircraft, with wind-tunnel tests proving it is possible to
design configurations that combine low sonic boom with low cruise drag,
characteristics once thought to be mutually exclusive. Testing of scale models
designed by Boeing and Lockheed Martin that could be available by 2025 showed
that design tools could produce a supersonic business jet capable of unrestricted
overland flight, says Peter Coen, NASA's Supersonic Fixed-Wing project
manager. Coen added, Its the first time we have taken a design representative
of a small supersonic airliner and shown we can change the configuration in a
way that is compatible with high efficiency and have a sonic signature than is not
a boom. Both companies are now trying to refine the designs.
And we
keep hoping!
The cover of Aerospace
America, Jan. 2013
To conclude!
Today we can supercruise with the F-22
There is a possibility of lowering the sonic
boom overpressure, and a new FAA rule
allowing supersonic flight over land.
We may see supersonic business jets in the
not too distant future, especially if the
FAA allows supersonic flight over land.
I have Brenda Kulfans Supersonic Aerodynamics Lecture Series,
given at UVA in November 2008, for any student that wants it.
